Is Intelligence Natural Or Super Natural?

[PrimalMinister]

When scientists talk about things being 'natural' do they consider intelligence natural or supernatural?

[Sensei]

Scientists don't talk/think much about "supernatural" things.. don't you think so?

Some said, "I think, therefore I am"..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

If artificial intelligence and/or cyborg and/or robot and/or computer program says so.. what do you think about his/her/its statement.. ?

Is artificial intelligence "natural" or "supernatural" ?

Edited December 4, 2020 by Sensei

[swansont]

Supernatural is not part of the premise in science.

[PrimalMinister]

But intelligence is part of nature and reality? It is natural?

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But intelligence is part of nature and reality? It is natural?

Are you part of nature and do you have intelligence?

[PrimalMinister]

Why is intelligent design unnatural?

[joigus]

Average brain size grew in the past, among other things to accommodate the relational cortex, the capacity for prediction of events in the prefrontal cortex. Cultural expressions developed in sophistication and changed in manner, the adequacy of people to respond to challenges also developed. Intelligence evolves as a response to the challenges of the environment. This is not a matter of opinion. There is a record of it in the fossils, and in the tools that our ancestors left behind, and in the change of the environment that they induced. Intelligence is proven to be a part of Nature.

Intelligence is a product of evolution. What else could it be? There is no supernatural, pretty much for the same reason that there is no under-natural, or co-natural, or parallel to natural, or perpendicular to it. Everything is natural. "Supernatural" is just a silly word, like "over-possible".

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Why is intelligent design unnatural?

Have you found any?

[PrimalMinister]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Intelligence is a product of evolution.

So the laws of nature came first and then intelligence emerges out of that?

[joigus]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

So the laws of nature came first and then intelligence emerges out of that?

For three billion years there was not much more than cyanobacteria ruling the Earth. Cyanobacteria are not capable of much thinking. So my bet would be yes, intelligence emerged, or evolved.

Whether the laws of Nature were always there is another matter, much more difficult to answer.

[PrimalMinister]

The thing is, for something to become actual, it must first exist as potential. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so.

This means that intelligence existed as potential before it came actual so the moment the universe began it contained with in it intelligence.

So intelligence has existed from the beginning. Even if you start with nothing, this nothing is something, the potential to be something.

These means that intelligence must have always existed.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The thing is, for something to become actual, it must first exist as potential. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so.

This means that intelligence existed as potential before it came actual so the moment the universe began it contained with in it intelligence.

So intelligence has existed from the beginning. Even if you start with nothing, this nothing is something, the potential to be something.

These means that intelligence must have always existed.

Sounds like an argument you would get from someone in primary school.

[PrimalMinister]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sounds like an argument you would get from someone in primary school.

Explain?

[zapatos]

It doesn't mean anything.

It isn't science.

It isn't even a good argument.

It's like saying A=B, and B=C, so A=C, without bothering to define what A, B and C are. And then to tell this little story in a thread about whether or not intelligence is supernatural. It is navel gazing. 

[Phi for All]

I think you're talking about intelligence in general, but want to apply the argument specifically to human intelligence, which is far from normal or general. When you then switch gears to Intelligent Design, I sense you're arguing in bad faith.

ID is an attempt to teach the Christian bible in US schools alongside science. There is no trustworthy science added to the curriculum. 

The high degree of intelligence present in (most) humans is due to many factors coming together to favor such. It had much more to do with cooking our food than with worshipping sky spirits.

 

[PrimalMinister]

I am not a Christian. I am just interested in peoples view of intelligence.

Just point out where I am going wrong and take it one stage at a time.

Am I am right or wrong with this statement?

For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.

 

 

 

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.

It was a potential with mammals millions of years ago. The Homo lineage came from that, and resulted in us.

If you're looking for ID in nature, there are better places to look. Like the fine tuned elementary particles, and the cell's ability to reproduce itself. Those two things are great mysteries, how they came to be.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.

 

wrong

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.

Poor reasoning. Potential is defined as being capable of existence WHILE NOT YET BEING IN EXISTENCE. Nothing "exists" as potential.

[QuantumT]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

wrong

He's right, but making a poor job explaining it.

Before there could be stars, there had to be atoms, and before that a big bang.

Everything can be traced back to a more primitive state with potential for the next step.

Edited December 5, 2020 by QuantumT

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

He's right, but making a poor job explaining it.

Before there could be stars, there had to be atoms, and before that a big bang.

Everything can be traced back to a more primitive state with potential for the next step.

No, he's not, and I pointed out both places where he's using sloppy definitions to make his argument seem worthy. Nothing exists as potential. Potential requires that it doesn't exist yet. 

30 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

If you're looking for ID in nature, there are better places to look. Like the fine tuned elementary particles, and the cell's ability to reproduce itself. Those two things are great mysteries, how they came to be.

You're wrong here, as well. There is NOTHING in nature that can't be explained without an intelligent designer.

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

You're wrong here, as well. There is NOTHING in nature that can't be explained without an intelligent designer.

I didn't imply that they required ID. I just said it's a better place to make the argument.

[Phi for All]

Just now, QuantumT said:

I didn't imply that they required ID. I just said it's a better place to make the argument.

The Religion section is a better place to make the argument. Evolution isn't magic.

[PrimalMinister]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

wrong

If its wrong, explain how something that does not have the potential to come into being, come into being? How does that work?

 

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

If its wrong, explain how something that does not have the potential to come into being, come into being? How does that work?

 

 

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Poor reasoning. Potential is defined as being capable of existence WHILE NOT YET BEING IN EXISTENCE. Nothing "exists" as potential.