Is Intelligence Natural Or Super Natural?

[PrimalMinister]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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

So are you saying that potential doesnt exist?

If my reasoning is flawed I am receptive to modifying my understanding, maybe you can enlighten me?

[Sensei]

You have empty tape, empty diskette, empty hard drive, empty pendrive. It can be filled by meaningful (or meaningless) data. Does it mean it has potential to become making sense? From initial zeroes? Which were at the beginning of existence of pendrive/HD/CD/whatever..

 

Piece of wood has "potential" to be state-of-art.. if somebody turns it to become paper, then draw something on it..

 

Piece of rock has "potential" to be space rocket, if somebody extracts precious metal atoms from it, melt it, and use in the rocket..

 

Your smartphone and PC have potential to become self-aware and start thinking more extensively than you ever imagined..

 

Hydrogen has "potential" to be Helium..

 

..and Helium has "potential" to be Carbon..

 

..and Carbon has "potential" to be Oxygen.. (inside of star or particle accelerator)

 

and so on, so on..

 

 

 

... empty piece of paper has "potential" to be filled by meaningful, senseful data..

 

 

...we/you should start from the definition of "potential"..

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Sensei

[PrimalMinister]

Well the dictionary defines potential as:

latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.

If we then look up the word latent we find:

existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed.

So according to the meaning of words potential does exist prior to become manifest.

Also, logically, something MUST exist as potential before it can become actual because something that does not have the potential to come into being, cant.

 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Why is intelligent design unnatural?

Where was it established that it is?

13 hours 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.

Having the potential to be something is NOT the same as that thing existing. This is a fallacious argument 

If I flip a coin, it could potentially land heads or tails. If it lands heads, you cannot validly insist that it landed tails, much less that it was tails even before the coin existed.

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

So are you saying that potential doesnt exist?

If my reasoning is flawed I am receptive to modifying my understanding, maybe you can enlighten me?

Your reasoning is flawed. "Nothing exists as potential" was the statement, and you obviously have no argument against such a basic definition, so you CHANGED THE ARGUMENT into "Potential doesn't exist", which is ridiculous. This is a classic Strawman fallacy. You can't refute the original statement, so you build a man of straw who is much easier to knock down. 

Now is the time for you to be receptive to modifying your understanding. Are you willing to be enlightened, or are you going to shrug this off? How do you expect to learn with this kind of behavior? I predict (based on observation) that you won't concede even this basic point, but will instead insist on forcing us to accept the sloppy definition of potential you've adopted to make your argument work.

[PrimalMinister]

Nothing exists as potential.

This statement is correct, nothing does in fact exist as potential, that it what nothing is, pure potential than cannot only be something, it can be anything.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

pure potential

What exactly is "pure potential"? As opposed to, say, impure potential? Can you hand me some potential?

[PrimalMinister]

The dictionary definitions we could use to describe pure is:

without any extraneous and unnecessary elements.

or maybe

involving or containing nothing else but

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Nothing exists as potential.

20 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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

You asked us to take this one step at a time, beginning with refuting that something must exist first as potential before it can become actual. We even persuaded you to agree that nothing exists as potential because "potential" is defined as NOT existing yet. Failing the first step means we're done, no?

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

This statement is correct, nothing does in fact exist as potential, that it what nothing is, pure potential than cannot only be something, it can be anything.

Adding "pure potential" to your argument is also fallacious. You're both moving the goalposts so your field goal scores, and you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy to make a non-existent distinction. 

 

[PrimalMinister]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Your reasoning is flawed. "Nothing exists as potential" was the statement, and you obviously have no argument against such a basic definition, so you CHANGED THE ARGUMENT into "Potential doesn't exist", which is ridiculous. This is a classic Strawman fallacy. You can't refute the original statement, so you build a man of straw who is much easier to knock down. 

Now is the time for you to be receptive to modifying your understanding. Are you willing to be enlightened, or are you going to shrug this off? How do you expect to learn with this kind of behavior? I predict (based on observation) that you won't concede even this basic point, but will instead insist on forcing us to accept the sloppy definition of potential you've adopted to make your argument work.

I wasnt arguing with you, I was trying to understand your perspective, so the idea that I was throwing up a strawman is a nonsense result of your zealotry.

 

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Adding "pure potential" to your argument is also fallacious. You're both moving the goalposts so your field goal scores, and you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy to make a non-existent distinction. 

Again, I am not trying to argue with you. If you think this is an argument it is not, its really funny how the western mind breaks things downs into different things and argue about them. The western mind seems to be oblivious to the more subtle side of reality, the sublime side, is because it is too subliminal?

 

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by PrimalMinister

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I wasnt arguing with you, I was trying to understand your perspective, so the idea that I was throwing up a strawman is a nonsense result of your zealotry.

You were posing this argument below:

21 hours 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.

Your failure to recognize the Strawman argument I laid out in black and white shows some bad faith going on. Your resistance to reason seems forced, as if you have no intention of being persuaded off your position. That's not discussion, not if I can't possibly show you where you're wrong in a way you will accept. You should start a blog somewhere if you don't want dissenting views.

[PrimalMinister]

I am not resistance to reasoning, its just that yours is unclear to me so I am trying to clarify it.

For instance, the statement:

Nothing exists as potential.

Is ambigious and can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Nothing (can posssibly) exist as potential.

2. Nothing (does in fact) exist as potential.

So before we start arguing about stuff, lets start with what we agree on.

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am not resistance to reasoning, its just that yours is unclear to me so I am trying to clarify it.

What was unclear about my pointing out the fallacious logic you've used? I made sure to explain them carefully. I even used actual quotes from you, broke them down to show you exactly what I meant. Please, please tell me what was unclear? 

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Nothing exists as potential.

Is ambigious and can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Nothing (can posssibly) exist as potential.

2. Nothing (does in fact) exist as potential.

So before we start arguing about stuff, lets start with what we agree on.

Both those interpretations are correct. Since the definition of potential requires that the thing in question not exist YET, then nothing can possibly exist as potential, and in fact, nothing does exist as potential. 

I'm glad we can agree on this. Your earlier assertion that intelligence must exist first as potential is false, and since your title question was answered early on, is this discussion done? Unless you torture the definition of potential to fit your argument, I think this line of thought is unproductive.

[PrimalMinister]

Ok, I am not understanding this critical point.

You seem to be saying to me, or this is what I am hearing, that things that dont have the potential to come into being CAN come into being? How does that work?

From the dictionary, the authority on the meaning of words and the basis of my understanding, we could define potential as:

latent qualities

Latent is defined as:

existing but not yet manifest

So if potential is latent it exists prior to its existance.

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by PrimalMinister

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, I am not understanding this critical point.

You seem to be saying to me, or this is what I am hearing, that things that dont have the potential to come into being CAN come into being? How does that work?

 

Where has anybody brought up things that don’t have potential to come into being? (Except you)

52 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

From the dictionary, the authority on the meaning of words and the basis of my understanding, we could define potential as:

latent qualities

Latent is defined as:

existing but not yet manifest

So if potential is latent it exists prior to its existance.

 

Argument by dictionary is not particularly satisfying. It lacks the context of the discussion. It’s a reason science tends to use equations and math.

You would have intelligence existing before any beings capable of having intelligence. Which leads to a contradiction, meaning your premise is false.

 

 

 

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

involving or containing nothing else but

So no sand or excess commas.

[PrimalMinister]

In this video, Richard Dawkins, a leading light in biology says one should remain humble and open minded. However, actions speak louder than words and despite preaching humilty and openess he is in fact arrogant and close minded. This is a serious problem amongst scientists, it hubris. Some of the people on this forum are suffering from the same thing.

Please explain to me how potential does not exist prior to manfesting is some form or another. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so, leaving the only other option, that something must exist as potential prior to becoming actual.

This doesnt make any sense:

Since the definition of potential requires that the thing in question not exist YET, then nothing can possibly exist as potential, and in fact, nothing does exist as potential. 

Please elaborate.

Edited December 6, 2020 by PrimalMinister

[John Cuthber]

On 12/5/2020 at 12:04 AM, 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.

That's just wrong.

A pile of bricks (etc) has the potential to become a house.

But that does not mean that it was a house.
 

Consider the island of Surtsey.
it's new - the result of a volcano in 1963.

There are no houses on it, and there never have been.
If I put a stack of bricks, cement etc on it there would be a potential house on Surtsey.

But that would not mean that there had ever been an actual house there, would it?

 

And , in the same way, just because the cyanobacteria on Earth  a few billion years ago had the potential to evolve into intelligent life, that does not mean that there was an intelligence there.

Do you now understand that your view was wrong?

[PrimalMinister]

So the pile of bricks that has the potential to become a house only has two possible outcomes, they become a house or they dont, they manfest as a house or they dont, regardless of what actually happens the potential is still there whether it is realised or not.

Its like being at a cross roads, you have the potential to go down any path, the potential exists there in front of you.

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So the pile of bricks that has the potential to become a house only has two possible outcomes, they become a house or they dont, they manfest as a house or they dont, regardless of what actually happens the potential is still there whether it is realised or not.

Its like being at a cross roads, you have the potential to go down any path, the potential exists there in front of you.

 

As I see it, this lengthy argument about the meaning of 'potential and subsequently 'latent' comes down to the fact that both have a range of meanings.

Problems arise when someone wants to transfer one of these meanings from the circumstances it meant in to another where that meaning might be inappropriate.

The pile of bricks is a good example to consider so using this let us examine it further.

First distinction is the most obvious distinction that a pile of bricks cannot spontaneously become a house by itself.
That process requires external intervention.

We all know that sadly and to our cost a virus can indeed accomplish the feat of becoming something else by itself.

Back to our pile of bricks.
Does the clay the bricks are made of have the potential to become a house because it can be made into bricks ?
What about London clay v fletton clay ?

Fletton clay contains enough primitive organic matter that, once heated, the firing process will continue and it will spontaneously trun into brick material
London clay does not, it requires external firing material.

Back to our bricks again.
Again with the help of an agent they can display an 'emergent' phenomenon.
They can be arranged into an arch, which has capability of being self supporting.
They can even self organise themselves into an arch if thrown into the air and allowed to fall back randomly, although the probability of this particular configuration resulting is very very small.

Yet again back to our bricks, now built somehow into a house.
The building may have a defect (not inherent in the bricks themselves, but in the external building process) where the cavity is badly bridged by mortar droppings.
This is called a latent defect since it only becomes apparent after years of deterioration resulting from the damp transmission in the mortar bridges.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

57 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

the potential is still there

Nobody has disputed that.

But the house is not.

Similarly, the potential for intelligence is there in pond scum, but intelligence is not there.

So, you were wrong to say "These means that intelligence must have always existed."

 

[PrimalMinister]

27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, you were wrong to say "These means that intelligence must have always existed."

Ok, but its not wrong to say that intelligence has always existed as potential at least.

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, but its not wrong to say that intelligence has always existed as potential at least.

That is true, but almost meaningless.

It's the same as saying "Anything that could happen could happen". It's true, but it doesn't tell you anything.

[PrimalMinister]

Well scientists give me the impression from their philosophy that the universe, incredible as it is, is just a meaningless cosmic accident and any appearance of design is just a delusion of our primitive human mind.

Now I have tried to discuss how the universe and reality (the universe and reality are not the same thing, they are two distinct entities) can be reduced to a unit of polymorphic spacetime but instead of creating a warm and inviting enviroment in which to nuture a serious discussion you have basically attacked me. I will be honest with you, the big bang just doesnt make an sense and doesnt represent knowledge in the truest sense of the word because there are far to many unknowns.

Now if I am right about the universe being composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime the consequences are very interesting. For example, it essentially explains the whole of physical reality except for one thing, the creation of stars. Now Stephen Wolfram is very close to realising what I have already done so, its only a matter of time until he does. Thus while you may think I am some crank, its going to be harder to call Stephen Wolfram a crank when he finally works it all out.

Now I will apologise if I have been brash but the truth of the matter is that there is not much empathy around today, people really dont attempt to look through someones eyes and see their perpsective.

 

I am a Taoist philosopher and polymath. I have several philosophical works in progress including:

 

- Turning To God - The Universal Universe

This is a framework for a theory of everything based on the idea the universe is composed entirely of microscopic units of polymorphic spacetime.

- In Tune With Intelligence - A Global Strategy

This is about the nature of consciousness and strong artificial intelligence.

- Alien Economics - A Cashless Society

This looks at the economy in the age of digital currency.

 

I am also the head of three organisations.

 

The first is a very ancient martial arts school with its roots in China and I have what would be considered in academic circles (its not quite the same) a PhD in the science of martial arts. This martial arts school has remained hidden for thousands of years but I am going to make it public in the form of The Synthesis Academy. The aim of The Synthesis Academy is to become the worlds first university dedicated to the science of martial arts.

The second organisation is a political party called The Provident Party. The Provident Party is a new global political movement to combat divisive forces and bring people together in a final push for world peace to honour the sacrifice of prior generations that have given their everything so that we may live in the way that we do. The Provident Party is hoping to take the world by storm with a bold, striking, brilliant plan to end war and hunger creating nothing less than a paradise on earth. Its ultimate objective is to ensure every child on the planet has food in their stomachs, knowledge in their minds, and courage in their hearts.

The third organisation is part of The Provident Party's vision for a big society and is a bank formed as a social enterprise. Its aim is to become the largest bank in the world in five years time.

I looked at your profiles but all I can find is your occupations so I know little about you but I thought it might be worth trying to give you some insight into my perspective on reality.

 

[Bufofrog]

42 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well scientists give me the impression from their philosophy that the universe, incredible as it is, is just a meaningless cosmic accident and any appearance of design is just a delusion of our primitive human mind.

That sounds about right to me.  However, many scientists are religious and they would probably disagree with that.

58 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Now I have tried to discuss how the universe and reality (the universe and reality are not the same thing, they are two distinct entities) can be reduced to a unit of polymorphic spacetime but instead of creating a warm and inviting enviroment in which to nuture a serious discussion you have basically attacked me.

Warm and inviting is not how science works with new ideas.

No one is attacking you, your ideas are being challenged (attacked).

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I will be honest with you, the big bang just doesnt make an sense and doesnt represent knowledge in the truest sense of the word because there are far to many unknowns.

See, you are challenging the idea of a big bang, you are not attacking me.