The Special Privilege of Intelligence

[kharisym]

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.

 

[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.

I am not sure you know what you are talking about. So let's take one step at a time:

In order to have intelligence, what is the requirement?

If we could not agree on this first question, then your question is automatically answered.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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 not intelligence per se. God, the being who is proposed to be uncaused, is intelligent, but it is not his intelligence that causes him to be uncaused (no pun intended).

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

A common claim by Creationists against a naturalistic model of the birth of the universe is that a natural phenomenon requires an infinite regression.

There is no Creationist claim against a naturalistic model of the birth of the universe.

God is 100% natural.

However, you are correct in saying that an infinite regression of causality is logically absurd.

If the past were infinite then time would never arrive at the present (see Aristotle's Physics).

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

Intelligence isn't so special which is how we know that intelligence hasn't evolved.

Intelligent modern octopuses were living in the Cretaceous 95 million years ago.

 

[Cabal]

Intelligence isn't so special which is how we know that intelligence hasn't evolved.

...

Intelligent modern octopuses were living in the Cretaceous 95 million years ago.

Until Adrian Veidt teleported one into the middle of New York city to end the Cold War, right?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Until Adrian Veidt teleported one into the middle of New York city to end the Cold War, right?

Well I guess there is more scientific evidence for that than there is for biological evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

However, you are correct in saying that an infinite regression of causality is logically absurd.

If the past were infinite then time would never arrive at the present (see Aristotle's Physics).

I'd mention how Aristotle's Mechanics has been surpassed by Newton, and then Einstein, but we all know where you stand on that. Suffice to say, there's no consensus on whether or not the "It would never be now" argument genuinely refutes infinite causality.

Intelligence isn't so special which is how we know that intelligence hasn't evolved.

Intelligent modern octopuses were living in the Cretaceous 95 million years ago.

I remember that thread. It turned out that it was a 95 million year old octopus, not a modern octopus. Plants were around millions of years ago, too, but the cactus on my windowsill isn't therefore ancient. It's descended from something ancient, but it's not ancient itself.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I'd mention how Aristotle's Mechanics has been surpassed by Newton, and then Einstein, but we all know where you stand on that.

LOL.

If you'd ever read Newton or Einstein in your life you would know that both agreed with Aristotle that time had a beginning, Newton being a creationist and Einstein being a Big Banger and a puppet of the Vatican priest Abbe Georges Lemaitre.

Even your Pope of the Orthodoxy Cult, namely atheist mathematician Stephen Hawking, claims time had a beginning: http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.

***

Suffice to say, there's no consensus on whether or not the "It would never be now" argument genuinely refutes infinite causality.

There is no consensus on anything.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you'd ever read Newton or Einstein in your life you would know that both agreed with Aristotle that time had a beginning, Newton being a creationist and Einstein being a Big Banger and a puppet of the Vatican priest Abbe Georges Lemaitre.

Irrelevant: we're talking about mechanics, not the men behind them. I couldn't give one hoot about whether or not Einstein thought time had a beginning.

Even your Pope of the Orthodoxy Cult, namely atheist mathematician Stephen Hawking, claims time had a beginning: The Beginning of Time

I've seen that lecture touted before as some sort of proof that Hawking believe in a beginning of time. Ironically, in that same lecture, he makes it quite clear that he's precisely not talking about what Creationists like to believe he's talking about:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."[/FONT]

That is, he is of the position that the Big Bang may as well be the start of time, while being explicitly clear that we have no idea if it actually is.

There is no consensus on anything.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999

Clarke's adage neither defines reality, nor meant what you mean. First, Clarke is not an infallible god: he's capable of being wrong just as much as anyone else. Case in point, there most certainly is a consensus on a great many things: the existence of the Moon is doubted by virtually no one (I say 'virtually' because there's bound to be some crackpot out there).
Second, Clarke was making the point that there are two sides to every argument; there are experts both for and against the existence climate change, for example. He was making a quip at how there will always be debate. Hell, there are still Flat Earthers!

Oh, but wait, this is AoS. Citing irrelevant quotes is how you get off. Nevermind.

 

[kharisym]

It's not intelligence per se. God, the being who is proposed to be uncaused, is intelligent, but it is not his intelligence that causes him to be uncaused (no pun intended).

So what makes god 'uncaused' and why can't said nature be applicable to a natural, non-intelligent phenomenon?

 

[kharisym]

I am not sure you know what you are talking about. So let's take one step at a time:

In order to have intelligence, what is the requirement?

If we could not agree on this first question, then your question is automatically answered.

Ooh! I know this one! Cognition happens to be my specialty. I'm an aspiring cognitive scientist.

"The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge"
"The faculty of thought and reason."

Intelligence in the biological world is (most likely, all evidence points this way) the product of the mass movement of electrochemical signals that are both shaped and mediated by the neurons of the brain. All animals down to worms show some measure of intellect in the form of the ability to learn form their environment, but it's believed that human intelligence (ie, sapience beyond sentience) is the product of the cerebral cortex.

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

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So what makes god 'uncaused' and why can't said nature be applicable to a natural, non-intelligent phenomenon?

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...

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Case in point, there most certainly is a consensus on a great many things: the existence of the Moon is doubted by virtually no one (I say 'virtually' because there's bound to be some crackpot out there).

Why do you consider Werner Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics to be crackpot?

"...if we take Heisenberg literally, the moon is not there when nobody is looking at it." -- Thomas Knierim, philosopher, 1999

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why do you consider Werner Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics to be crackpot?

"...if we take Heisenberg literally, the moon is not there when nobody is looking at it." -- Thomas Knierim, philosopher, 1999

Key phrase: "if we take Heisenberg literally". He was making a joke about the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Honestly, these things shouldn't need explaining.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So what makes god 'uncaused' and why can't said nature be applicable to a natural, non-intelligent phenomenon?

You'd have to ask the people advocating that viewpoint

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Key phrase: "if we take Heisenberg literally". He was making a joke about the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Honestly, these things shouldn't need explaining.

LOL.

Why do you think Quantum Mechanics is a joke?

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

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

An unproven assumption. Uncaused events are not only possible - there's nothing which says all things with a beginning must have a cause - but well-evidenced as well. The Casimir is my favourite example of 'something from nothing', 'uncaused event', etc.

The universe has a beginning therefore the universe is caused.

Another unproven assumption. Hawking himself said that we have no evidence that the Big Bang was the beginning of time - there is nothing in the entirety of science and logic which demands or implies the universe is not eternal. Furthermore, this naively assumes that time is both linear and separate from the universe.

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

A third unproven assumption. Even if the rest of your argument works, you've arbitrarily assumed that the First Cause is God - namely, an intelligent, prayer-answering, personal conciousness.

LOL.

Why do you think Quantum Mechanics is a joke?

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

Try to keep up. I said "He was making a joke about the weirdness of quantum mechanics", not "Quantum mechanics is a joke". Neither I nor he said quantum mechanics was false; he (not I) was making a light-hearted quip (not a serious rejection) about the weirdness of QM (not QM itself). Again, these things shouldn't need explaining.

 

[juvenissun]

Ooh! I know this one! Cognition happens to be my specialty. I'm an aspiring cognitive scientist.

"The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge"
"The faculty of thought and reason."

Intelligence in the biological world is (most likely, all evidence points this way) the product of the mass movement of electrochemical signals that are both shaped and mediated by the neurons of the brain. All animals down to worms show some measure of intellect in the form of the ability to learn form their environment, but it's believed that human intelligence (ie, sapience beyond sentience) is the product of the cerebral cortex.

The criteria for intelligence is essentially the ability to learn from unmediated external stimuli and react accordingly. The criteria for human intelligence is the ability to symbolize external stimuli, build relationships between these syKmbols, and form complex rational actions based upon the relationship of learned symbols and symbolic relationships and external stimuli.

So, according to what you said, is there any "life" which is not intelligent?

If not, then what does infinite regression mean to intelligence? Intelligence simply happened automatically with the appearance of life, there is no prerequisite.

 

[kharisym]

So, according to what you said, is there any "life" which is not intelligent?

If not, then what does infinite regression mean to intelligence? Intelligence simply happened automatically with the appearance of life, there is no prerequisite.

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.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

An unproven assumption.

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

Logic: please look it up...

Uncaused events are not only possible - there's nothing which says all things with a beginning must have a cause - but well-evidenced as well. The Casimir is my favourite example of 'something from nothing', 'uncaused event', etc.

An unproven assumption.

Try to keep up. I said "He was making a joke about the weirdness of quantum mechanics", not "Quantum mechanics is a joke". Neither I nor he said quantum mechanics was false; he (not I) was making

An unproven assumption.