|
If we are the only intelligence around?
Then we have a couple of problems. The first, of course, would be this myth of objectivity that we promulgate. We'd get better explanations of things by including that absolutely unique quality in all of our conceptualizations - especially those that are attempts to describe the world, since this totally unique quality we have is the instrumentality we use to quantify and qualify it.
If we aren't the only animal with intelligence, then the most fascinating question for me is where exactly in the material world does this arise? I've addressed this in a previous post.
In general, the issue does remain as a central and crucial concern. Either it is the very definition of ourselves - in which case our measurements should be known as "intelligent inches" and "intelligent pounds," etc. Because as I said, not including the metric in one's measurements promotes a false premise of objectivity. We wouldn't want to think that the world we are describing would be the same world without our intelligence-based perception of it. We tend to do this now and it gets us into all sorts of trouble. We end up having to invent non-observables, such as "dark matter," and populate the majority of the universe with it in order to make our schemes work out, etc.
Again, to not make the actual tool we use to measure things integral to our measurements and descriptions of things does not seem an enlightened method of description at all. To my way of thinking it seems only blindly anthropocentric.
Finally, if we are the only place where intelligence resides, then we'd darn better be calling our desription of the universe "intelligent"
A universe described by man must be called an intelligent universe. To think otherwise is to suffer from hubris.
__________________
create evolution
|