Just a Question

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

[Dobermonster]

I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

[Dobermonster]

I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility. In other words, it's not a good argument.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I'm not presuming intelligence. I'm looking at a cosmos that is ordered at its core.  What we call chaos is only apparent - there is an underlying self-organizing principle that brings order out of this apparent chaos.  It is at the foundation of evolution and natural selection - an ordering process that leads, over a long time, to even greater organization, such as a thinking, conscious human brain. I'm simply noting the similarities between this and our own intelligence. We organize thoughts, put things together, and come up with something rational and logical. We bring order out of chaos with our own intelligence. That mirrors, somewhat, the processes that we see in the development of the universe. I'm not presuming that intelligence is there - I'm simply noting that the order we see could suggest it, and I see no reason to assume that it is not there, or that its absence is more probable than not.  That's why I think starting out at 50-50 on the issue of possible underlying intelligence is a reasonable position.

[Dobermonster]

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I'm not presuming intelligence. I'm looking at a cosmos that is ordered at its core.  What we call chaos is only apparent - there is an underlying self-organizing principle that brings order out of this apparent chaos.  It is at the foundation of evolution and natural selection - an ordering process that leads, over a long time, to even greater organization, such as a thinking, conscious human brain. I'm simply noting the similarities between this and our own intelligence. We organize thoughts, put things together, and come up with something rational and logical. We bring order out of chaos with our own intelligence. That mirrors, somewhat, the processes that we see in the development of the universe. I'm not presuming that intelligence is there - I'm simply noting that the order we see could suggest it, and I see no reason to assume that it is not there, or that its absence is more probable than not.  That's why I think starting out at 50-50 on the issue of possible underlying intelligence is a reasonable position.

Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

[Whitney]

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I'm not presuming intelligence. I'm looking at a cosmos that is ordered at its core.  What we call chaos is only apparent - there is an underlying self-organizing principle that brings order out of this apparent chaos.  It is at the foundation of evolution and natural selection - an ordering process that leads, over a long time, to even greater organization, such as a thinking, conscious human brain. I'm simply noting the similarities between this and our own intelligence. We organize thoughts, put things together, and come up with something rational and logical. We bring order out of chaos with our own intelligence. That mirrors, somewhat, the processes that we see in the development of the universe. I'm not presuming that intelligence is there - I'm simply noting that the order we see could suggest it, and I see no reason to assume that it is not there, or that its absence is more probable than not.  That's why I think starting out at 50-50 on the issue of possible underlying intelligence is a reasonable position.

I'd actually not protest the 50-50 if we are talking about a deist sort of god....but that's only 50-50 in the agnostic sense of not being able to know.  Is that what you are getting at?  Since I started really thinking about it, I thought that if a deist god were true we wouldn't be able to know anyway so I take the apatheist position towards it (don't believe and don't particularly care).  It would be interesting to know one way or the other but if we could know it would no longer be a deist god; and so our not knowing is why I default to nonbelief.  Plus, there is always that ancient alien as god theory if we were to confirm a creator god of this sort...and that's just one of many possible alternatives to 'god' in this situation that my sci-fi loving brain can think of

[Asmodean]

A seriously advanced race of aliens... How seriously would they have to be advanced to be able to qualify to gods?

[Egor]

I would guess at more than a billion of each. Looking on the internet, Wikipedia states there are around 2 billion Christians and around 1.5 billion Muslims, but I suspect the trues figures won't be that high, as they seem to be including a lot of non-religious people as Christians if their numbers for the UK are anything to go by. And I think they're all wrong, but to be fair, given the stark difference in beliefs, at least half of them have to be wrong!

So....I've answered your question, your turn to answer my question, with a simple answer not another pointless question. How many Veridicans are there in the world?

2

[Stevil]

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.

I am going with 99.99999999% for unintelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me in a reasonable way how it is possible to have intelligence without the following:
- information
- data transformation rules
- a physical data processing system
- data
- physical system observing measurable attributes of some physical substance or force
- physical substance or force with measurable attributes
- time
- space

[The Magic Pudding]

Human 1) Oh so many stars, life and death, oceans and deserts how did this all come to be?
Priest) God did it.
Human 1) Of course he did, jolly jolly, no more questions for me.
Priest) Bless you human 1) for asking the question and finding the truth, you're so special.

Human 2) WTF?

[Ali]

I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

I think that the idea of an underlying intelligence complicates things infinitely, because now we have a being so powerful that it can "order" the universe to it's whims to account for.  Where did that intelligence come from?  We have a hard enough time accounting for how we came to be, let alone how a god would have come to be. 

[Stevil]

Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

Thing is, they are taught to believe in tails, they are taught that this is a belief and can never be expected to be proven. That belief is not only a desirable and cherished trait but unbelief will be punished with eternal torture.

It is not that god works in mysterious way, it is that god works in natural ways, as if there wasn't a god. Deceitful and tricky huh?

[Whitney]

I think that the idea of an underlying intelligence complicates things infinitely

Definitely. 

A lot of theists seem to think that the idea of god offers a very simple explanation to the universe; but it just adds another layer of mystery.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

I think that the idea of an underlying intelligence complicates things infinitely, because now we have a being so powerful that it can "order" the universe to it's whims to account for.  Where did that intelligence come from? 

We don't know where anything came from.  I simply suggesting that the nature of the cosmos suggests that whatever that origin, it is intelligent.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'd actually not protest the 50-50 if we are talking about a deist sort of god....but that's only 50-50 in the agnostic sense of not being able to know.  Is that what you are getting at? 

I'm not placing any limitations on what the nature of that intelligence would be, because, as you note, we don't know.  It may be deist or it may be something else. For purposes of this discussion, I'm not assuming anything, only that intelligence is suggested as an equal possibility.