Why does the First Cause have to be intelligent?

[The Engineer]

Or if you're using an appropriate definition of information, the more random a system is the higher information content. So even closed systems would tend towards higher information content.

To a certain point, yes, but wouldn't true randomness contain no information at all?

A choice is before us. Does one presuppose material necessity or contingency? Is the matter-space-time continuum infinite or finite?

If it is an open system, it exists contingently.
If it is a closed system, it may exist necessarily. I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is an open system that exists contingently.

Whether the universe is an open or a closed system is unimportant for the matter at hand, because the systems we are currently talking about (cells) are definitely open.

It's not? That's funny because I pulled that exact word from the link you gave me. Definition #3, Information. So I guess that it IS the definition of intelligence.

Well played. Just looked the definition up, and it turns out you're technically right. However, I'm not sure this definition is the form of intelligence we're talking about.

Can you give me just one example of information coming from non-intelligence that can be utilized by something of nonintelligence to bring it to intelligence?

I think the fetus-example works here.

Information can only be utilized by intelligence.

No, it can be used by any mechanism that can read the information. Fax machines do this, and they are hardly intelligent.

If you define anything that can respond to stimuli as intelligent, then there is no non-intelligence.

Why don't you give me examples of objects that you would classify as non-intelligent?

 

[sandwiches]

The second law of thermodynamics seems to support causality.

I am not inclined to support an idea; I am inclined to test an idea. I seek to disprove an idea.

As yet, causality stands. I am left to believe in the first-principle of causality.

To me, intellectually, nothing is really ever proven. It's just that all of the other ideas I've considered have been dis-proven, and what remains is what I am left to believe.

Yet QM seems to disprove the idea of causality, so this idea doesn't stand in every single test. Since we KNOW that some things can happen spontaneously it's possible the universe happened the same way.

 

[good brother]

Well played. Just looked the definition up, and it turns out you're technically right. However, I'm not sure this definition is the form of intelligence we're talking about.

It's exactly what I am talking about.

I think the fetus-example works here.

How so? Even just the fertilized egg contains just as much genetic information and the means to produce a full sized human as a "full" sized human has of genetic information. Both that itty bitty fertilized egg and that "full" sized human have the same genetic information and the programs needed to execute the manufacture and upkeep of everything in their bodies.

No, it can be used by any mechanism that can read the information. Fax machines do this, and they are hardly intelligent.

Fax machines have programs incorperated into the equipment that allows them to copy, fax, recieve, etc. If you put a piece of paper into something that did not have that kind of programming, it wouldn't get you anything.

If you define anything that can respond to stimuli as intelligent, then there is no non-intelligence.

B-I-N-G-O.


In Christ, GB

 

[The Engineer]

It's exactly what I am talking about.

How so? Even just the fertilized egg contains just as much genetic information and the means to produce a full sized human as a "full" sized human has of genetic information. Both that itty bitty fertilized egg and that "full" sized human have the same genetic information and the programs needed to execute the manufacture and upkeep of everything in their bodies.

Fax machines have programs incorperated into the equipment that allows them to copy, fax, recieve, etc. If you put a piece of paper into something that did not have that kind of programming, it wouldn't get you anything.

B-I-N-G-O.


In Christ, GB

So you say that there is no such thing as non-intelligence, based on your very definition of intelligence?

If everything is intelligent, if non-intelligence is, in fact, an impossibility, then this would mean that this whole issue about intelligence being created from non-intelligence is solved.

It would also mean, however, that the First Cause may be intelligent according to your definition, but he could still have the same cognitive abilities as a bacteria, i.e. no cognitive skills at all.

 

[Beechwell]

How so? Even just the fertilized egg contains just as much genetic information and the means to produce a full sized human as a "full" sized human has of genetic information. Both that itty bitty fertilized egg and that "full" sized human have the same genetic information and the programs needed to execute the manufacture and upkeep of everything in their bodies.

Just to clear up a misconception here: A fertilized egg does not have all the information to create a human being (not all that information is genetic). Genetic code works more like a cooking recipe, telling the cell which proteins to produce and such, but relying on environmental conditions to actually create a living being out of it.

also, definition #3: 'Information, news' is definitely not referring to the kind of intelligence you guys are talking about. Remember that most (if not all) words have several different meanings.

 

[The Engineer]

Just to clear up a misconception here: A fertilized egg does not have all the information to create a human being (not all that information is genetic). Genetic code works more like a cooking recipe, telling the cell which proteins to produce and such, but relying on environmental conditions to actually create a living being out of it.

I heard that, too. If I recall correctly, the form of jelly fishes is almost entirely determined by their means of reproduction, not by their genes.

also, definition #3: 'Information, news' is definitely not referring to the kind of intelligence you guys are talking about. Remember that most (if not all) words have several different meanings.

I already suspected that.

Honestly, I'm starting to dislike the word 'intelligence'. The Wikipedia article alone lists a dozen or so definitions, some of which describe the exact same phenomenons, but nonetheless vary on some points.

 

[bricklayer]

Whether the universe is an open or a closed system is unimportant for the matter at hand, because the systems we are currently talking about (cells) are definitely open.

Those cells exist contingently. The existence of the contingent begs the existence of the Necessary. The existence of contingent intelligence begs the existence of Necessary intelligence. Therefore, the first-cause, the necessary-cause, the efficient-cause, the uncaused-cause must be intelligent.

That is exactly the matter at hand.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Our replies were getting way too long to copy and paste and refute everytime. In answer to this question above, Information. The apple seed contains all the information needed to produce an apple tree. Information is intelligence. Try to put something together without information, depending on the complexity of the project, it could be done with the information you already have in your head, or it might far surpass a billion people's intelligence. Buildings don't get built without building plans and intelligence won't come about without intelligence at least equal to if not greater than whatever.

In Christ, GB

Information is intelligence? Could you elaborate on that?

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Let's assume, for a moment, that the cosmological argument is right and that there's a first cause which caused everything else.

The usual response as to why the first cause doesn't need a cause, unlike everything in nature (let's also assume that quantum physics don't exist), is because it lies outside of nature, hence the rules of nature don't apply to it.

We know that order can only come from an intelligent creator (let's also assume crystals and spherical objects don't exist, either). We know this because we have observed it countless times.

We can say that the rule of design (everything ordered had to be designed by an intelligent creator) is a rule of nature. However, how can we apply this rule to the supernatural? If God doesn't have to follow the natural rule of causality, why does he have to follow the natural rule of design?

Why can't supernatural entities create order without having to be intelligent?

I...am not sure I'm getting what you're trying to ask

 

[Eudaimonist]

The existence of contingent intelligence begs the existence of Necessary intelligence.

It is this that I question. I can't think of any reason why that must be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

It is this that I question. I can't think of any reason why that must be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is why I keep asking people (without success) to justify the no-effect-is-greater-than-its-cause assertion - because it's used to draw some very weak categories and insist that some are "greater" than others.

 

[bricklayer]

It is this that I question. I can't think of any reason why that must be true.


eudai

Mark

It must be because of the implications of necessity and contingency.

The existence of the contingent, by definition, begs the existence of the necessary.

 

[bricklayer]

This is why I keep asking people (without success) to justify the no-effect-is-greater-than-its-cause assertion - because it's used to draw some very weak categories and insist that some are "greater" than others.

There is no example of anything otherwise. You can give no example of an effect transcending its cause, no demonstrable example anyway.

 

[Gadarene]

There is no example of anything otherwise. You can give no example of an effect transcending its cause, no demonstrable example anyway.

Define "greater"/"transcend".

As I said, this smacks of the verbiage in Anselm's ontological argument, which is its weakest point.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It must be because of the implications of necessity and contingency.

The existence of the contingent, by definition, begs the existence of the necessary.

That's just it. It doesn't.

I'll agree that something may have to exist necessarily. That doesn't mean that there must be a kind of mirror image where each contingent entity is a reflection of a similar necessary entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Engineer]

Those cells exist contingently. The existence of the contingent begs the existence of the Necessary.

So?

The existence of contingent intelligence begs the existence of Necessary intelligence.

No, it doesn't work like that.

Therefore, the first-cause, the necessary-cause, the efficient-cause, the uncaused-cause must be intelligent.

Well, according to this logic, the First Cause must be evil, too. And fat. And blue. Red, too.

That is exactly the matter at hand.

But whether the universe itself is an open system is not important, which is why you wasted not a single word on this topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

To a certain point, yes, but wouldn't true randomness contain no information at all?

No, a truly random signal has the highest possible information content, since there's no simpler way to encode it. But again, it depends on what you mean by information, and typically religious arguments based on information content do their very best to avoid actually telling us that important detail. It's much easier to make vague claims about information when no one knows exactly what they're talking about.

 

[The Engineer]

No, a truly random signal has the highest possible information content, since there's no simpler way to encode it.

Oh, well. Thanks for the information! (Pun not intended)

In this case, the whole information-can't-come-from-non-information-also-entropy-claim falls apart.

But again, it depends on what you mean by information, and typically religious arguments based on information content do their very best to avoid actually telling us that important detail. It's much easier to make vague claims about information when no one knows exactly what they're talking about.

Sounds like every argument theists make.

 

[good brother]

No, a truly random signal has the highest possible information content, since there's no simpler way to encode it.

That is not even close to the truth! Saying what you said is paramount to saying it's so messy it's organized, or its so disordered its ordered. There is no simpler way to encode or decode true randomness because there is no intelligence to it.

 

[sandwiches]

It must be because of the implications of necessity and contingency.

The existence of the contingent, by definition, begs the existence of the necessary.

The universe isn't contigent. The end.