The Special Privilege of Intelligence

[kharisym]

You'd have to ask the people advocating that viewpoint

You wound me Sir! Get my hopes up then splat them like so much pie.

 

[sandwiches]

The premise is that all things which have a beginning are caused.

The universe has a beginning therefore the universe is caused.

The First Cause, namely God, has no beginning therefore God is uncaused.

Elementary Aristotelian Logic really...

On what grounds are you assuming that God didn't have a beginning or that the universe had a beginning?

 

[juvenissun]

It's generally assumed that an organism requires some form of neural network to have intelligence. Some would go so far as to say a centralized gangleon is required, but I don't hold to this opinion since I think a decentralized nervous system is sufficient to store a minimal amount of data, and it doesn't take much info to mediate environmental response.

Plants, bacteria, and any multicellular life without a nervous system do not show a capacity for learning. I think there was a mold found once that *might* have something equivalent, it stores environmental data hydraulically, but is that really learning? I'd say such a mold is pretty fringy and requires more study.

Let's take a worm, for instance. It has a nervous system, central gangleon (though not much of one), and maze tests have shown that they can learn from their environment and adjust their reactions accordingly. Worms are 'intelligent' but not do not posses human intellect.

When we're talking about god the assumption, however, is human intelligence, not worm, roach, sparrow, or wolf intellect.

But how is human intelligence different from worm intelligence on the level of the definition of intelligence? Why should human intelligence be different from dog intelligence, if you want to single out human in your argument?

Again, you are avoiding my question. What is the prerequisite of intelligence? And the prerequisite must be true, so that the appearance of (human) intelligence could be true.

 

[kharisym]

But how is human intelligence different from worm intelligence on the level of the definition of intelligence? Why should human intelligence be different from dog intelligence, if you want to single out human in your argument?

Again, you are avoiding my question. What is the prerequisite of intelligence? And the prerequisite must be true, so that the appearance of (human) intelligence could be true.

... I answered that in my first response to you ...

Intelligence: The criteria for intelligence is essentially the ability to learn from unmediated external stimuli and react accordingly.

Human Intelligence: The criteria for human intelligence is the ability to symbolize external stimuli, build relationships between these symbols, and form complex rational actions based upon the relationship of learned symbols and symbolic relationships and external stimuli.

The ability to symbolize stimuli is an essential prerequisite to language, and also to many 'human' activities such as invention and art. There's also a hypothesis I saw floating around that there's a critical ratio of body size to brain mass that also must be met- but I've only see correlational papers, and therefore nothing to specify causation.

Am I speaking above your head on this topic? I kind of assumed you'd understand what I meant by 'symbol', it's natural for me, but in cognitive science the term has specific meaning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Duh. That's why it's called a Major Premise.

Logic: please look it up...

OK.


Noun

premise (plural premises)

1. A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition.
2. (logic) Either of the first two propositions of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is deduced.
3. (usually plural, law) Matters previously stated or set forth; esp., that part in the beginning of a deed, the office of which is to express the grantor and grantee, and the land or thing granted or conveyed, and all that precedes the habendum; the thing demised or granted.
4. (usually plural) A piece of real estate; a building and its adjuncts (in this sense, used most often in the plural form). trespass on another’s premises

If the initial statement is false or unknown, then the conclusion is untrustworthy (barring a separate syllogism). A premise is usually a statement known to be true; that's the point. So, if you happily admit that one of your premises is an unsubstantiated assumption, then you admit that your conclusion is unsound. Why, then, make the argument at all?

And FYI, it's called a 'major premise' because it contains the major term of the syllogism, not because it's an unsubstantiated assumption.

An unproven assumption.

Do a Google search. We've talked about the Casimir effect before, I can't be bothered to go over it all again.

An unproven assumption.

No, it's not. The previous posts are for your perusal. Protip: it's Post #14...

 

[Nabobalis]

LOL.

Why do you think Quantum Mechanics is a joke?

What evidence do you have Werner Heisenber thought Quantum Mechanics is a joke?

Can you read? I mean my English is terrible, ask any one of my professors who has had the pleasure of reading my work but even I understood his point.

*sigh*

 

[Targ]

LOL.

Why do you think Quantum Mechanics is a joke?

What evidence do you have Werner Heisenber thought Quantum Mechanics is a joke?

On a similar note, does Phil Plait believe that "Magnetism is…a joke in astronomy"?

 

[juvenissun]

A common claim by Creationists against a naturalistic model of the birth of the universe is that a natural phenomenon requires an infinite regression. Now, I'm not very versed in Cosmology, but I can tell special pleading when I see it.

So I ask you, what makes intelligence so special that it need not suffer the same infinite regression issue as natural phenomena?

I posit that any claim of difference between the two is either a red herring, or can be applied to both.

It's getting messy. I want some clarification:

Are you saying that (human?) intelligence is a natural phenomenon?

And are you saying that creationists accept that (human?) intelligence IS a natural phenomenon (not created), but the origin of the universe is not (created)?

And whether is it correct to equate the "natural phenomenon" to "product of evolution". In other words, are you saying that creationist think (human?) intelligence IS an evolved feature.

And, you better clarify if the "intelligence" is limited to human intelligence or is a generally defined intelligence.

Finally, if all the above are correct understanding on what you said, then what is the question?

 

[Nabobalis]

On a similar note, does Phil Plait believe that "Magnetism is…a joke in astronomy"?

Of course and Jesus said "God.....doesn't exist" too.

(It is fun to quote mine )

 

[kharisym]

It's getting messy. I want some clarification:

Are you saying that (human?) intelligence is a natural phenomenon?

And are you saying that creationists accept that (human?) intelligence IS a natural phenomenon (not created), but the origin of the universe is not (created)?

And whether is it correct to equate the "natural phenomenon" to "product of evolution". In other words, are you saying that creationist think (human?) intelligence IS an evolved feature.

And, you better clarify if the "intelligence" is limited to human intelligence or is a generally defined intelligence.

Finally, if all the above are correct understanding on what you said, then what is the question?

I think human intelligence is the product of natural forces, and while I can't speak for creationists I suspect they don't hold this view, but none of that matters in this discussion. The fact is, whether created by an omnipotent entity or by the grind of evolution, intelligence is not eternal. We're born, we die, we beget new intelligences in convenient luggage-sized packages.

Given this finite lifespan of any single intelligence, we have nothing to show that intelligence can be eternal, therefore 'who made god?'

The crux is this thread is to understand why people think intelligence is so special that it can solve the infinite recursion problem of universe begetting whereas a natural phenomena could not. Thus far in your whole line of questioning, you've failed to answer this problem. This latest batch of questions shows that you don't have an answer.


Does anyone else think I answered Juv's *previous* posts adequately? He seems to think I haven't, but I think I have. //I know I skipped questions on this latest, he's becoming a bore and is clearly not headed towards making a point.

Now, Juv, are you going to make a point pertinent to this thread or are you going to kill me with boredom asking questions I had already answered or that are so obvious that answering them makes my brain leak out my right ear?

 

[juvenissun]

I think human intelligence is the product of natural forces, and while I can't speak for creationists I suspect they don't hold this view, but none of that matters in this discussion. The fact is, whether created by an omnipotent entity or by the grind of evolution, intelligence is not eternal. We're born, we die, we beget new intelligences in convenient luggage-sized packages.

Given this finite lifespan of any single intelligence, we have nothing to show that intelligence can be eternal, therefore 'who made god?'

The crux is this thread is to understand why people think intelligence is so special that it can solve the infinite recursion problem of universe begetting whereas a natural phenomena could not. Thus far in your whole line of questioning, you've failed to answer this problem. This latest batch of questions shows that you don't have an answer.


Does anyone else think I answered Juv's *previous* posts adequately? He seems to think I haven't, but I think I have. //I know I skipped questions on this latest, he's becoming a bore and is clearly not headed towards making a point.

Now, Juv, are you going to make a point pertinent to this thread or are you going to kill me with boredom asking questions I had already answered or that are so obvious that answering them makes my brain leak out my right ear?

Creationists do not think that intelligence could solve any origin problem. It is evolutionists who do think so. This is my response to the blue colored text.

I still do not understand what are you talking about by the red colored text.

 

[kharisym]

Creationists do not think that intelligence could solve any origin problem. It is evolutionists who do think so. This is my response to the blue colored text.

I still do not understand what are you talking about by the red colored text.

Given our previous conversations, I don't think I could explain it to you- the thought disparity between me and you is just too great. The idea of attempting another in-depth discussion with you gives me the sensation of a sinus headache.