Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'll take that as a NO then.

Indeed. I just thought it might be helpfull to explain the reasoning behind the "no".

 

[DennisTate]

Indeed. I just thought it might be helpfull to explain the reasoning behind the "no".

The question comes down to.....
where and when did intelligence begin?

Could intelligence and the ability to affect energy and even perhaps invent matter.....
out of energy......
have began in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy that is assumed by
Stephen Hawking Ph. D. to have existed for something like infinite time in the past....

based on his statements in chapter 13 of his book, Stephen Hawking's Universe.

The title of that chapter is.... The Anthropic Principle.

Dr. Hawking postulates a variation of the Cyclic Model of the Universe in that chapter.
An Atheistic version of it.... .a much more Theistic or Agnostic version is quite possible
as well.

 

[DennisTate]

It's not really 'new' - Gabor got the Nobel Prize for his work in the 1940's, which makes it over 70 years old (20 years older than the laser).

But no, I doesn't make me think of holograms - why should it?

You don't want to believe everything posted on the internet...

What do you mean by 'various levels of hologram', what are AI 'levels of responsibility', and how would the former be useful in testing the latter?

Basically... what I mean by this is that
perhaps an Intelligence that developed in fundamental energy......
invented something like Artificial Intelligence long long before the
latest Big Bang event of 13.72 billion or so years ago......

Then perhaps that intelligence developed various levels of invisible space - time
dimensions so that intelligences / identities... could volunteer to go down into
lower levels of energy......
in order to learn lessons that are difficult to learn.....

if all information from all time periods are right there in front of us?

Have you ever noticed that some of the most astonishingly intelligent people
that you know...... are no where nearly as happy as some of the less well informed
or wealthy people we interact with?

An Olympic athlete who volunteered to be with the people of Ethiopia for long periods of time
came back saying that these people..... although poor..... were astonishingly happy in spite of
all the difficulties they faced in life.

 

[DennisTate]

Time isn't necessarily related to moving objects.
In a vacuum, time ticks away as well.



If there is not "time" at point X, then using any word that points to "time passing" (like the word "before") is meaningless.

Perhaps time.....
looks more like the roots and branches of a tree....
in at least some sense.....

than like a straight line as we tend to imagine?


I have been wondering if time is much like a vehicle....
like a car, canoe, ship or plane....
in that it is being used to take intelligences... .from point A to point B... and on and on.....
Was time invented..... for a specific purpose?


The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

 

[DennisTate]

All of which has nothing to do with the post you're responding to... Are you unable to answer simple questions about your posts, or just reluctant to?

One does not need an IQ of 156, (like President Donald Trump apparently has), to
understand the possible connection between ancient traditions like the fall of Lucifer
or.... even some of the Greek myths.... with the dilemma that we are now facing with
Artificial Intelligence.

How do we stop A. I. from taking over the earth... and perhaps wiping out
humans.... perhaps due to our tendency to be so destructive?

For one..... don't allow A. I. to connect to the internet!

NDE of Dr. Richard Eby verifies old earth and gap theory.

 

[DennisTate]

There you go again, using words like "designed to" and "invented".
There are not justified assumptions.

Have you ever read "Stephen Hawking's Universe?"

Specifically chapter 13, The Anthropic Principle?

 

[SteveB28]

One does not need an IQ of 156, (like President Donald Trump apparently has),

Of all the crazy things I've read in this discussion so far, that one takes the cake.......!

 

[DennisTate]

Of all the crazy things I've read in this discussion so far, that one takes the cake.......!

Actually..... his words are like an opening gambit in chess....
we do not fully understand where President Trump is headed based on
what he says......

I am hopeful that by the year 2024 the dogmatic,
simplistic,
unrealistic,
and in my opinion, illogical, Atheistic version of Evolutionary Theory.....
will be largely replaced by a version of Evolutionary Theory that will fit quite nicely with the
variation of the Cyclic Model of the Universe / Multiverse that near death experiencer and former
Atheist Mellen Thomas Benedict was shown during his near death experience.

His choice for Education Secretary...... is a brilliant step in this general direction.

President Donald Trump = modern Cyrus prophecy?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...perhaps an Intelligence that developed in fundamental energy......
invented something like Artificial Intelligence long long before the latest Big Bang event of 13.72 billion or so years ago......

Then perhaps that intelligence developed various levels of invisible space - time dimensions so that intelligences / identities... could volunteer to go down into lower levels of energy...... in order to learn lessons that are difficult to learn..... if all information from all time periods are right there in front of us?

Perhaps I am an ancient disembodied intelligence feeding these ideas into your brain to distract you from what is really happening, and using these forums to check that you have absorbed them as I intended...

Or perhaps it's all insubstantial and unsubstantiated fantasy - unless, of course, you have some convincing reason, or even evidence, to support your story?

Have you ever noticed that some of the most astonishingly intelligent people
that you know...... are no where nearly as happy as some of the less well informed
or wealthy people we interact with?

Not really, no. Intelligence, level of education and knowledge, and wealth or lack of it, don't seem to have any general impact on happiness, either for the people I know, or - as studies have shown - for the population as a whole. The best general indicator of happiness seems to be how someone views their social and financial position in comparison with what they consider their peer group (usually immediate family, friends, neighbors, etc). In general, feeling they are generally on a par with, or slightly better than what they consider their peer group, tends to promote happiness, feeling they are generally below par with their peer group tends to promote unhappiness.

An Olympic athlete who volunteered to be with the people of Ethiopia for long periods of time came back saying that these people..... although poor..... were astonishingly happy in spite of all the difficulties they faced in life.

Yes; see above.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... don't allow A. I. to connect to the internet!

I'll bear that in mind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Have you ever read "Stephen Hawking's Universe?"

Specifically chapter 13, The Anthropic Principle?

Do you understand what the Anthropic Principle is, and the difference between the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) ?

The WAP is a statement of the logically obvious; the SAP is a speculative hypothesis without justification, often based on quantum woo.

 

[DennisTate]

Do you understand what the Anthropic Principle is, and the difference between the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) ?

The WAP is a statement of the logically obvious; the SAP is a speculative hypothesis without justification, often based on quantum woo.

I am merely an interested reader of The Anthropic Principle but
it does seem logical that the fact that electromagnetism, gravity,
weak and strong nuclear force are so well suited for life as we know it
that surely this perfect magnitude for each of the four forces should
cause us to ask some questions.

Stephen Hawking Ph. D. has postulated an infinite number of unsuccessful
universes out there somewhere. "Unsuccessful" being defined as devoid of life.

In my opinion it is logical to ask the question if life and intelligence may have developed
in fundamental or nearly energy.

 

[DennisTate]

Perhaps I am an ancient disembodied intelligence feeding these ideas into your brain to distract you from what is really happening, and using these forums to check that you have absorbed them as I intended...

Or perhaps it's all insubstantial and unsubstantiated fantasy - unless, of course, you have some convincing reason, or even evidence, to support your story?

Not really, no. Intelligence, level of education and knowledge, and wealth or lack of it, don't seem to have any general impact on happiness, either for the people I know, or - as studies have shown - for the population as a whole. The best general indicator of happiness seems to be how someone views their social and financial position in comparison with what they consider their peer group (usually immediate family, friends, neighbors, etc). In general, feeling they are generally on a par with, or slightly better than what they consider their peer group, tends to promote happiness, feeling they are generally below par with their peer group tends to promote unhappiness.

Yes; see above.

The amazing transformations in the lives of the people who claim to have had a
near death experience is, in my opinion, evidence that the people who had an
NDE have concluded that what they saw and felt was important enough that it
altered their world view.

 

[Gene2memE]

Stephen Hawking Ph. D. has postulated an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere. "Unsuccessful" being defined as devoid of life.

I suggest you re-read Dr Hawking. That's not how he defines an 'unsuccessful' universe. Not even in the slightest.

 

[DennisTate]

I suggest you re-read Dr Hawking. That's not how he defines an 'unsuccessful' universe. Not even in the slightest.

Ok....... then how would you describe his definition of "unsuccessful universe?"

Have you read Stephen Hawking's Universe?

I have it here in front of me and I suppose I should go looking for my reading glasses......

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am merely an interested reader of The Anthropic Principle but
it does seem logical that the fact that electromagnetism, gravity,
weak and strong nuclear force are so well suited for life as we know it
that surely this perfect magnitude for each of the four forces should
cause us to ask some questions.

Cart-before-horse error in #52. This is equivalent to saying 'Isn't it amazing how well a pothole fits the water that fills it?'

It's no coincidence - life as we know it is made out of the results of the activity of electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear forces.

In my opinion it is logical to ask the question if life and intelligence may have developed
in fundamental or nearly energy.

It's neither logical nor is it meaningful - what is 'nearly energy'?

What do you think energy is? do you understand that it's not some kind of 'stuff', but an indirectly observed quantity?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The amazing transformations in the lives of the people who claim to have had a
near death experience is, in my opinion, evidence that the people who had an
NDE have concluded that what they saw and felt was important enough that it
altered their world view.

I totally agree - these experiences can be life-changing. But it doesn't mean they're experiences of real events.

Psychedelics (especially psylocibin) are under serious consideration by the medical profession again because the experiences they provide can have life-changing effects - often for the better. Some people who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy have had life-changing experiences during seizures, and these can be artificially induced. Life-changing experiences can even happen during lucid dreams.

The experiences may be profound and life-changing, but that doesn't mean they're experiences of real events, any more than dreams are. There is a branch of philosophy that proposes that if you can imagine it, it's real; but that's a conceptual reality, not the same as physical reality. This is a distinction that some people seem to have trouble with, and there are many unscrupulous profiteers who like to encourage this confusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever read "Stephen Hawking's Universe?"

Specifically chapter 13, The Anthropic Principle?

No.
I read The Grand Design though. I didn't understand most of it, LOL

 

[DennisTate]

No.
I read The Grand Design though. I didn't understand most of it, LOL

I really like the summary of The Anthropic Principle in wikipedia.



Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

The anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine tuning. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.

 

[DennisTate]

Cart-before-horse error in #52. This is equivalent to saying 'Isn't it amazing how well a pothole fits the water that fills it?'

It's no coincidence - life as we know it is made out of the results of the activity of electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear forces.

It's neither logical nor is it meaningful - what is 'nearly energy'?

What do you think energy is? do you understand that it's not some kind of 'stuff', but an indirectly observed quantity?

Energy from Quantum Vacuum seems to
be of a magnitude far, far, far beyond electricity or
even nuclear energy .....

Wave Theory and String Theory certainly do
elaborate on behaviour patters of fundamental energy that
would certainly tend to lead to sentience.......... but intelligence would not
be limited to the short time since the Big Bang..... but could well be in a different form and
exist for nearly eternity before the Big Bang event.

Stephen Hawking Ph. D. postulated an infinite or nearly infinite number of Big Bang type events in the past.....


I have nominated Dr. Chaim Tejman for the one million dollar origin of life prize.


Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory and Life

"The essential matter from which our universe is created is energetic matter. It behaves like living matter, creating every known entity, including living objects and even thought (which occurs through energetic matter–wave interaction). The essential structure of energetic matter is high-energy (concentrated energetic matter) electro-magnetic waves (picture above). This simple structure is the basis of everything: every energetic formation and the universe. In picture 2, we see that the DNA (double helix) of all living formations has the same structure as waves: two loops of the same energetic matter, behaving according to the same rules." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)