• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How long did it take for intelligence to exist in the universe?

idav

Being
Premium Member
We have sent a lot of spacecraft out. You know that was not what I was talking about. The rover gets its signals from earth. So your saying "metal" by itself is intelligent?
Yeah just sayin. It might come back all super intelligent.
Both are certainly possible. But again no proof as of yet. Even if the earth was seeded by say organics from, things still evolved a basic nervous system around 550 million years ago here on earth.
What are the odds for life with the amount of planets out in the cosmos? We know that the necessary ingredients for life do not require what we consider hospitable and one thing we consider necessary, water, is one of the most abundant molecules in the universe.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I agree, there is a very high major possiblity other life is out there. Some probably based on Carbon like us and perhaps some based on silicon as well. And maybe even some we have no idea about. But all we know now is life on earth and intelligence and higher intlleigence requires a nervous system and as that becomes more advanced incorporates along with it, a higher conciousness.
 

blackout

Violet.
Are we assuming then, for some reason,
that we are the only intelligent life forms
existing as a part of this universe?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I agree, there is a very high major possiblity other life is out there. Some probably based on Carbon like us and perhaps some based on silicon as well. And maybe even some we have no idea about. But all we know now is life on earth and intelligence and higher intlleigence requires a nervous system and as that becomes more advanced incorporates along with it, a higher conciousness.
I still don't see why a nervous system is necessary. All that is necessary is a system that communicates which can be at microscopic levels.
Are we assuming then, for some reason,
that we are the only intelligent life forms
existing as a part of this universe?
I don't see how that would be possible. There are over 10 sextillion stars which makes for trillions of possible earth type planets.

I'm also interested in the term "intelligent life". If life exists I'd say intelligence definitely exists. Higher intelligence is another thing though.

edit: forgot to mention that 10 sextillion stars is a the very moderate guesstimation.
 
Last edited:

garrydons

Member
Sorry to say I find the question vague. What do you mean by Intelligence? An Intelligence possessed by someone? Or just intelligence alone existing by itself.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Sorry to say I find the question vague. What do you mean by Intelligence? An Intelligence possessed by someone? Or just intelligence alone existing by itself.
Post 5 gives some options. I think anything that can process data and produce a response is intelligent.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Yeah just sayin. It might come back all super intelligent.

What are the odds for life with the amount of planets out in the cosmos? We know that the necessary ingredients for life do not require what we consider hospitable and one thing we consider necessary, water, is one of the most abundant molecules in the universe.

"Yeah just sayin. It might come back all super intelligent."

You have ben watching Star trek. An Voyager.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I still don't see why a nervous system is necessary. All that is necessary is a system that communicates which can be at microscopic levels.

I don't see how that would be possible. There are over 10 sextillion stars which makes for trillions of possible earth type planets.

I'm also interested in the term "intelligent life". If life exists I'd say intelligence definitely exists. Higher intelligence is another thing though.

edit: forgot to mention that 10 sextillion stars is a the very moderate guesstimation.


"I still don't see why a nervous system is necessary"

Because without it the organism is not "self aware" and have higher intelligence and higher brain functions.

A lot of microscopic communication is for survival and a chemical and electrical reactions. This is setting the bar pretty low for "intelligence"

As I pointed out earlier insects have a type of basis nervous system. The more complex the central nervous system is the higher the intelligence is, even down to specialized brain cells. Which is what we see in the animal kingdom and why were at the top of the food chain.

Its a fact we don't know of any life out there yet. I think we will find it however. If we found aliens more intelligent then us, that might not be a good thing though for us perhaps.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
How long did it take for intelligence to exist in the universe?

[smartarse,snippy,too-cool-for-the-room response]

Intelligence exists in the Universe?

[/smartarse,snippy,too-cool-for-the-room response]
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Because without it the organism is not "self aware" and have higher intelligence and higher brain functions.
You don't need higher intelligence. It could just be lower intelligence.

A lot of microscopic communication is for survival and a chemical and electrical reactions. This is setting the bar pretty low for "intelligence"
Communication is key and the first step in being able to understand anything around you.
As I pointed out earlier insects have a type of basis nervous system. The more complex the central nervous system is the higher the intelligence is, even down to specialized brain cells. Which is what we see in the animal kingdom and why were at the top of the food chain.
Right so there are different degrees. At what point in the animal kingdom is intelligence just beginning.
Its a fact we don't know of any life out there yet. I think we will find it however. If we found aliens more intelligent then us, that might not be a good thing though for us perhaps.
I agree but I feel the odds are in favor of life being out there. If something is highly probable it is believable. If they were more intelligent hopefully they have better manners than us.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Intelligence existed before the universe and the physical universe (with all its levels and dimensions) is the creation of that intelligence.

The main difference between theists and atheists can be distilled to:

Atheheists: The Physical is primary and consiousness is created by the physical

Theists: Consciousness is primary and the physical is created by consciouness.

In Hinduism, Brahman (conciousness) alone is real and the rest is Maya (illusion we believe to be real). Our core is the eternal Brahman (atma) but the unrealized man only believes the illusion to be real.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Intelligence existed before the universe and the physical universe (with all its levels and dimensions) is the creation of that intelligence.

The main difference between theists and atheists can be distilled to:

Atheheists: The Physical is primary and consiousness is created by the physical

Theists: Consciousness is primary and the physical is created by consciouness.

In Hinduism, Brahman (conciousness) alone is real and the rest is Maya (illusion we believe to be real). Our core is the eternal Brahman (atma) but the unrealized man only believes the illusion to be real.
I can agree with a lot of this. Kinda goes along with the theory of the universe being a quantum computer.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Intelligence existed before the universe and the physical universe (with all its levels and dimensions) is the creation of that intelligence.

The main difference between theists and atheists can be distilled to:

Atheheists: The Physical is primary and consiousness is created by the physical

Theists: Consciousness is primary and the physical is created by consciouness.

In Hinduism, Brahman (conciousness) alone is real and the rest is Maya (illusion we believe to be real). Our core is the eternal Brahman (atma) but the unrealized man only believes the illusion to be real.


Intelligence existed before the universe and the physical universe

"Intelligence existed before the universe"

Its possible, however there is no proof of this AT ALL and its back to "god did it" Then choose whatever god you believe in did it. This is faith not science.

This has nothing to do with Atheist or Theists.

It has to do with science itself.

Man's physical conciousness is why there are so many religions.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Intelligence existed before the universe and the physical universe

"Intelligence existed before the universe"

Its possible, however there is no proof of this AT ALL and its back to "god did it" Then choose whatever god you believe in did it. This is faith not science.

This has nothing to do with Atheist or Theists.

It has to do with science itself.

Man's physical conciousness is why there are so many religions.


As far as the 'there is no proof of this at all' repIy, I would agree. I feel now that after centuries of debate there is certainly no PROOF for or against the idea that intelligence created the universe. If there was a PROOF then all intelligent people would believe the same thing.

I think we have to retire the word 'PROOF' from this discussion and we have to discuss what is the most reasonable belief given the totality of the evidence available to us humans. I personally believe intelligence created the universe not because of faith but because I concluded that it is the most reasonable explanation. Why I believe it is the most reasonable belief could go on for threads and threads but my main reason is the consistant and impressive testimony of the great spiritual masters and mystics that unite temporarily with super-consciousness beyond the physical.

As far as 'what god did it', there is only one universe and one God. Don't let the multiple religions throw you, there is only one religion and that is the religion of love. Mankind as a whole is still in its early stage of spiritual enlightenment and the apparent multiplicity of religions and gods is because of different historical and cultural conditions. As spiritual enlightment increases the difference between these religions will shrink until they are all basically one.



I
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
As far as the 'there is no proof of this at all' repIy, I would agree. I feel now that after centuries of debate there is certainly no PROOF for or against the idea that intelligence created the universe. If there was a PROOF then all intelligent people would believe the same thing.

I think we have to retire the word 'PROOF' from this discussion and we have to discuss what is the most reasonable belief given the totality of the evidence available to us humans. I personally believe intelligence created the universe not because of faith but because I concluded that it is the most reasonable explanation. Why I believe it is the most reasonable belief could go on for threads and threads but my main reason is the consistant and impressive testimony of the great spiritual masters and mystics that unite temporarily with super-consciousness beyond the physical.

As far as 'what god did it', there is only one universe and one God. Don't let the multiple religions throw you, there is only one religion and that is the religion of love. Mankind as a whole is still in its early stage of spiritual enlightenment and the apparent multiplicity of religions and gods is because of different historical and cultural conditions. As spiritual enlightment increases the difference between these religions will shrink until they are all basically one.



I


Hey, I am agnostic and don't believe in any organized religions.


"As far as 'what god did it', there is only one universe and one God."

This is what they all say.

"that is the religion of love."

Love is a good and needed thing, however its also chemically the same as doing cocaine and Oxytocin and dopamine. That is why it makes you feel high.

Loving with all your ... brain

"
Dr. Brown said scientists believe that when you fall in love, the ventral tegmental floods the caudate with dopamine. The caudate then sends signals for more dopamine.
"The more dopamine you get, the more of a high you feel," Dr. Brown says.
Or as her colleague, Dr. Helen Fisher put it: When you fall in love, "exactly the same system becomes active as when you take cocaine. You can feel intense elation when you're in love. You can feel intense elation when you're high on cocaine."

Loving with all your ... brain - CNN

How Love Hormones Work: Oxytocin Increases Intimacy & Bonding, Eases Psychological Disorders

Oxytocin is a brain chemical that mediates social behavior, which is why it’s sometimes called the “love hormone.” Oxytocin is released when mothers and babies first bond; it’s also present in intense emotional states. Oxytocin increases intimacy and bonding in sexual relationships.

How Love Hormones Work
Oxytocin is known as a love hormone because it goes beyond the mother-child connection to bonding in intimate relationships. Oxytocin is released during hugging and intimate touch; it also plays a strong role in sexual relationships.
“It’s said that the eyes are the window to the soul…they certainly are the window to the emotional brain,” said Dr Kai MacDonald. “We know that the eye-to-eye communication — which is affected by oxytocin — is critical to intimate emotional communication for all kind of emotions – love, fear, trust, anxiety.”
Oxytocin is a love hormone because it helps people bond in relationships, set up appropriate psychological boundaries, and maintain intimate relationships.

Search | Suite101.com k


Which is why I personally believe some drug addict's who quit drugs find the same high with religion.


"I think we have to retire the word 'PROOF' from this discussion and we have to discuss what is the most reasonable belief given the totality of the evidence available to us humans."

I don't think so. We could just say we don't know at this time and not make things personally up to fit our beliefs

we took a picture of the afterglow of the big bang, before any stars or glaxies existed.

wmap.jpg




We might be on the verge as well as finding possible multiverses. We could find all kinds of life in the universe all with some kind of their own personal religions or some not at all. Or some that might even have the answers. One thing for sure, superstition in religions has been shown to be a problem. Like the earth is fixed on its axis example. Thankfully, Galileo didn't retire the word 'PROOF' and we made a huge leap in understanding. Or hubble who discovered it wasn't just the milkyway but 100 of billions of galaxies.

"beyond the physical." is supernatural and we honestly don't know of anything supernatural except in our own heads we make up because we don't have the answers, so its a tendency of humans to fill in the gaps. Its either physical and natural or doesn't exist that we know of if were honest. Things labeled supernatural in the past had totally natural explanations later down the line. In fact millions of innocent people have been killed because of others beliefs in the supernatural. Where is the love in that fact.

I am with you on the "spiritual enlightment" however in so much as we are made out of star dust and were as much a part of the universe as anything else in it. I think you can draw from the universe positive and negative energy from it and that is our choice.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Here is my reply to Shawn001's last post. I tried to include his original post but the system wouldn't let me saying I don't have enough posts to include url's. I tried removing Shawn001's url's but it still wouldn't let me.

Well, I appreciate your responding to my post. As you would naturally expect, I feel the need to defend my criticized
positions.

You first mention that you are agnostic and belong to no organized religion. I also belong to no organized religion but I
believe in the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (non-Dualism) because I have concluded it contains the highest level of
spiritual and metaphysical knowledge the human mind can articulate.

You then speak critically of my saying 'there is only one god' by saying 'that's what they all say'. In Advaitan
philosophy everything is ultimately God so your original question 'what god did it' makes no sense in my philosophy.

Next you discussed love and positive brain-biochemistry suggesting that's the appeal of religion. Well I'm not talking
about a euphoric type of love when I say the 'religion of love' is the only religion. I am talking about brotherly-love
that is just part and parcel of a philosophy that believes we are all one.

You also state that since we have no proofs then we should just say we don't know. It would impoverish the human
intellect if we could not take all the evidence and argumentation, consider it dispassionately, and espouse an opinion on all kinds of subjects.

Best wishes and I know this thread will not resolve all issues. Thanks again for responding.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Here is my reply to Shawn001's last post. I tried to include his original post but the system wouldn't let me saying I don't have enough posts to include url's. I tried removing Shawn001's url's but it still wouldn't let me.

Well, I appreciate your responding to my post. As you would naturally expect, I feel the need to defend my criticized
positions.

You first mention that you are agnostic and belong to no organized religion. I also belong to no organized religion but I
believe in the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (non-Dualism) because I have concluded it contains the highest level of
spiritual and metaphysical knowledge the human mind can articulate.

You then speak critically of my saying 'there is only one god' by saying 'that's what they all say'. In Advaitan
philosophy everything is ultimately God so your original question 'what god did it' makes no sense in my philosophy.

Next you discussed love and positive brain-biochemistry suggesting that's the appeal of religion. Well I'm not talking
about a euphoric type of love when I say the 'religion of love' is the only religion. I am talking about brotherly-love
that is just part and parcel of a philosophy that believes we are all one.

You also state that since we have no proofs then we should just say we don't know. It would impoverish the human
intellect if we could not take all the evidence and argumentation, consider it dispassionately, and espouse an opinion on all kinds of subjects.

Best wishes and I know this thread will not resolve all issues. Thanks again for responding.

It sounds like Pandeism.


But Advaitan philosophy is based on Hindu philosophy, yes?

All love, brotherly or otherwise is of course chemical and electrical reactions.

"because I have concluded it contains the highest level of
spiritual and metaphysical knowledge the human mind can articulate."

You have concluded for yourself.

"spiritual and metaphysical knowledge the human mind can articulate"

What would those be?

What about mathematics?

"
You also state that since we have no proofs then we should just say we don't know. It would impoverish the human
intellect if we could not take all the evidence and argumentation, consider it dispassionately, and espouse an opinion on all kinds of subjects"

I don't understand what your saying here at all.

Nothing wrong with saying I or we don't know when I or we don't know. Which is why there is science and research and why things we thought had supernatural orgins, turned out they had a natural explanation. Again millions of people have been killed because people "had concluded" they were right and then killed others for their beliefs or soemtimes just innocent bystanders.

There is a difference of course on sitting around philosophizing about the universe and hard science.

Could say,Edward Hubble using philosophy alone figure out that there were 100 of billions of galaxies as opposed to just the milkway we could observe at the time, without looking through a telescope and making the discovery there were 100 of billions of galaxies?
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
Intelligence may be a very rare commodity even on a galactic scale. Just because "we" are intelligent doesn't mean intelligence is common. It's kind of like hitting the lottery, if you are the winner, it may seem like winniing was easy, whereas in reality, winning the lottery has a 1 in 170,000,000 likelilhood. WE cannot assume inteligence is common until we obtain evidence confirming that it is.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
When you go inside and find out that there is no self, no "I", no time, no space, no causation, but only pure consciousness itself, then there is no-thing to contain or limit that consciousness. You see that it has always existed in this eternal present moment, and that it is the consciousness of the universe itself. It did not exist before or after anything. It never 'came into being', since it has always been. It is outside of history and memory. It is Absolute.

"Before Abraham was, I Am."
Yeshu

"....that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

So how long did it take for intelligence to exist in the universe? No time at all....no time at all.

'The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Swami Vivikenanda
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
Yes. It's just computation after all, and matter can compute just fine.

Someday, Poly, someone is going to snatch your computational apparatus, with which you have been thoroughly hypnotized, away from you. Perhaps THEN you'll begin to actually SEE something!, LOL!:D
 
Top