A philosophical investigation into the nature and role of intelligence in the cosmos - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

flstf · 12-20-2004, 12:18 PM

Thanks Master_Shake, that was an interesting short story. I was going to buy the book but found it on the following link:http://www.maddad.org/asimov01.htm

From the above link by Isaac Asimov:

Quote:

This is by far my favorite story of all those I have written.

After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you.

It is a curious fact that innumerable readers have asked me if I wrote this story. They seem never to remember the title of the story or (for sure) the author, except for the vague thought it might be me. But, of course, they never forget the story itself especially the ending. The idea seems to drown out everything -- and I'm satisfied that it should.

ARTelevision · 12-20-2004, 12:34 PM

Good story. I think speculation of this sort is WAY beyond the scope of this thread - remember, I'm just looking for some very simple start points that we may come to some agreements on here. The new thread started by Lebell:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=79042

...seems more suited to speculation upon the vastness of possibilities that may ensue from these small beginnings....

Yakk · 12-20-2004, 12:36 PM

It is my opinion that emergent properties are more important than most people are willing to give them credit for.

Russell observed that all of logic was a string of Tautologies.

The Church-Turing thesis can be viewed to claim that algorithms are thought, and the Turing Machine thus covers thought.

Newtonian gravity is simple, but even 3 bodies can't be solved.

One of the strongest laws of physics, enthropy, can be reduced to the effects of pure mathematical statistics. In other words, enthropy could be viewed as the statement 'more likely things are more likely to happen, and unlikely things are less likely to happen'.

Dispite the fact that every true statement in logic is, at some level, as trivial as 'a chicken is a chicken', the complicated dressing around it changes it from meaninglessness to a quite powerful mode of expression. The Church-Turing thesis collapses in the Turing Tar-pit: while every computational tool is equivalent, they really aren't the same.

Emergent properties matter, in a way that is almost beyond ken.

Was the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem somehow already in the mind of the first person who built logic? The proof is, in some way, an inevitable consequence of the laws of logic: but, it actually is content.

Some would say that a sculpture exists within the block of granite, and the artist just chips away at what doesn't belong -- but, until the artist is there, the scupture isn't.

Intelligence in the universe, in my mind, seems more like the sculpture within the boulder, or the proof within the topography of logic. It comes from the rock or the axioms, but it isn't there until it is. The scupture isn't there until you cut off the rock, and the proof isn't there until you write it down.

Intelligence appearing doesn't mean that it is part of the essence of the universe any more than a sculpture appearing means that the sculpture was part of the essence of the rock.

The universe is a 'sufficiently complex' spot, and when you have spots of sufficient complexity, interesting things happen. I strongly suspect that intelligence is just one of those interesting things.

We see a universe that seems suited for intelligence, not nessicarilly because the universe demands the existance of intelligence, but because we couldn't see it unless it was. We demand a universe that suits intelligence, in order to be.

edit: spelling

rahvin · 12-21-2004, 02:03 PM

Without stepping into that mine field called intelligent design. I believe what is being said here is that the universe appears to exist in such a manner that orginization and in particular life is a given. Carl Sagan said this very thing 30 years ago when he produced the Cosmos series for PBS. The universes very physical laws and constraints seem to make life inevitable. Some have postulated that this is the creation aspect of our universe. In fact a fairly famous or infamous athiest has recently come out and said this.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

I believe that a good portion of this discussion is about this, is the universe "designed" to bring about life and intelligence. From what we observe of physical laws and constraints current theories tend to answer this as a yes. Myself I don't attribute this to magical sky wizards but I can't deny that we are incapable of answering this. With recent discoveries that there is insufficient dark matter to allow for a recollapse of the universe into a singularity thus making the big bang a one shot deal this even strengthens the arguments of those aruging for creation (in the non xian/jew/muslim way)

Master_Shake · 12-22-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

The universe is a 'sufficiently complex' spot, and when you have spots of sufficient complexity, interesting things happen. I strongly suspect that intelligence is just one of those interesting things.

Word.

Quote:

as traditional science has no explanation for what exists beyond the boundaries of the observable universe.

In addition to the uncertainty principle, which you mentioned, I seem to vaguely recall another scientific principle which posited that the subject of a system can measure and explore the internal mechanisms of the system but will be unable to determine anything greater than the system without access to external data. Kind of like the mouse in a maze being unable to know that it is in a maze without viewing the maze externally.

This may mean that such questions cannot be answered at this time.

Quote:

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.

Not necessarily, it may be the combination of two or more factors. For example, water is not present when hydrogen ad oxygen are separate. It is only when these two elements are combined that water appears.

Similarly, intelligence does not appear without the preceding requirements, organization of enzymes, evolutionary forces, etc..

That there may be more than one way to reach intelligence, just as there may be more than one way to create water, is another possibility.

Quote:

It is also not clear to me that intelligence is simply an end point achieved when matter reaches a certain degree of complexity.

It's probably not an end point but rather a sliding scale. For example, we are probably more intelligent than dolphins, which are more intelligent than rats, which are more intelligent than cockroaches, which are more intelligent than roses, which are more intelligent than rocks.

I agree that intelligence doesn't mirror complexity, and it would be brash to say they are absolutely connected, but I think there clearly is some connection.

I think what's really interesting is looking at the intelligence of species rather than of individuals. All of humanity has an intelligence that is made up of a whole bunch of little parts. Yet it can act as a group, much the same way cells of an organism act together for whatever reason. That the component parts of such an organism are so complex in the human species as to confer some limited intelligence on each part is also interesting.

I also question the notion that there is something special about life or intelligence. That we generally see life or intelligence as special comes from our entirely biased point of view. We'd like to think that we're more important than a giraffe or a rock, but are we reallY?

What is it that makes life or intelligence special?

Effect on environment: Does a city of people really have a greater effect on the environment than an exploding volcanoe?

What other methods could there be of measuring intelligence?

ARTelevision · 12-22-2004, 04:37 PM

I totally agree with the "sliding scale" notion.

That opens up the entire question and all of its implications. This has always been my intention - no more, no less.

Thanks.

martinguerre · 12-23-2004, 12:32 AM

sliding scale why?

if you take apart a lawn mower...is it a sliding scale of lawn mowerness?

or parts?

i quite fail to see how a theory of emergant properties requires that:

Quote:

For something to "appear" it must be present in some quantity and quality in the initial state.

For water to appear, you don't need little tiny water thingys. you need hydrogen and oxygen. niether act like water until combined...

tecoyah · 12-23-2004, 05:20 AM

Fascinating discussion.
I myself, am of the opinion that the Human quest for answers, creates the perception of intellegence as we know it. That is not to say we truly have the intellect, combined or otherwise, to accept the answers before us. As far as the inevitable nature of life in this universe, I do feel as if the energy patterns in this particular incarnation of the cosmos (given the likelyhood of multiple dimentions) are designed to produce life as we know it. That said, I find it equally likely that OUR perception of life/intellegence is limited by the very nature of our physical structure, and until the next phase of our evolution(Mental) we will likely not be capable of answering the fundamental questions this thread creates.
Intellegent design, from my limited understanding of it, seems to have Valid points, but a vague nature that creates the gray area that instills confusion and distaste to those who are used to the scientific method. The Big Bang theory is just that, A theory, and splendid in its ability to change with new Data, as do all scientific theories. Even the so called "Laws" of physics are subject to modification as we expand the base of knowledge , and tweak the reality we percieve.

Guess my short reply would be:

I simply do not know who/what created the universe........the Joy comes in attempting to find out.

Master_Shake · 12-23-2004, 05:24 AM

Quote:

if you take apart a lawn mower...is it a sliding scale of lawn mowerness?

Intelligence isn't a single point though, some people are more intelligent than others, for example: Stephen Hawking is more intelligent than I am.

And even lawnmowers aren't as clear cut as you make them out to be. Sure, both a non-electric push mower and the latest and greatest Ride-along Mower 3000 with mulching-action and fertilizer-mix are both lawn mowers, but one does a better job than the other (the 3000 is cleaner, quicker, easier, more jobs done at once, etc.)They seem to have more differences than similarities, yet we call them both lawnmowers. Any object that mows lawns can qualify as a lawn mower, so there may not be a sliding scale of lawnmowerness, but there certainly is a sliding scale of efficiency in mowing lawns, or cleanliness, or ease, or whatever.

ARTelevision · 12-23-2004, 06:37 AM

For me, the sliding-scale analogy operates on the level of whole systems, not parts.

It is pinioned on the assertion/evidence that intelligence (based, of course, on a "scientific" definition) is verifiable in other beings besides humans. This has been demonstrated sufficiently already as far as I am concerned. That is the sliding scale I'm talking about. The crucial questions will be answered as we refine our definitiion of this quality away from simple anthropocentrism and toward one that does not ignore the clear evidence (IMO) that intelligence exists outside of homo sapiens.

Once this is generally established, I will be satisfied for quite some time simply asking the question "Where and how exactly in the material world does this quality (of mind) arise?"

martinguerre · 12-23-2004, 09:01 AM

yeah....and some lawnmowers are better than others. that i get. but it's a sliding scale, after reaching a certain level of complexity and assembly of other parts. there is a point of dissasembly at which the collection of parts ceases to function as a lawnmower...no matter what kind of lawnmower it started as.

sans brain or nervous system, i don't see the scale continuing. i'm perfectly fine seeing intelligence in other life forms. but the fabric of the universe? i remain skeptical.

ARTelevision · 12-23-2004, 10:32 AM

Skepticism is good.

Right, a brain/nervous system would be along there on the scale and would even be considered a threshold for most thinkers these days, I imagine.

As for myself, I'm interested in pushing beyond that threshold and considering the phenomena of tropisms exhibited by all life forms as signs of intelligence. The imposition of behavioristic interpretations of living systems has systematically blinded us to even investigating aspects of consciousness until recently. And that is the main impediment, IMO.

Investigating and speculating on the nature of self-preservational impuses (tropisms) in plant and animal species seems to me to be an excellent path to pursue here. A tropism may be seen as an "intelligent" response to environmental and internal necessity.

12-23-2004, 01:15 PM

The problem with the notion of tropism is that it can be difficult to judge an intelligent response from an unintelligent one. I'd say that for something to be a tropism, there has to be something that is done that would not normally be done that either benefits the preservation/replication of the object performing the action, or one of its fellows.
Otherwise, we might imagine intelligence and motive in all manner of situations.
e.g.
Rocks prefer to lie at the bottom of hills, and have evolved to erode into rounded shapes that easily roll down slopes.

ARTelevision · 12-23-2004, 01:40 PM

Tropism as it relates to evolved life forms does indicate a self-survival behavior. I'm using the term as it applies to the life sciences.

I have some ideas how I'd pursue the roots of tropism back toward "non-living" matter. But for now, I'm staying with the biological definition.

martinguerre · 12-23-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by art

I have some ideas how I'd pursue the roots of tropism back toward "non-living" matter.

that's precisely the point where you really lose me. i can see the debate for simpler forms of life, at what point does reflex become intelligence.

ARTelevision · 12-23-2004, 04:40 PM

For me, that is a fine enough point to linger upon for a while. We'll be around for some time yet and the results of investigating these ideas should be fascinating. I do think the discussion so far has cleared up a lot of things.

I'd be very happy if, in my lifetime, our comprehension of "intelligence" moved sufficiently away from anthropocentrism for us to see it operating in the "simpler" forms of life. I could really get behind a cause like that.

Master_Shake · 12-24-2004, 08:30 PM

I don't think its unreasonable to recognize intelligence in other, perhaps simpler, forms of life. But what does that recognition get us? Does that mean we have to treat intelligent things in a certain way?

ARTelevision · 12-24-2004, 09:40 PM

That would be your call, totally.

This isn't a morality or ethics thread at all - as far as I'm concerned...

12-20-2004, 12:34 PM	#42 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Good story. I think speculation of this sort is WAY beyond the scope of this thread - remember, I'm just looking for some very simple start points that we may come to some agreements on here. The new thread started by Lebell: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=79042 ...seems more suited to speculation upon the vastness of possibilities that may ensue from these small beginnings.... __________________ create evolution

12-20-2004, 12:36 PM	#43 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	It is my opinion that emergent properties are more important than most people are willing to give them credit for. Russell observed that all of logic was a string of Tautologies. The Church-Turing thesis can be viewed to claim that algorithms are thought, and the Turing Machine thus covers thought. Newtonian gravity is simple, but even 3 bodies can't be solved. One of the strongest laws of physics, enthropy, can be reduced to the effects of pure mathematical statistics. In other words, enthropy could be viewed as the statement 'more likely things are more likely to happen, and unlikely things are less likely to happen'. Dispite the fact that every true statement in logic is, at some level, as trivial as 'a chicken is a chicken', the complicated dressing around it changes it from meaninglessness to a quite powerful mode of expression. The Church-Turing thesis collapses in the Turing Tar-pit: while every computational tool is equivalent, they really aren't the same. Emergent properties matter, in a way that is almost beyond ken. Was the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem somehow already in the mind of the first person who built logic? The proof is, in some way, an inevitable consequence of the laws of logic: but, it actually is content. Some would say that a sculpture exists within the block of granite, and the artist just chips away at what doesn't belong -- but, until the artist is there, the scupture isn't. Intelligence in the universe, in my mind, seems more like the sculpture within the boulder, or the proof within the topography of logic. It comes from the rock or the axioms, but it isn't there until it is. The scupture isn't there until you cut off the rock, and the proof isn't there until you write it down. Intelligence appearing doesn't mean that it is part of the essence of the universe any more than a sculpture appearing means that the sculpture was part of the essence of the rock. The universe is a 'sufficiently complex' spot, and when you have spots of sufficient complexity, interesting things happen. I strongly suspect that intelligence is just one of those interesting things. We see a universe that seems suited for intelligence, not nessicarilly because the universe demands the existance of intelligence, but because we couldn't see it unless it was. We demand a universe that suits intelligence, in order to be. edit: spelling __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. Last edited by Yakk; 12-20-2004 at 12:53 PM..

12-21-2004, 02:03 PM	#44 (permalink)
rahvin Upright	Life... Without stepping into that mine field called intelligent design. I believe what is being said here is that the universe appears to exist in such a manner that orginization and in particular life is a given. Carl Sagan said this very thing 30 years ago when he produced the Cosmos series for PBS. The universes very physical laws and constraints seem to make life inevitable. Some have postulated that this is the creation aspect of our universe. In fact a fairly famous or infamous athiest has recently come out and said this. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 I believe that a good portion of this discussion is about this, is the universe "designed" to bring about life and intelligence. From what we observe of physical laws and constraints current theories tend to answer this as a yes. Myself I don't attribute this to magical sky wizards but I can't deny that we are incapable of answering this. With recent discoveries that there is insufficient dark matter to allow for a recollapse of the universe into a singularity thus making the big bang a one shot deal this even strengthens the arguments of those aruging for creation (in the non xian/jew/muslim way)

12-22-2004, 04:37 PM	#46 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I totally agree with the "sliding scale" notion. That opens up the entire question and all of its implications. This has always been my intention - no more, no less. Thanks. __________________ create evolution

12-23-2004, 05:20 AM	#48 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Fascinating discussion. I myself, am of the opinion that the Human quest for answers, creates the perception of intellegence as we know it. That is not to say we truly have the intellect, combined or otherwise, to accept the answers before us. As far as the inevitable nature of life in this universe, I do feel as if the energy patterns in this particular incarnation of the cosmos (given the likelyhood of multiple dimentions) are designed to produce life as we know it. That said, I find it equally likely that OUR perception of life/intellegence is limited by the very nature of our physical structure, and until the next phase of our evolution(Mental) we will likely not be capable of answering the fundamental questions this thread creates. Intellegent design, from my limited understanding of it, seems to have Valid points, but a vague nature that creates the gray area that instills confusion and distaste to those who are used to the scientific method. The Big Bang theory is just that, A theory, and splendid in its ability to change with new Data, as do all scientific theories. Even the so called "Laws" of physics are subject to modification as we expand the base of knowledge , and tweak the reality we percieve. Guess my short reply would be: I simply do not know who/what created the universe........the Joy comes in attempting to find out. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

12-23-2004, 06:37 AM	#50 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	For me, the sliding-scale analogy operates on the level of whole systems, not parts. It is pinioned on the assertion/evidence that intelligence (based, of course, on a "scientific" definition) is verifiable in other beings besides humans. This has been demonstrated sufficiently already as far as I am concerned. That is the sliding scale I'm talking about. The crucial questions will be answered as we refine our definitiion of this quality away from simple anthropocentrism and toward one that does not ignore the clear evidence (IMO) that intelligence exists outside of homo sapiens. Once this is generally established, I will be satisfied for quite some time simply asking the question "Where and how exactly in the material world does this quality (of mind) arise?" __________________ create evolution

12-23-2004, 09:01 AM	#51 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	yeah....and some lawnmowers are better than others. that i get. but it's a sliding scale, after reaching a certain level of complexity and assembly of other parts. there is a point of dissasembly at which the collection of parts ceases to function as a lawnmower...no matter what kind of lawnmower it started as. sans brain or nervous system, i don't see the scale continuing. i'm perfectly fine seeing intelligence in other life forms. but the fabric of the universe? i remain skeptical. __________________ 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 Last edited by martinguerre; 12-23-2004 at 09:12 AM..

12-23-2004, 10:32 AM	#52 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Skepticism is good. Right, a brain/nervous system would be along there on the scale and would even be considered a threshold for most thinkers these days, I imagine. As for myself, I'm interested in pushing beyond that threshold and considering the phenomena of tropisms exhibited by all life forms as signs of intelligence. The imposition of behavioristic interpretations of living systems has systematically blinded us to even investigating aspects of consciousness until recently. And that is the main impediment, IMO. Investigating and speculating on the nature of self-preservational impuses (tropisms) in plant and animal species seems to me to be an excellent path to pursue here. A tropism may be seen as an "intelligent" response to environmental and internal necessity. __________________ create evolution

12-23-2004, 01:15 PM	#53 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	The problem with the notion of tropism is that it can be difficult to judge an intelligent response from an unintelligent one. I'd say that for something to be a tropism, there has to be something that is done that would not normally be done that either benefits the preservation/replication of the object performing the action, or one of its fellows. Otherwise, we might imagine intelligence and motive in all manner of situations. e.g. Rocks prefer to lie at the bottom of hills, and have evolved to erode into rounded shapes that easily roll down slopes.

12-23-2004, 01:40 PM	#54 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Tropism as it relates to evolved life forms does indicate a self-survival behavior. I'm using the term as it applies to the life sciences. I have some ideas how I'd pursue the roots of tropism back toward "non-living" matter. But for now, I'm staying with the biological definition. __________________ create evolution

12-23-2004, 04:40 PM	#56 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	For me, that is a fine enough point to linger upon for a while. We'll be around for some time yet and the results of investigating these ideas should be fascinating. I do think the discussion so far has cleared up a lot of things. I'd be very happy if, in my lifetime, our comprehension of "intelligence" moved sufficiently away from anthropocentrism for us to see it operating in the "simpler" forms of life. I could really get behind a cause like that. __________________ create evolution

12-24-2004, 08:30 PM	#57 (permalink)
Master_Shake Addict Location: Pennsylvania, USA	I don't think its unreasonable to recognize intelligence in other, perhaps simpler, forms of life. But what does that recognition get us? Does that mean we have to treat intelligent things in a certain way? __________________ ------------- 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.

12-24-2004, 09:40 PM	#58 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	That would be your call, totally. This isn't a morality or ethics thread at all - as far as I'm concerned... __________________ create evolution