Do we matter?

[Driller]

Whilst I’m at it, another philosophical thought that has been playing on my mind.

I have mostly always been an agnostic atheist.

Lately though 2 thoughts occurred to me that I can’t shake and they are simply this:

1) Our intelligence, relatively modest as it may be, could not have come from a system that is inanimate and has no intelligence. Therefore, logically, the universe must have some sort of intelligence even if we certainly can’t understand it.

2) The actual problem therefore is not “is there an intelligence behind the universe?” but “do we matter to it”?.

From what I can see and considering the numbers of populations involved and everything that goes on on the planet, I can’t see how we could matter any more to a “greater power” than chickens in an abattoir matter to us.

Which is inconvenient.

[Sheets Tabuer]

All we are is dust in the wind.

[Dr Jekyll]

Driller said:

Whilst I’m at it, another philosophical thought that has been playing on my mind.

I have mostly always been an agnostic atheist.

Lately though 2 thoughts occurred to me that I can’t shake and they are simply this:

1) Our intelligence, relatively modest as it may be, could not have come from a system that is inanimate and has no intelligence. Therefore, logically, the universe must have some sort of intelligence even if we certainly can’t understand it.

2) The actual problem therefore is not “is there an intelligence behind the universe?” but “do we matter to it”?.

From what I can see and considering the numbers of populations involved and everything that goes on on the planet, I can’t see how we could matter any more to a “greater power” than chickens in an abattoir matter to us.

Which is inconvenient.

Logically, if intelligence cannot arise from a system with no intelligence then it can never arise at all.

[Driller]

Dr Jekyll said:

Logically, if intelligence cannot arise from a system with no intelligence then it can never arise at all.

I see where you’re going BUT in my view our “logic” at this level is just too pathetically inadequate to understand exactly what the universe is and all the possibilities involved.

We think we’re pretty clever with our iPhones and our space telescopes but we’re no more than a virus if you consider the sheer dimensions involved.

The Kansas quote is a good one (and a fine song )

[5s Alive]

Sheets Tabuer said:

All we are is dust in the wind.

I look at what happens in the world and ask if life is of immeasurable value or is just a worthless mote of dust in the solar wind.
To us it's the first, to the universe the second. Existence is chaos... or the Matrix. Now I'm depressed but there's always beer.

edit: jeez I need to lighten up. The correct answer to the question is...

I do. Don't know about the rest of you.

Edited by 5s Alive on Sunday 30th January 15:50

Edited by 5s Alive on Sunday 30th January 15:52

[Mr MXT]

Sheets Tabuer said:

All we are is dust in the wind.

dude.

[Dr Jekyll]

Driller said:

I see where you’re going BUT in my view our “logic” at this level is just too pathetically inadequate to understand exactly what the universe is and all the possibilities involved.

We think we’re pretty clever with our iPhones and our space telescopes but we’re no more than a virus if you consider the sheer dimensions involved.

The Kansas quote is a good one (and a fine song )

So tell me again why the universe must be intelligent?

[knk]

"Our intelligence, relatively modest as it may be, could not have come from a system that is inanimate and has no intelligence."

Why not?
I see no reason why "intelligence" cannot develop spontaneously.
Not even sure what you men by intelligence? Cognition? Reasoning? Sentience? Self-awareness? Logical thought? Emotions?

[Driller]

Dr Jekyll said:

Driller said:

I see where you’re going BUT in my view our “logic” at this level is just too pathetically inadequate to understand exactly what the universe is and all the possibilities involved.

We think we’re pretty clever with our iPhones and our space telescopes but we’re no more than a virus if you consider the sheer dimensions involved.

The Kansas quote is a good one (and a fine song )

So tell me again why the universe must be intelligent?

All right smarty pants try this: You can’t deny the argument that it’s not logical for an intelligence to come from a universe entirely composed of only rock and gas surely?

But that the supposed “higher” intelligence, whatever form that may be, could/would come from a universe with a possibly entirely different set of physical laws and on another scale that would be utterly inconceivable to us.

Indeed, our intelligence is so puny that it may be that the concept of “something having to come from something else” may not even apply at that level.

There may be a whole new level of “somethings” and physical laws that we just couldn’t understand. A way of this thing existing without having to come from something or just a way of “being” with a relation to the universe around it that would be utterly alien to us.

[Driller]

knk said:

"Our intelligence, relatively modest as it may be, could not have come from a system that is inanimate and has no intelligence."

Why not?
I see no reason why "intelligence" cannot develop spontaneously.
Not even sure what you men by intelligence? Cognition? Reasoning? Sentience? Self-awareness? Logical thought? Emotions?

Yes all of those.

You really think you’re intelligent enough to be certain that the universe is just a massively huge amount of empty space with a few spinning rocks and balls of fire and dust and that intelligent beings evolved that become aware of their existence in said vast space and that’s it?

I am convinced that our universe, massive to us as it is, is a drop in an impossible to understand ocean.

[Bill]

Driller said:

All right smarty pants try this: You can’t deny the argument that it’s not logical for an intelligence to come from a universe entirely composed of only rock and gas surely?

Why not?

Given an infinite universe with infinite variables of conditions and material, and knowing that life is possible, then it's more logical to argue that it's highly likely. Furthermore it's highly likely it's happened many, many times all over the universe.

[Dr Jekyll]

Driller said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Driller said:

I see where you’re going BUT in my view our “logic” at this level is just too pathetically inadequate to understand exactly what the universe is and all the possibilities involved.

We think we’re pretty clever with our iPhones and our space telescopes but we’re no more than a virus if you consider the sheer dimensions involved.

The Kansas quote is a good one (and a fine song )

So tell me again why the universe must be intelligent?

All right smarty pants try this: You can’t deny the argument that it’s not logical for an intelligence to come from a universe entirely composed of only rock and gas surely?

I do deny it.

[quote=Driller}
But that the supposed “higher” intelligence, whatever form that may be, could/would come from a universe with a possibly entirely different set of physical laws and on another scale that would be utterly inconceivable to us.

Indeed, our intelligence is so puny that it may be that the concept of “something having to come from something else” may not even apply at that level.

There may be a whole new level of “somethings” and physical laws that we just couldn’t understand. A way of this thing existing without having to come from something or just a way of “being” with a relation to the universe around it that would be utterly alien to us.

Unless you can explain which of our physical laws precludes intelligence coming from an unintelligent environment there is no need for that complication.

Even if the universe is intelligent, why is the idea of intelligence evolving more improbable than the idea of it being 'piped in' from that universe via an unexplained mechanism?

[Driller]

Dr Jekyll said:

I do deny it.

Fair enough. Conversation over then.

Bill said:

Driller said:

All right smarty pants try this: You can’t deny the argument that it’s not logical for an intelligence to come from a universe entirely composed of only rock and gas surely?

Why not?

Given an infinite universe with infinite variables of conditions and material, and knowing that life is possible, then it's more logical to argue that it's highly likely. Furthermore it's highly likely it's happened many, many times all over the universe.

But do you not see the paradox?

My point is, logically, how can the sum of the parts be greater than the parts themselves? The explanation is that there are a whole bunch of other parts that we aren’t (and probably never will be) aware of.

Be aware that I’m not talking about a “god” here. I’m an atheist

[Nimby]

Driller said:

1) Our intelligence, relatively modest as it may be, could not have come from a system that is inanimate and has no intelligence

So was it the sperm, the egg or both that formed you that was intelligent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Bill]

Driller said:

But do you not see the paradox?

My point is, logically, how can the sum of the parts be greater than the parts themselves? The explanation is that there are a whole bunch of other parts that we aren’t (and probably never will be) aware of.

Be aware that I’m not talking about a “god” here. I’m an atheist

I don't see a paradox. That's how evolution works; billions of years and billions of tiny changes. Where does the need for outside influence come?

This is classic "god of the gaps" territory.

[Driller]

Bill said:

Driller said:

But do you not see the paradox?

My point is, logically, how can the sum of the parts be greater than the parts themselves? The explanation is that there are a whole bunch of other parts that we aren’t (and probably never will be) aware of.

Be aware that I’m not talking about a “god” here. I’m an atheist

I don't see a paradox. That's how evolution works; billions of years and billions of tiny changes. Where does the need for outside influence come?

This is classic "god of the gaps" territory.

Oh come on man, don’t take me for a fool I know very well what evolution is and it is of course absolutely a working phenomenon.

I’m talking about the potential sum of the parts being greater than the parts.

I spent years agreeing with the points you’ve made above, the refusal to consider anything other than a simple system. But there is no reason why it shoukd be a simple system.

Our inability to perceive something doesn’t render the existence of that thing impossible.

Dark energy for example (not dark matter).

[smn159]

Driller said:

You can’t deny the argument that it’s not logical for an intelligence to come from a universe entirely composed of only rock and gas surely?

Isn't this a bit like the creationist argument that something as complex as an eye couldn't be a product of evolution?

[Mr E]

You’ve stated several times that you think intelligence cannot spontaneous arise.
Please expand on this, and defend the point.

It would appear to be a logical fallacy unless you’re postulating an “outside universe” intelligence. Which sounds very close to religion to me.

[Mr E]

Also. We matter. Until we reach the speed of light.
Then we energy.

[Driller]

Nimby said:

Driller said:

1) Our intelligence, relatively modest as it may be, could not have come from a system that is inanimate and has no intelligence

So was it the sperm, the egg or both that formed you that was intelligent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

None of the above. I’m talking about substantially higher levels/dimensions/whatever you want to call it.

Imagine a laboratory with rats in it in a cage. One rat says to the other there must be more to this, we can’t have just come from this lab, the lab must be controlled by a higher power or intelligence.

And the other rat says, “why? We just evolved here innit”

Why do you suppose that you are so evolved that you have all the answers? We are dumb.