Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

If you really want to research this topic Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman's entire website is
really quite fascinating.


http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Third Book/Creation of life.htm

The Creation of Life: Organisms Flourish in Thermal Vents Deep Beneath the Sea

When he gets into Wave Theory he presents a powerful case that intelligence would almost certainly arise naturally due to the behavior patterns of the fundamental or nearly fundamental energies.


http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Third Book/CoriolisForce.htm

Infinite universe

The continuum of creation and evolution (live cycles)

Wave theory – United nature theory-Theory of everything.

Tejman Chaim, Henry Dr.

 

And you would be rather arrogant to make a statement of certainty, where there is no certainty. You gave an opinion, as if it were fact. You see the same with theists and atheists. Your science just became a religion. Your belief depends upon the assumption that materialism is true. It may be, but it may not be. And it is beyond the ability of science to determine it. For science cannot stand outside, which is the only way to know for sure. To me the simplest explanation is my signature. But never would I declare certainty. Those that do always leave me scratching my old bald head. How can they do that, I always ask myself. Do these people have anything but a very limited knowledge to work with? How can certainty be mined from such a limited knowledge? Well, it cannot. But one quality of the ego is intellectual arrogance, which is tied at the waist to ignorance. The first does not arise without the second.

 

What's fascinating about a heap of pseudo-scientific claptrap?

 

I agree. This is why scientists actually make tentative statements about things that are not thoroughly understood and proven and beyond all reasonable doubt. We can be certain about the effects of gravity in a familiar situation, for instance, but we can't be so certain about how gravity works. We can be certain about evolution to an extent, whether it's the basic process or the observable reality of it on Earth as it pertains to life here, but we can't be so certain about life's origins and full evolutionary history, because data is increasingly lacking so far in the past, and virtually non-existent when we get back to its very beginnings because of a total lack of fossil evidence surviving to modern times from so long ago due to plate tectonics.

Now, when it comes to consciousness and intelligence, one thing science is so far able to do is reject dualistic hypotheses of mind, that is, the notion that mind exists separately from the body (the nervous system especially, and the brain most especially). All investigation is consistent with the mind being a product of the brain. Where certainty is not possible is in understanding the intricacies of how this process works, of how thought works and how the brain achieves consciousness. Indeed, much about the function of the brain remains mysterious, I think primarily because of the sheer complexity of it, from its long list of electrical and chemical agents and processes to the overall size and structural complexity of the organ itself, especially in the higher lifeforms. More can be done with much simpler brains, but a human brain in particular is very large and complex, making a complete understanding of its function a daunting endeavor indeed. But, again, all observation is at least consistent with the naturalistic understanding, that the material of the living brain produces the mind as we know it. There is no reason to doubt this. People who do not accept this view seem to do so out of religious motivation, or a motivation to justify a personal belief that makes life beyond death a possibility (they want there to be a way for the mind to continue to exist after the body has died). Desire so often drives belief in a much more powerful way than simple facts and observations do. Such desire creates bias, which in turn leads to confirmation bias.

 

I have always thought that the brain controlled the body and even stores information in body parts. The real question remains...How did humans gain sentience? I have proposed it is a product of self realization which, could be the result of something as simple as the opposable thumb.

This is interesting...

"Scientists have discovered a gene enhancer, known as HACNS1, that may have contributed to the evolution of the uniquely opposable human thumb, and possibly also modifications in the ankle or foot that allow humans to walk on two legs, according to a paper published in Science on Sept. 5, 2008."

http://www.scientistlive.com/content/21015

Reality is probably stranger than we can conceive.

 

The definition of "sentient" appears pretty basic:

adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
--------

Seems to describe every animal, or just about every one, and that would be down to the brain and nervous system. That's what sets us (animals) apart from other multicellular forms of life. How exactly that developed would certainly be a mystery, beyond the basic statement that it started simple and developed from there, evidently because each "step" along the way proved beneficial. Certainly any form of life that could move around and perceive its environment the way animals do would have been at a YUGE advantage and still is to this day.

If it's human intelligence and reasoning we're talking about, there is much we share with our ape cousins. The "theory of mind" - conceiving of a separate mind from our own, e.g. in another person or other animal, and making guesses as to its thoughts and intentions is something observed in apes, and even in crows: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/crow-intelligence-mind_n_2457181.html

 

So, you don't think occam's razor is relevant?

You are suggesting that unsubstantiated dreaming about supernatural forces that cannot be observed or measured is a more reasonable explanation for a physiological and psychological phenomena than the natural explanations of cause and effect within the human body.

and you want to talk about arrogance and ignorance? Okee dokee.

I totally agree that science does not stand outside the natural world since it wouldn't be science if it did.

As for your sig.

Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...

Shrodinger was quite the mystical physicist. He also said this.....

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary...

I happen to agree, there is only one mind that is of relevance to oneself and that is one's own.
I agree that there cannot be multiplicity of one's mind within one's braincase.
OTOH, multiplicity of MINDS is in fact reality.

 

Yes sentient is self-realization which I think is/was the first step to what we call intelligence. We do share much with our ape cousins however, interestingly, apes do not share the same thumb movement attributes.....like I quoted in my former post "Scientists have discovered a gene enhancer, known as HACNS1, that may have contributed to the evolution of the uniquely opposable human thumb,"

I find that to be quite interesting that's all.

 

There are many interesting mutations. FOX2P, for example, allowing us to produce speech. We also seem to be essentially pedomorphic apes, retaining juvenile traits into adulthood (you'll notice, for instance, that a baby ape looks much more human than an adult in the face and even the body-limb proportions.

Infant chimp and orangutan, for example:

 

The capacity to be either feminine or masculine in basic thought or behavior patterns would be one part of intelligence.....
especially once some sort of emotional connection was made with this behavior pattern.


http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/gender/g1.htm

 

By presupposing thought you are assuming the quality you want to define. Before you get to any quality of sexual identity you have already postulated intelligence.

Rock is masculine, water is feminine. Neither think.


​

 

Actually........ there is evidence that plants have far more emotion than we tended to imagine in the past.

At some level..... the energy that is within rocks...... may be somewhat aware of
their ability to be doing an Academy Award winning role of playing the role of a mere rock...... in order to set the stage for
humans and animals.


The fundamental or nearly fundamental energy that composes all organic and inorganic matter......
at some level....... has some sort of emotion and consciousness.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants

Three or four decades ago I felt that these verses in Isaiah were merely figures of speech......
since the 1990's when I read the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of The SEcret Life of Plants......
I have wondered....... if these verses could be high level .... and accurate mystical thought.


Isaiah 14:8

Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

 

What do you think of this theory on how thoughts relate to energetic matter/ Wave Theory.

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/life1.htm

 

I think the person who describes a sample as energetic matter has a poor understanding of matter. All matter contains energy.

Waves are a way of representing disturbances in a medium or (said another way) reoccurring events. Waves, like triangles and photons, exist only in our imagination. Modeling a reoccurring event or disturbance with equations based on trigonometric functions (wave theory) is useful (same with triangles and photons).

That practice only demonstrates intelligence in ourselves—we create that wave model, we assigned "wave" quality to a disturbance. Wind blowing a rock into water creates a disturbance in the water. That we may describe that disturbance as a wave in no way demonstrates wind, rock or water are intelligent.



.

 

Good point.... but the Dr. Masaru Emoto research is indeed intriguing......

 

Mr. Emoto's degree appears to have been issued by the open international university for alternative medicice. Established in Kazakhistan, incoporated in Colombo Srilanka that organization provides no training, requires no coursework, has no curricula and is basically a diploma mill. It is not recognized by any credible medical board. Mr. Emoto's only credible degree appears to have been an undergraduate one in international relations. I am not comfortable describing Mr. Emoto as a doctor.

I find Mr. Emoto's claim that the emotional state of a person (which he called hado) standing next to freezing water was responsible for the fractal patterns of forming ice crystals less than compelling or intriguing. Snowflakes may be pretty even when you have a bad day.


.

 

Correct... AboveAlpha accurately stated that Dr. Emoto's research was flawed........
but I do believe that his results do set the stage for somebody else to do a similar study that will keep better records and produce results that can be taken more seriously.

 

This seems relevant.......

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2317.htm

 

If I was a scientist working at Monsanto on some new variation of Terminator Seed Technology
who up until today....... had pretty much the same view of my place in the universe / Multiverse as
Richard Dawkins Ph. D. has........ then I would find the philosophical implications of the information in the book
recommended in the post #2 kind of scary for a number of reasons!

 

Since those particles, or at least the energy that they are composed of, existed even before the Big Bang...........
then this is a pretty logical assumption to make. Abiogenesis in some form is more probable if we postulate essentially infinite time in the past vs limiting our discussion to merely 13.72 billion years or so.

 

And a high percentage of us prefer the simplistic delusion that we humans are perhaps the most technologically advanced intelligence in the universe / Multiverse. I think that that idea is almost certainly a delusion of grandeur......

 

I have a good friend who had one of these experiences. I am sure he thought those thoughts but that is not proof of anything is it?

 

Could these statements prove something?

http://www.near-death.com/religion/god-is-with-us/zoroaster-the-first-universalist.html

 

That is exactly what I think too......
Josef Stalin made Atheism... the official religion of Russia.......

... but I have to admit that he did have his reasons......

One discussion here on PoliticalForum somewhere gave the statistic that over eighty percent of
the members of the Bolshevik Party were Jewish.......
they knew that Russia couldn't be converted to Judaism.......

.... so... they favoured Atheism as the official state religion rather than the Russian Orthodox Church......
centuries of pogroms will tend to make people somewhat angry.......

 

OK.... "the spark of life"..........as explained by DrLuggit:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...hools-yes-or-no.530115/page-6#post-1068925926
Creationism in schools, yes or no?