ARTelevision

A philosophical investigation into the nature and role of intelligence in the cosmos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread exists as a constructive inquiry into the possible nature and role of intelligence in the universe. I am not a religious person and I do not see “intelligence” as having any connection to what has been traditionally called “god” in human cultures. Some of you may see it that way. That’s fine. It’s just that I don’t.

Also, the question as to whether this discussion has a direct connection to the current political football known as “Intelligent Design Theory” is moot here. This is not a political thread. Please refrain from comments that simply refute the intention behind the entire thread and the thread starter’s intention to create a space for the constructive discussion of the nature and role of intelligence in the universe – especially if your remarks are anti-religious or political in nature or if you see this as an unscientific investigation. This thread has nothing at all to do with whether ID should be taught in schools. This thread also has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. Those issues are being amply discussed in other threads.

What I’m trying to do here is to open up a constructive dialog. IMO, consciousness and intelligence are not adequately addressed by current science. I do think that the study of consciousness and intelligence has a scientific basis and the search for a scientific explanation for the role of intelligence in the universe is either a proto-science right now or it will be validated by scientific methods in the very near future.

This particular thread is speculative. If you want to refute, debate, or argue the points made here, please keep your comments in line with the intention of the thread. Thanks.

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

An introduction to my particular view of the subject:

I see intelligence as an integral aspect of the universe. It is an active agent in that there is no way we can be sure that what we refer to, perceive, and measure is anything other than a function of our capacity to intelligently structure and order experience. It is not clear we can objectively measure anything, even with our instruments of measurement. This epistemological/ontological statement reflects current interpretations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as implications and interpretations of the Anthropic Principle that borrows from Vedic and Buddhist traditions as well as some western philosophical principles.

It is also not clear to me that intelligence is simply an end point achieved when matter reaches a certain degree of complexity. If intelligence is an integral aspect of the universe, as witnessed by its presence within it, it may serve as an integral ordering and structuring force in the most simple forms of matter and energy. For something to "appear" it must be present in some quantity and quality in the initial state. This is how I see it.

There are also questions as to the nature and direction of time that involve the definition of intelligence. It is certainly possible that intelligence is a pre-existing aspect of the universe, as traditional science has no explanation for what exists beyond the boundaries of the observable universe. At some point, science will probe the conditions that existed before the Big Bang, the boundary conditions of a steady-state universe, and the teleology of the currently observable universe. I’m interested in what may lie just outside of our currently demonstrable, testable, and provable notions – as they appear limited to a degree that they leave no room for the actual instrument that is doing the perceiving, ordering, and structuring of our observations and conceptions – the mind.

__________________
create evolution

rahvin

The problem I have in forumlating a response is that you haven't defined what intelligence is. The central problem with trying to tie intelligence to the universe is that it's entirely dependent on what the definition is and frankly the definition is not well defined. We don't even know what the boundaries and limits of intelligence are to begin defining it as a central function of the universe. We also must be aware of our own prejudice in making the definition as intelligence is not a measurable quantity regardless of what the psychologists would have you believe.

Locobot

When you talk about intelligence existing outside of the laws of Biology or Physics it becomes just as mystical as a god figure.

How would intelligence manifest itself on a lifeless planet? We must be careful to not simply rename concepts of Physics.

Your critique of Empiricism is valid though. Humans aren't at all as accurate in our perceptions as many would believe.

ARTelevision

IMO intelligence operates exactly within the laws of biology and physics. To that extent, it is already within the realm of scientific study, eg. the biochemical and electrochemical nature of thought and mental processes, which are experimentally verifiable and which are plainly demonstrated in digital visualization of brain processes.

I did not state what has been attributed in the above post. I do think, however, that the full scope of intelligence lies beyond current thinking on the subject.

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

rahvin, as I've stated here many times, I prefer dictionary definitions, as they give us a common start point. You will also find commonly accepted definitions of intelligence that are held by the scientific community.

I agree they are not necessarily completely definitive - as we do not fully understand the concept, or what we mean by it - at the moment. This is another use for the thread. I'm open to various definitions as submitted here.

__________________
create evolution

flstf

I know you stated that this thread has nothing to do with evolution but at least on our planet intelligence seems to be the result of natural selection. The smarter creatures survive. It seems to me that intelligence is just a progression from creatures that learn through natural selection to say go south in the winter to being able to do mathmatical calculations.

I don't think it is pre-existing in the universe but rather just another survival development (invention) that life comes up with much like vision or an appendix. Probably the reason our intelligence is so limited that we perceive little about our universe is because it has not been necessary for our survival.

Like Locobot pointed out, you write about intelligence like it is something almost mystical but to me it seems like something life developed to allow us to survive on this planet (at least for a short while). In the grand scheme of things I suspect that we are not very intelligent. I can imagine (hope) that life has evolved some very intelligent creatures somewhere and maybe here in a few million more years.

As I re-read your initial post I can see that I am probably not fully understanding your reason for this thread. But I'll go ahead and post since I took the time to write it, LOL.

ARTelevision

Thanks.
I would say you are talking about degrees of intelligence.
I see it as an inherent property of life, first of all - in its most simple forms to its most complex. I would also extend this to the material world - but I recognize that is a leap - not of faith but a speculative leap.

I'm interested in the notion that intelligence gains complexity but not that it arises de novo as much current science would have us accept. To my way of thinking, that idea is truly mystical...

__________________
create evolution

Locobot

The reason the Empirical scientific method is so elegant is that it allows for theories to be formed for things that are entirely unobservable. We have no proof that extra-terrestial intelligence exists, but we can theorize that it certainly does by extrapolating from Astronomical observation. Without Faith entering in to the picture we can theorize from the number of known solar systems with planets similiar to our own that the probability of intelligent life existing out there is near 100%.

On our own floating lump of rock would you subscribe to a Gaia-type intelligence superstructure governing the structure of life as we know it?

Master_Shake

I think intelligence is a by-product of complexity. It is entirely chemical and biologically based and is simply a by-product of advanced systems arranging themselves into an efficient methodology. The more complex a system the more intelligence it could be said to have.

But it's all moot because the chemistry and biology have already determined our actions.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

ARTelevision

I wouldn't subscribe to anything but what I have already stated here. But I am thoroughly interested in that hypothesis and also the work of Teilhard de Chardin, whose conception of an "Omega Point" of an intelligent universe has always made sense to me.

What I would really like to see is continuing experimentation in such things as plant consciousness, intelligence throughout the animal kingdom, the physiology and psychopharmacology of thought, the cybernetic approach to the universe as information and information processing, and the relationship between consciousness and the material universe.

As it is, I do see much progress being made in these areas - enough to justify a philosophical groundwork being laid for what may eventually rise to the level of an accepted scientific theory. And I see that occurring in the not too distant future.

It isn't here now, and I understand the reasons why it may be inadmissible as "hard science." I would, however, go so far as to predict that the relationship between consciousness/intelligence and the material universe will reach a high level of integration in the science of the future. Hence this, for now, speculative thread.

__________________
create evolution

Charlatan

I am trying to get a grasp on what you mean by intelligence... would that include "self awareness"?

Is this intellgence something that created the Universe? Is the Universe itself an intelligent entity?

Something in me is torn between a clockwork universe and a universe that is ordered by "intelligence". I suppose this partly the perulation of religious ideology to some extent.

Is our need to see intelligence in the universe just another example of anthropomorphism? The need to see ourselves reflected in all things?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ARTelevision

Not necessarily self-consciousness. But I do see that as existing by increasing degrees as a function of complexity. I'd say that rudimentary self-consciousness is an integral aspect of intelligence and that it exists in all things - and is quite discernable in living things. The fact that it is quantifiable in the animal kingdom is not so revolutionary a statement as it once was, for example.

At its most rudimentary level it seems to me to be the actual ordering principle that informs the material and energetic universe. Why do I take that speculative leap? Because as I stated, the notion that something in the universe that is as pervasive as intelligence and consciousness (yes, starting with our assessment of ourselves, of course) can not simply arise de novo if it were not pre-existing in some primitive state. That's the most likely option, as far as I'm concerned. I think what we are dealing with are certain threshold levels of an ordinary property of the universe. The issue as I see it, is ultimately one of redefining the concept because it has been far too anthropomorphized in the past. That is the blinder that is obfuscating our conceptions and what limits our ability to see it operating everywhere.

__________________
create evolution

Lebell

If I understand you correctly, Art, you are speaking of a greater intelligence that underlies the reason that nature exhibits certain complex behavior (which you do not believe is akin to the traditional concept of God).

But from a scientific standpoint, we see complex ordering all the time. Consider the process of crystalization of an amorphous material. Extremely complex structure can form and yet it can be described easily as a function of the atomic structure of the constituent atoms related to their mass, valence shell electrons and so forth. This micro-ordering then becomes apparent in the macro world through shear repetition, again, easily explainable.

Now if you are postulating an actual intelligence of energy that encompasses the known universe, then we can make two statements; this energy either a) knows of intelligent life within its own structure or doesn't. If it does, the question arises, "why hasn't it contacted us?". If it does not, then we can extrapolate that our science will someday find a way to get in touch with it (a la Rendevous with Rama).

But even if it exists and had some part in our creation/existance, we have no current way of knowing past the current mythos, and thus it devolves to a discussion of religion and faith again.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

ARTelevision

Well not really, lebell.

I don't see it as anything but an ordinary property of the universe. Not necessarily different than things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. This is exactly why, for me, it has nothing to do with anything metaphysical, spiritual, or religiously "godlike."

__________________
create evolution

Charlatan

Assuming that the Big Bang Theory is correct (I need to start somewhere) would the Intelligence that is our Universe have grown and matured through experience or did it spring into being fully formed?

If it is the former what effect would the growth of an intelligence have on the Universe as a whole? Could humanity, and life in general, be seen as consequence of this "maturation"?

If, as many scientists believe, the Big Bang is actually one of several Big Bangs that have occured does this Intelligence start anew each time or is it something that is outside of our understanding of reality?

An interesting fiction that engages these questions in a thoughtful and entertaining fashion is Robert Sawyer's Calculating God


The more I spin this around in my head, the more questions and possibilities it raises. To be honsest, I can't say my materialist self is all that comfortable with it.

And just to touch on relgion ever so briefly, it would seem to suggest something more akin to the Bhuddist philosophy than anything else... at least the way it is currently coalescing in my mind.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ARTelevision

I'd say that at its base it is an organizing force that is anti-entropic - and is evidenced by the increasing compexification of whole systems. So that matter/energy has as integral to it, the capacity to complexify. This gives rise - ultimately to self-consciousness, doesn't it?

Again, philosophically, this is an attempt to ground something that is plainly observable and quantifiable (intelligence) in the ordinary state(s) of the universe(s).

__________________
create evolution

rahvin

I'm still not understanding what you are trying to say. Anti-entropic is such a vague and from my perspective wrong thing to say. Afterall entropy is just disorder caused by heat. It's the excess energy that will eventually spell the heat death of the universe as more useful forms of energy eventually convert themselves into the vibrations of atoms we call heat.

The organization that is anti-entropy is really just the lack of energy. I wouldn't call ice intelligent in anyway. From what I've read in this thread you seem to attribute physical phenomenom to intelligence. Such as orignation and intelligence. Would you imply that ice is intelligent? Rocks? DNA? Virii? Bacteria? Mold? Hamsters? Dolphins? Help me try to understand what you are saying more clearly. Where are you drawing your line.

Charlatan

The way I am coming to understand this (and I may be way off) is that it isn't ice, rocks, hamsters, per se that are intelligent... it is *everything* combined that has brought about (and I suppose is brought about by) this "intelligence".

For me this is where it get difficult and the questions of a clockwork Universe starts to make sense.

As for anti-entropic... I'm not sure what art meant.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ARTelevision

No, rahvin. To my mind, there is no satisfactory explanation for the increasing compexification of systems at this time - at least one that is able to overcome the power of the second law of thermodynamics. Hence, there is ample room to speculate that there is a powerful anti-entropic principle at work in the universe. One in which the brute power of heat-death is held in check by a tendency to produce living, thinking beings. I look forward to continued experimental work in this area, don't you?

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

Charlatan, I think we are starting with what we know as "human intelligence" and that's where we are off base. I am not saying something so grand as was implied by lebell. I'm also not saying something so advanced as you state as your understanding of "intelligence." I've endeavored to indicate that it seems to me it is an ordinary aspect of the material and energetic universe - simply an ordering, structuring principle. I don't see any necessary teleology in it, I just see it moving things toward more complexity and ultimately toward life, consciousness, and self-consciousness. It is an attempt to explain where exactly the point is in which matter becomes self-conscious. That this happens is irrefutable. I simply do not see it as magically appearing at a particular instance in time - as if there is no related condition that preceeds it.

__________________
create evolution

martinguerre

i'll second the critique of your use of the 2nd law.

local systems can increase in complexity, with energy input. also, we're coasting off the big bang...a massive scale energy input. Local increases in complexity do not violate the 2nd law, so long as there is a corresponding increase in entropy elsewhere.

For us, the Sun gets more entropic so that we get light energy. The universe expands (getting more entropic), but certain parts of it bump in to each other and get more complex.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

ARTelevision

Shifting frames of reference isn't the final word on the second law. In order to account for the behavior of the entire cosmos, given the second law, cosmological models require positing the existence of "dark matter" which is wholly unobservable and must account for the majority of the matter in the universe. Science is filled with such phantasmagoric conceptions.

Suggesting an anti-entropic principle to account for the complexifiction of things toward life and the ultimate acheivement of concsiousness is not such a long shot as positing the existence of "dark matter" IMO.

__________________
create evolution

Techno

Not much to add to the thread beyond:

http://www.reciprocality.org/Recipro.../r4/index.html

The site deals with the topic you're discussing and the system they present fits together nicely.

__________________
"Don't take any guff from these swine"

rahvin

The second law has conditions that must be met. The first and foremost is that the system must be closed. The earth is not a closed system, in fact the earth is a cooling planet (heat radiation into space is higher than energy input from the sun). A cooling system is one in which entropy is decreasing because there is a net loss of heat occuring. This cooling allows complex chemical arangements to occur naturally and spontaneously. Life is nothing more than a complex chemical arrangment. Intelligence is something yet to be defined but it derives from life.

And you should note that only some of the cosmological models require the existence of dark matter (matter that doesn't emit light). There is no one unified cosmological model, the debate is still out on that subject, and although dark matter seems mystical it really isn't, we know from observation that there is matter in interstellar space (approx 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter).

Pacifier

Why should it?
There is no evidence and no need for a form of "intelligence" in the universe. People are gererally surprised by the comlexety and beauty of physics and the universe, bat that still is no evidence for intelligence.

Sorry, but all that sounds like the usual esoteric gibberish to me.

Why do you thinks that there is the need for some "ordering and structuring force"?
There is a need for a more precisely definition of what you mean with "intelligence"

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

flstf

Techno, that is an interesting read. Below is an excerpt from Carter's article.

The miracle of conciousness in the last paragraph is the big mystery that puzzles me. The author goes on to explain a stochastic cooling, evolutionary path to consciousness but I am not able to completely follow his logic yet.

flstf

Art, I had never heard of the Omega point untill you mentioned it. There is a reasonable explaination in the following link.

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/tiplerian.html

I find Tippler's theory that life will eventually survive even the collapsing universe encouraging.

tiberry

I believe that the "Omega Point" theory you reference is credited to Frank J. Tipler. In addition to the site provided above, see also http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/.

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

Pacifier

There are the Omega Theory by tipler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point

and the theroy of Teilhard de Chardin, who believed (if i read it correctly) in a motivation behind evolution. To me his theory sounds like some sort of ID

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

ARTelevision

Yes Chardin's "Omega Point" theory that I referred to is teleological. He was also a religious person. I am not. I appreciate his notion of a "noosphere." I see it as having some relationship to the realm of the cybernetic and the Internet itself. The development of his thinking on the movement toward increasing anti-entropic organization and higher intelligence is illuminating as well. I would not offer his conception of the universe as my own, however.

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

from Webster's New World Dictionary:

1 a) the ability to learn or understand from experience; ability to acquire and retain knowledge; mental ability b) the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation; use of the faculty of reason in solving problems, directing conduct, etc. effectively
..........................

As is generally understoood, "intelligence" exists in the universe. And it is, therefore, part of the universe.

Most humans, including scientists, think humans have it and they also think humans are a part of the universe.

..."esoteric gibberish" indeed.

........................................

I don't see intelligence as anything necessarily greater or higher than anything. I see it as a basic and ordinary aspect of the universe. I don't see electromagnetism or gravity having any spiritual qualities. I don't see intelligence that way either.

I do see it informing the material universe. That doesn't mean the material universe is necessarily any "smarter" than we are. And as it seems obvious to me that we are not much more intelligent than any other living thing, I wouldn't get all carried away with this. I'm not talking about anything that could in any way - even remotely - be called "god." To me, something like that would be entirely uncalled for.

I'm just trying to account for what intelligence I do see in nature and the world around me and the small spark of it I see in human beings. I don't think it's the sort of thing that just magically arises out of nowhere. So it must be an integral part of the universe - like other very basic and simple things. I certainly wouldn't think it appropriate to create a religion based on electricity, for example. And, likewise, I see nothing even remotely spiritual or esoteric about intelligence.

__________________
create evolution

martinguerre

i think there is a logical leap between observing intelligence, and saying that is a fundamental property of the universe.

if we were not here...would it still be present? that's the million dollar question.

from my standpoint, this seems like a familiar problem. My arguement for the existance of God runs from observation of an instance to inferral of a universal quality. I'm quite aware that it's not logically fool proof...it takes faith.

Seems to me that this is no different.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

ARTelevision

...speculation, at least. That's why this thread is situated in a philosophical context. I am most interested, actually, in the exact point at which the quality called "intelligence" arises in matter. The least contentious way to put this would be at what point within the "ladder of life" science will ultimately ascribe the beginning of consciousness and intelligence.

Let's say it would most probably be somewhere in the animal kingdom. Where exactly? I do appreciate each time intelligence is acknowledged by a scientific journal or report to exist in an animal other than man . That's the kind of thing that I see occurring more frequently. Basically, I see this as a redefinition of the concept away from simply an anthropocentric definition toward a more inclusive one. We've heard, as well, of the attempts to verify the existence of intelligence in the plant kingdom. I also have a natural intellectual curiosity in that.

As this process goes forward, I am - again - most interested in where exactly we will be deciding this quality is acknowledged to initially arise in living things and therefore, in the material world. I see living things as part of the material world. My interest is where and at what point exactly in the material world intelligence arises.

__________________
create evolution

tiberry

Let's see:

A quick search of dictionary.com yields the following relevant definitions:

in·tel·li·gence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.

1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

2. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal.
An individual's relative standing on two quantitative indices, namely measured intelligence, as expressed by an intelligence quotient, and effectiveness of adaptive behavior.

3.The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

This seems to significantly narrow the field of discussion in terms of "universal properties" in that according to these definitions such inherent properties such as gravity, magnetism, the "weak force", etc. should not be construed as signs of intelligence at work. Most only consider those actions that apparently have an "active" component, or an observable effect (whether manifest as a physical interaction or a simple thought) based on a given set of stimuli. Such actions are primarily attributed to "intelligence".

BUT - (good thing this is the philosophy thread!) whose to say that magnetism isn't an "intelligent" reaction to some set of stimuli? Because we are extremely limited in our frame of reference and our preconceived notion that the observable effects of magnetism are an inherent "property" of the universe - how can we be sure that it isn't an INTELLIGENT reaction on the part of some entity (not necessarily a god figure)? Would we say that trees that have evolved the little helicopter seeds an act of intelligence? Why or why not?

Just because we can't from our frame of reference observe the so called "intelligence" at work shouldn't be construed as an absence of intelligence...

I rather like the idea that intelligence is THE single fundemental property of the universe, and that ALL observable phenomena are the direct product of intelligence.

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

ARTelevision

tiberry, me too. And the main reason for that is it acknowledges that we are the (intelligent) agent doing the assessment. To not do that smacks of the fallacy of "objectivity," which "science" aspires to but ought to condition - for precision. Once we are willing to acknowledge this, things may begin to fall into place, IMHO.

__________________
create evolution

zen_tom

Observations have shown that systems can be described in terms of a 'phase-space' where each parameter of the system is laid out as a dimensional axis, and the values of each parameter are used to plot a point in the multi-dimensional phase-space.
When systems are plotted like this, they can easily be described as falling into 3 main classes.
1) Systems that rapidly expand out from their initial parameters - explosions, chain-reactions etc
2) Systems that converge onto a single stable point, or attractor - water flowing down a hill, or a marble at the bottom of a bowl, a spring-wound clock that is allowed to run without re-winding the mechanism.
3) Systems that fall into a stable pattern of motion, normally around one or more attractors

Of the systems that fall into type 3 there are two subtypes
a) Ones that show stable, periodic patterns of behavior
b) Ones that show chaotic yet stable, a periodic patterns of behavior

It is of course this second type that is most interesting and most often found in nature.

Imagine a pile of sand. A grain is dropped onto the top of the pile at a regular interval. Each grain will hit the top of the pile and find a place to rest. If enough grains of sand pile up in some part of the pile, eventually, the pile will give way and a mini-landslide will occur. How does this happen?

The system is organising itself to exist at the edge of chaos. i.e. the system, in attempting to reach an equilibrium must reach a point in its phase space where it's balanced between two opposing attractors. Any further input into the system will cause it to change from a stable state (where each grain of sand is unaffected by the next) to a catastrophic one (where a new grain of sand will disrupt the position of thousands of others) - the system self-organises.

Now this is a bit of a conceptual jump, but if the sand-pile can be thought of as a system of inter-communicating agents (albeit communicating in a very simple manner) it isn't too difficult to take the same set of ideas and transfer them into many other situations. Planets coalescing from dust fragments, self-catalyzing reactions sweeping across planet-surfaces, creating ever more complex chemicals. At some point a group of chemicals becomes complex enough to catalyze a reaction that reproduces themselves from commonly found carbon and oxygen molecules. The set of chemicals - probably a basic set of amino acids - with no or little competition spreads across the face of the earth. Ever more complex forms develop. Why? Because these are all examples of type 3b systems - self-creating, self-organising, self-complexing systems.

I can see the same process being responsible for everything we see around us. Nature seems to create and develop itself. That appears to be what nature does. One of the more recent developments is what we call intelligence. Whether it resides in the bacterium that swims up a chemical gradient towards food, or a computer programmer laying out a set of abstract structures and parameters for a machine to work within - it is matter behaving in complex ways, temporarily (or not) flouting the second law of thermodynamics.

On one hand I can agree with Art and say that intelligence is related, indeed flows from this universal process of self-creation and self-expansion into new realms of complexity. However, I'm uncomfortable in labeling this process as intelligence - it makes it sound like intelligence is not just a random side-effect, as if nature knew what it was going to build from the start. It is part and parcel of the same thing, but it is that thing that I see as being fundamental and intelligence emerging from it, not the other way around.

I'd like to think that the answers to the deepest questions lie in the reasons why the universe seems to prefer these 3b systems, but then if it didn't we wouldn't be able to argue the point here on TFP. The alternatives are a system that explodes itself out of existence, or dies away into nothing, or one that is in a state of perpetual stagnation. A 3b type system is the only one that is capable of keeping itself in existence while generating within it a froth of further complexity. What if we look back to the origins of the universe with this model of existence? What if space, time and matter itself all originate from this same process of auto-increasing complexity?

What if matter evolved from some unbalance in the fundamental fabric of the universe? It would mean that everything we know might spring from this same process of self-complication. It would be pleasing to my mind anyway to think that there is some single, universal process or law that is responsible for life, the universe and everything. All that is required for it to be possible is for there to be some initial imbalance that allowed for a single 3b type system - that imbalance could be tiny, almost infinitesimal - and from there onwards, everything is not only possible, it becomes inevitable.

ARTelevision

zen_tom, good contrib.

I'll tell you what though. In reference to the way positing intelligence as central to all this makes it sound - that it can be misinterpreted as something akin to nature knowing something, etc. - I think it's time we worked to banish the misconceptiions and get to the heart of the matter, here and elsewhere.

Why? Because these misinterpretations are rampant to a degree that people use them to thwart intellectual and - yes - scientific progress on this subject. IMO, once something is essentially pure intellectual pursuit and does exist on the frontier of scientific inquiry, it's time to de-mystify it and work through our prejudices and misconceptions. I see us doing that here in this thread and it inspires me that it is indeed possible to do so.

Thanks to all who've contributed here...

__________________
create evolution

flstf

zen_tom, you have a gift of taking concepts that are difficult for me to comprehend and putting them into words that make sense to me.

If as I have read elsewhere speculation that there was a big bang and the universe will expand then contract back into a singularity, then perhaps it is a type 2 system with a lot of type 3b systems operating within it. Like one huge strange attractor. Or maybe we are out of control and will expand forever (whatever forever means). This type of thinking begins to drive me crazy when I start to speculate what was here before the big bang and the possibility of multiple universes. One can get into an infinite regress.

Do you think that there is a point between the bacterium's intelligence and the human's where self awareness and/or conciousness evolves? Or are these terms just a degree of intelligence and meaningless as far as this discussion goes?

I also find this concept pleasing. However once again I find myself getting into an infinite regress when speculating what was here before the initial imbalance and what was here before that and so on.. There seems to be something fundamental about the nature of our existence that I do not have the ability to comprehend. The terms finite and infinite for instance.

roachboy

nice post, zen-tom.
i have been reading alot of fransesco varela lately, who is one of the folk to lay out a theory of biological autonomy--it is more general than the work on coupled oscillators, which is a fascination of a close comrade, who passes me information when it strikes him as interesting. but i am not terribly comfortable with running out positions on these matters as the discourse is, fundamentally, alien to me.

that said, i wonder if, from a viewpoint not far from your own in the previous post, if the category of intelligence is necessary on other aesthetic grounds.

i wonder still, after reading through this thread a couple of time, chasing links, etc. (many of which have been quite helpful) what exactly it is being adduced to describe: the appearance of order in the world?
from this two problems:

first, how is this approach other a kind of updated neoplatonism? it seems dangerously close from the outset. just wondering. in any event, most of what one might say on the matter would be subject to the kantian critique, which i think i saw someone outline earlier--categories like order----and the various ways in which one can amplify them----are not about the world as such, but rather about particular modes of ordering that world, of evaluating that world, and as such are aesthetic categories, descriptive insofar as they outline a particular relation to features attributed to the world, but not descriptive insofar as the world goes.

let's say, on the other hand, that there can be a description of processes in the world that do not wobble too much under the kantian trick. what i am interested in is implicit in zen-tom's post: thinking biological systems from framework of biological autonomy in general, the matter of coupled oscillators in particular would correspond to a biologically oriented mode of ontological argument, while claims for intelligence as explanation for the appearance of order would be more epistemological.

the difference between the two registers can come down to: the epistemological relation takes what is given as the point of departure, while the ontological relation takes phenomena in the world as functions, and looks more to conditions of possibility. what i wonder about is the extent to which the move to thinking biological systems tends to render questions of intelligence moot (why am i using that word? i dont even like it). another way of asking: to what extent are these approaches opposed trajectories? each looks to push from the observable to conditions of possibility for the observable: it seems that the bio-autonomy approach involves a harder break with the observable than does the imputing of intelligence to patterns that operate in the world. because it is not obvious that the register of conditions of possibility operates within that which is thereby made possible, i wonder about the move to intelligence as category in itself.


interesting thread...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Master_Shake

A great read on this topic is "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. The ending to that short story blew my mind when I was in junior high school, and it's still pretty cool.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.