The Argument "For" and "Against" Creative Intelligence (Human or Divine)

[Willamena]

But there are certain conditions that would make life not even have a chance to adapt to - earth could have been completely lifeles if the conditions were too harsh for evolution to even begin to take place.

But why is that even a "but..."?

There are certain conditions that would not support life, and ones that would. It's not a case of us being lucky, it's a case of us being a product of those conditions.

 

[Willamena]

I am instead pointing out.....
The odds of random life are beyond numbers and chance.
Something Greater compels what life is.

Now... pick a cube, any cube, and marvel that the thing you've picked is a cube. Because it didn't have to be.

But there's a cube...

Go figure.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Bingo.

I mean an unrelated clade of life could possibly get a foot hold, but it'd be an uphill battle. I'm giving you a reason why it's probably never happened.

There's other reasons why life may not have started twice. For one, the early Earth is nothing like it is today. So maybe today doesn't have the right conditions to start life, only support it.

That's what I was thinking too. But many scientists have tried to recreate the event of lifeforms coming into being, based on the best ideas of what early earth was like and what chemicals existed at the time. That doesn't mean it's impossible, my point is that if a conscious being, with a good understanding of the universe, can't do it, it means whatever caused life to exist has to be very precise. If a very intelligent being can't do it on purpose after so many times, it doesn't make sense that it just turned out that way on its own with no guidance.

It's a hypothesis, or an early-stage theory, not an assumption.

Hardly a hypothesis, because we have no way of testing it. And besides, using untested hypotheses to prove a point is silly for obvious reasons.

Assumptions have no basis. Abiogenesis has basis, though not enough to claim certainty, but no one is treating it like it's correct without question.

It's true that we have many general ideas of what made life possible, but it simply can't be redone, at least for now.

What exactly is coincidental about abiogenesis and evolution without God?

I've repeated the answer to this amongst other posts in this thread, perhaps I didn't put it clear enough. In abiogenesis, the conditions were unplanned. We are surrounded by 8 corpse planets in our solar system that have not undergone abiogenesis, the environment on those planets doesn't let it take place. But on earth it does.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But why is that even a "but..."?

There are certain conditions that would not support life, and ones that would. It's not a case of us being lucky, it's a case of us being a product of those conditions.

I get what you're saying. The only reason we are talking about this and not dead is because.. well, if we were never here we simply couldn't have this conversation

All that we know for certain is one condition that allows life to be possible, while we know of a lot more that wouldn't make life possible.

 

[Willamena]

All that we know for certain is one condition that allows life to be possible, while we know of a lot more that wouldn't make life possible.

Are you talking about hydrogen? oxygen? water?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Are you talking about hydrogen? oxygen? water?

I compiled those things as 'one' because we depend on all of them.

 

[Willamena]

I compiled those things as 'one' because we depend on all of them.

I guess I just don't get your argument.

It is what it is.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's fine

It's hardly an argument. We are one of many species, discussing if we are simply a result of an accident or actually were guided to continue life. I see that and can't think it's just chance.

 

[Sapiens]

That's fine

It's hardly an argument. We are one of many species, discussing if we are simply a result of an accident or actually were guided to continue life. I see that and can't think it's just chance.

It is not chance, nobody says that it is chance save those ignorant religionists who have never learned anything about Darwinian Evolution except that its "bad" or "wrong." Chance supplies the raw materials, natural SELECTION provides the plans.

Witness this post from another thread:

I think the most likely answer to be a simple one.

They just don't understand it. Not properly at least.

When I denied Evolution I did so because I didn't really understand it or know much about it, I just kinda denied it on principle. Yes, yes I know how very naive and ignorant of me. But I was told by the media and by people that Evolution was a threat to my beliefs, Only when I finally looked into it myself did I realize that it absolutely was not.

 

[Gambit]

No, that's a complete willful misinterpretation on your part ... but what else is new. Try reading carefully what I wrote.

I will take this as your way of conceding the point.

 

[Sapiens]

I will take this as your way of conceding the point.

You can take anything you want any way you want, you do so anyway in the face of all data and logic. You fool no one, except perhaps yourself.

Just keep repeating to yourself, "Its only a flesh wound, its only a flesh wound."

 

[Ouroboros]

That's what I was thinking too. But many scientists have tried to recreate the event of lifeforms coming into being, based on the best ideas of what early earth was like and what chemicals existed at the time. That doesn't mean it's impossible, my point is that if a conscious being, with a good understanding of the universe, can't do it, it means whatever caused life to exist has to be very precise. If a very intelligent being can't do it on purpose after so many times, it doesn't make sense that it just turned out that way on its own with no guidance.

Rather the opposite. If intelligence can't figure it out, then why is intelligence the answer to how it was figured out?

The reason it had to be precise is because it is precise the conditions for our particular instance of life.

There's nothing that says there can't be other conditions that will produce other life forms. We just don't know enough yet. We assume there isn't because only know about one kind, our kind. If there are life forms out there in space that are total energy and nothing else, would we know? How would we know? How can we find them? How can we recognize them? If they're there but we can't find them, does it mean they don't exist and it can't happen? My point is, the "precise conditions" is only pertaining to our specific conditions. Of course they're precise for us, since it's precisely us we're talking about. Other conditions would have resulted in some other "us" and we'd be sitting here and discussing those "precise" conditions.

I've repeated the answer to this amongst other posts in this thread, perhaps I didn't put it clear enough. In abiogenesis, the conditions were unplanned. We are surrounded by 8 corpse planets in our solar system that have not undergone abiogenesis, the environment on those planets doesn't let it take place. But on earth it does.

Actually, we don't know yet. There might have been life on some of them. There might have been, or even might even now exist microbial life on Mars. We just haven't look everywhere yet. It could exist under the crust. Also, if there was a gaseous based life form on Saturn or Uranus, would we know? The only thing we know is that our specific kind of biological life has to have specific conditions, but life... how can we know what other forms it can take?

If I had a die and rolled a six. Then it was specifically that die, rolled specifically that way, by specifically me, to produce specifically that six at that time. Someone else roll it and get another number, then all conditions were were specifically for that result.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It is not chance, nobody says that it is chance save those ignorant religionists who have never learned anything about Darwinian Evolution except that its "bad" or "wrong." Chance supplies the raw materials, natural SELECTION provides the plans.

Witness this post from another thread:

That's all just semantics. You know what I mean by chance, at least I'd hope so. It is the way things turned out on their own, without conscious guidance.

 

[mainliner]

First, the argument against creative intelligence:

We once thought that the apparent design we see exhibited in biological organisms (e.g. an eyeball) requires the creativity of divine intelligence. But we now know that this is not true. We need only invoke genetic evolution (random variation of genes and natural selection working in tandem) in order to account for the apparent design.

Likewise, we once thought that the apparent design we see exhibited in human artifacts (e.g. a pocket watch) requires the creativity of human intelligence. But we now know that this is not true. We need only invoke memetic evolution (random variation of memes and natural selection working in tandem) in order to account for the apparent design.



Second, the argument for creative intelligence:

The "argument for creative intelligence" is basically the same argument as the "argument against creative intelligence." The only difference is a matter of perspective.

We now understand how human creativity works in the world. It's works by memetic evolution. Likewise we now understand how divine creativity works in the world. It works by genetic evolution.





There is a direct parallel between the two-stage model of free will and biological evolution.

iv no idea about all the sciencey bits but i see this life designed through the eyes of a beautiful young lovin child

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Rather the opposite. If intelligence can't figure it out, then why is intelligence the answer to how it was figured out?

It's not the same intelligence. Nature knows that in order for life to occur, the conditions must be set as X. Nature, as one large organism itself, knows itself better than we do for we're merely part of it. Nature knows what it needs to do to become alive and thus does whatever it does so that life can happen.

The reason it had to be precise is because it is precise the conditions for our particular instance of life.

It had to be precise for life in general, not just one particular instance of life. But the formation of life and the continuation of life.

There's nothing that says there can't be other conditions that will produce other life forms. We just don't know enough yet. We assume there isn't because only know about one kind, our kind. If there are life forms out there in space that are total energy and nothing else, would we know? How would we know? How can we find them? How can we recognize them? If they're there but we can't find them, does it mean they don't exist and it can't happen? My point is, the "precise conditions" is only pertaining to our specific conditions. Of course they're precise for us, since it's precisely us we're talking about. Other conditions would have resulted in some other "us" and we'd be sitting here and discussing those "precise" conditions.

I never said that there is only one set of conditions that can make life, only that there is only one that we know of.

Actually, we don't know yet. There might have been life on some of them. There might have been, or even might even now exist microbial life on Mars. We just haven't look everywhere yet. It could exist under the crust. Also, if there was a gaseous based life form on Saturn or Uranus, would we know? The only thing we know is that our specific kind of biological life has to have specific conditions, but life... how can we know what other forms it can take?

Yes, we don't know. So it cannot be said that they did.

If I had a die and rolled a six. Then it was specifically that die, rolled specifically that way, by specifically me, to produce specifically that six at that time. Someone else roll it and get another number, then all conditions were were specifically for that result.

Hard determinism. I agree. If I may respectively ask; What is your point?

 

[Sapiens]

What is being missed here is that the origin of life likely was not in a single flash of a hocus-pocus moment, no life one second,:then, bang, life is here.

Life evolved, we have examples of self replicating compounds and things like prions and creatures like viruses all of which could fit neatly into a line of ascent from unliving chemicals to live organisms. Given the possibly hundreds, thousands or even more intermediates that may have been involved, the idea that continuously changing environmental conditions and the exact path that was followed, will never be reproduced in a laboratory and the only thing that might lead on to expect that it could is the "magic wand" hypothesis of the origin of life.

 

[Sapiens]

That's all just semantics. You know what I mean by chance, at least I'd hope so. It is the way things turned out on their own, without conscious guidance.

No! This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of your not understanding that there are other ways to "overcome chance" than through the application of conscious guidance. Is the path that a river or lava flow takes a matter of chance? Clearly not, it is a matter of the topography that it flows over. Just as such fluids exist in a three dimensional world with a limited number of independent deterministic variables of differing weight (e.g., fluid supply, gravity, wind, etc.) and some stochasticity (e.g., temperature, viscosity, barriers, etc.) thrown in on top, organisms exist in what we call their niche. The simple definition for niche is the organisms' job. In a more technical sense the niche is described as an n-dimensional hyper-volume measured across n-resource states. In much the same way that the independent and stochastic effects define the way that water and lava flow over the surface of the land, independent and stochastic terms define the specifics of the changes in shape and direction of flow of the n-dimensional volume, the niche, that describes the organism. The exact shape and direction is defined by the interaction of the totality of the environment with the potentials of the organisms' genome. This is hardly a matter of "chance."

 

[Ouroboros]

Hard determinism. I agree. If I may respectively ask; What is your point?

Exploring ideas and thoughts. By going through and presenting different thoughts about it, I learn and can see different viewpoints.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No! This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of your not understanding that there are other ways to "overcome chance" than through the application of conscious guidance. Is the path that a river or lava flow takes a matter of chance? Clearly not, it is a matter of the topography that it flows over. Just as such fluids exist in a three dimensional world with a limited number of independent deterministic variables of differing weight (e.g., fluid supply, gravity, wind, etc.) and some stochasticity (e.g., temperature, viscosity, barriers, etc.) thrown in on top, organisms exist in what we call their niche. The simple definition for niche is the organisms' job. In a more technical sense the nice is described as an n-dimensional hyper-volume measured across n-resource states. In much the same way that the independent and stochastic effects define the way that water and lava flow over the surface of the land, independent and stochastic terms define the specifics of the changes in shape and direction of flow of the n-dimensional volume, the nice, that describes the organism. The exact shape and direction is defined by the interaction of the totality of the environment with the potentials of the organisms' genome. This is hardly a matter of "chance."

One can say it is chance that a river ends up at a specific area, but not that the flow is just by chance. The way I am using chance (and it is proper, just not how it is commonly used to mean the roll of the dice) is something that happens but not on purpose.

 

[Sapiens]

One can say it is chance that a river ends up at a specific area, but not that the flow is just by chance. The way I am using chance (and it is proper, just not how it is commonly used to mean the roll of the dice) is something that happens but not on purpose.

So, then I take it you now understand that my argument is a real one whilst yours is based on a very specific but "not how it is commonly used" meaning?

I am happy to gift you the use of the word "chance" for the rest of this conversation, what word would you like me to use in its place?

Let me provide this for you to save us some time (cribbed from Dr. Daniel R. Brooks)

For some, Darwinian/neo-Darwinian processes involve the following elements:

(1) mathematically randomly produced variation in the smallest elements of biological systems,

(2) such variation produced in an incremental manner (their version of gradualism),

(3) each incremental variant necessarily being functional and also functionally superior to the previous version,

(4) environmental selection (which they equated with natural selection) being the only organizing force in the process.

Simply put, the take on this caricature is that there has not been enough time for random variation on such a small scale to be designed by natural selection into the well-designed, machine-like perfection that is claimed to be seen today.

Is that where you're headed?