On the nature of Reality and Intelligence

[Xaqaria]

The planet Earth is in an extremely fine tuned, razor edge balance. Very small seemingly insignificant changes in this balance have the potential to upset the entire structure. Vast, storms effecting large portions of the surface of the planet can be caused by temperature changes measured in single degrees. One of the smallest organisms, a virus, can destroy entire species. Still, however, The ecosystem is so famously adaptive that on the other hand there is really nothing short of total obliteration of the planet that would destroy all life. A structure so bent on survival to me is a sign of intelligence. Notice I don't say anything about the creation of such a structure needing intelligence, just that such an existing structure seems to exhibit signs of intelligence itself. Also, every organism below humans can be seen to exhibit intelligence on some order less than ours. Why should our deductive reasoning only apply to things below us? Organisms on complexity levels above us should also be intelligent by this reasoning but for some reason a large portion of human beings feel they are the acme of this chain. I think it is ridiculously self centered to believe such things. The Conventional definition of life is that it exhibit all of the following properties: 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. 2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. 6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. The planet Earth exhibits all of these properties and therefore can be considered alive and its own single organism by the scientific definition. Through experience, Humans have learned that all life exhibits some form and level of intelligence. Extrapolation; the Earth is intelligent. Now, the same can be applied to the Sun. The sun also exhibits all of the basic signs of life if you remove the "Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.", which many scientists do now that the idea of non-carbon based life is more widely believed to be possible. The Galaxy exhibits all of these things, etc. etc. I won't claim to know that much about the actual structure of the entire Universe, but the pattern of extrapolation seems to be pointing at the fact that no matter how big you get, you are still part of a larger structure that is alive and intelligent. Does that mean that there has to be one creator of everything that is bigger than us all and has nothing bigger than it? I would guess not. There is no reason why the chain cannot be infinite or cyclical for that matter. If super string theory is correct, then maybe the string is the ultimate.

[Roller]

It sounds a little like the Gaia theory, which is the theory that the Earth is a sort of closed-system organism. One thing though... life exhibits varying degrees of intelligence, but this intelligence is the result of evolution. Life evolves intelligence as a means of surviving, and as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any evolutionary pressures or reasons why planets should need to be intelligent. Analogies can be misleading - just because one thing has a certain property doesn't mean that other things like it have the same properties.

[wendylove]

The planet Earth is in an extremely fine tuned, razor edge balance What do you mean fine tuned. It pretty stupid to say the earth is fine tuned as look at africa and places where people strave to death because of crappy soil e.t.c. Plus are environment is not razor edge, firstly look at the cold age and secondly nuclear warheads. Vast, storms effecting large portions of the surface of the planet can be caused by temperature changes measured in single degrees. So what? You have something that is statistically random, it is pointless to say that a few changes cause a big effect since it is random. One of the smallest organisms, a virus, can destroy entire species. And what? 99% of species die out, so if a virus does destroy a species then it just normal. The ecosystem is so famously adaptive that on the other hand there is really nothing short of total obliteration of the planet that would destroy all life What? What has this to do with everything. Yeah, evolution works. A structure so bent on survival to me is a sign of intelligence. Species survive because they have lots of children that can adapt to the environment. Their is no intelligence in survival, just blind luck i.e. mutation and lots of lottery tickets i.e. children. The planet Earth exhibits Okay does the planet Earth reproduce, well no unless you count the moon. Does it grow, the planet earth is not growing. Adaptation well the earth was once silver however it change colour to survive. Metabolism, the earth feeds on asteriods and comets. Responce to stimulus, well the earth can dance. If super string theory is correct, then maybe the string is the ultimate. Even though string theory has nothing to do with string, but just higher dimensional membranes. Look up M theory which is normally called string theory. Next your going to say strings are intelligent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_...tra_dimensions Hellow earth, what is one plus one?

[Keeper]

On topic, this also reminds me that Fire also can be classed as a Living Organism. Oh, and Wendy, read what he posted. He is talking about All life on the planet

[jaasum]

So uhhh, what does this have to do with religion?

[Xaqaria]

So uhhh, what does this have to do with religion? Can you honestly not see how an argument for intelligence in astronomical bodies could be a religious discussion?

[Xaqaria]

It sounds a little like the Gaia theory, which is the theory that the Earth is a sort of closed-system organism. One thing though... life exhibits varying degrees of intelligence, but this intelligence is the result of evolution. Life evolves intelligence as a means of surviving, and as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any evolutionary pressures or reasons why planets should need to be intelligent. Analogies can be misleading - just because one thing has a certain property doesn't mean that other things like it have the same properties. Decaying orbit, Tidal synchronization with the sun, etc. etc. etc. If we assume that the planet is alive and intelligent, there is no real way for us to know what forces it must counter act in order to stay alive, as its life span, and therefore its awareness is stretched out over a much larger time span than our own. Also, I see no reason why intelligence must have a specific reason in order to come in to existence. You claim that our intelligence has evolved because of our need to survive, but I could just as easily say that certain aspects of us have evolved but our awareness has come about as a side effect of these changes, and not as the reason for them.

[Xaqaria]

What do you mean fine tuned. It pretty stupid to say the earth is fine tuned as look at africa and places where people strave to death because of crappy soil e.t.c. Plus are environment is not razor edge, firstly look at the cold age and secondly nuclear warheads. And yet if we were to try to change the climate in places like africa, we would also cause drastic changes in other parts of the world. Just because the global climate is in the most beneficial balance for the entire planet, does not mean it will necessarily be perfectly beneficial for every locale. So what? You have something that is statistically random, it is pointless to say that a few changes cause a big effect since it is random. The global changes caused by temperature change are hardly random. The mean global temperature during the last ice age was a mere 9 degrees cooler than it is now. If the average global temperature were to drop 9 degrees, we would be in an ice age. And what? 99% of species die out, so if a virus does destroy a species then it just normal. I don't see the relevance of this statement, or where you get the 99% from. What? What has this to do with everything. Yeah, evolution works. Yes, thats sort of my point. Species survive because they have lots of children that can adapt to the environment. Their is no intelligence in survival, just blind luck i.e. mutation and lots of lottery tickets i.e. children. You don't think survival has anything to do with intelligence? You don't think adaptation has anything to do with intelligence? I'm sure you must be able to see some sort of correlation between them. Okay does the planet Earth reproduce, well no unless you count the moon. Does it grow, the planet earth is not growing. Adaptation well the earth was once silver however it change colour to survive. Metabolism, the earth feeds on asteriods and comets. Responce to stimulus, well the earth can dance. I would argue that all life on earth is a form of the planet's reproduction, just as you creating new skin cells is a form of reproduction for you. The earth grows in many different ways. Thermal expansion, Tectonic shifting, etc.. Mountains, islands and even entire continents form when plates shift or the average global temperature goes up. The planet adapts quite obviously. Life was once geared towards living in constant cold. Before that it was geared towards living in a more oxygen rich atmosphere. The planet also responds quite quickly to stimulus. Solar flares will cause sudden and extreme storms on the surface of the Earth that may seem devastating, until you realize that they help keep the planet's temperature from fluctuating. Even though string theory has nothing to do with string, but just higher dimensional membranes. Look up M theory which is normally called string theory. Next your going to say strings are intelligent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_...tra_dimensions Hellow earth, what is one plus one? " ...just higher dimensional membranes."...called strings. Thank you, I'm familiar with what string theory is; which is why I mentioned it. I don't have to call strings intelligent next, since I already implied that they were with the statement, "perhaps strings are the ultimate."

[Xaqaria]

It sounds a little like the Gaia theory, which is the theory that the Earth is a sort of closed-system organism. One thing though... life exhibits varying degrees of intelligence, but this intelligence is the result of evolution. Life evolves intelligence as a means of surviving, and as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any evolutionary pressures or reasons why planets should need to be intelligent. Analogies can be misleading - just because one thing has a certain property doesn't mean that other things like it have the same properties. I don't think its possible for an organism to exist as a closed system, nor would I call the Earth a closed system. Also, this isn't an analogy; its a direct application of the definition of living organisms to the planet Earth.

[Bonsay]

What you say makes sense. But let me turn your statement around. You say that the Earth could be considered alive, because of it's visible properties. What if the Earth isn't alive, but in fact we are dead? What are you gona do now, Smarty-pants!?

[Xaqaria]

I guess all I can say is define being dead. I feel as though I am alive and aware. If I am in fact dead, that doesn't change my perceived awareness. I only suggest that whatever state I am in, the planet could be in a similar state.

[wendylove]

I would argue that all life on earth is a form of the planet's reproduction, just as you creating new skin cells is a form of reproduction for you. I know you mean't that. However it really stupid. Your reasoning that if I hit you with a stick because I am angry with you then the stick is angry. Imagined a creature living on a rock, now that doesn't make the rock intelligent and when the creature has children it is not the rocks child. The planet adapts quite obviously. Life was once geared towards living in constant cold. Before that it was geared towards living in a more oxygen rich atmosphere. Again it your use of adapts. A creature adapt because of evolution, now a planet doesn't make copies of itself and go out in space to get killed. Life changes, however a piece of rock is not alive. The sun is not alive or intelligent because it is just a big fusion reactor. We can explain how the sun works without intelligence or god did it and we can explain earth without it needing to be alive. The planet also responds quite quickly to stimulus. Solar flares will cause sudden and extreme storms on the surface of the Earth that may seem devastating, until you realize that they help keep the planet's temperature from fluctuating. Again their is no responding from the planet, yeah the earth atomsphere changes. Imagine I throw my computer on the ground, it would break. Now the computer is not reacting to stimulus, it not sitting their thinking I better break. When a solar flare happens earth doesn't think I better adapt. You don't think survival has anything to do with intelligence? You don't think adaptation has anything to do with intelligence? I'm sure you must be able to see some sort of correlation between them. The point of evolution is that everything can be explained without intelligence. You know explaining something without god did it, now your just saying that their is intelligent. Which, is kind of like changing creator to intelligent design. Your trying to say their is a intelligence like the earth can actually think or it knows what it doing. Now if you go to any scientist and say earth the is intelligent then you will be laughed at. Hence posting in the Religious forum.

[Xaqaria]

Wendy, your posts are useless. I can't see any argument at all, only assertions that you are making without really supporting yourself. Of course I may be wrong; I will admit that I have a hard time reading most of your posts since they don't really follow any sort of grammatically correct structure. Whats more, you simply cut out any information that doesn't appeal to your opinions, as you have done in your quote of me in your signature. I won't lie though, I'm honored you thought what I said was important enough to be in your signature, whether you got it wrong or not.

[Bonsay]

I guess all I can say is define being dead. I feel as though I am alive and aware. If I am in fact dead, that doesn't change my perceived awareness. I only suggest that whatever state I am in, the planet could be in a similar state. I'm trying to say that there is no visible difference between living or dead objects. So there is no such thing as those two things.

[wannywan]

Can you honestly not see how an argument for intelligence in astronomical bodies could be a religious discussion? The only religions that intelligence in astronomical bodies would affect are ones that see the planet earth itself as a deity, or maybe a deity that the planet earth believes in.

[Xaqaria]

I'm trying to say that there is no visible difference between living or dead objects. So there is no such thing as those two things. Okay. I'm really not sure how this pertains. Can you explain yourself further? If its just the word alive that you take issue with, then it can be easily over looked and we can focus more on the "intelligent" and "aware" aspects.

[Xaqaria]

The only religions that intelligence in astronomical bodies would affect are ones that see the planet earth itself as a deity, or maybe a deity that the planet earth believes in. Well no, thats not necessarily true. Many religions worship the sun without really realizing it. Christianity for instance is a sun worshiping religion. I would suggest that the God of all religions could possibly be misguided worship of astronomical bodies. Also, is it not possible to have a religious discussion without focusing on any pre-existing religion at all? Is it possible to have religious views without following any pre-existing religion?

[jaasum]

This topic is completely retarded. I am so sick of these threads. Can we just start an "Atheist" section because that is all this has turned into. I would actually like to discuss religion, pertaining to certain topics, not every single thread leading to the same exact discussion! GAWD DAUMUT!

[Xaqaria]

In what way is this the same as other threads? I'm not an atheist so I don't really know what you are referring to.

[jaasum]

*sigh*

[Xaqaria]

*sigh* I'm sure I'm committing some devastating forum faux pas', and I should be banned for my stupidity, but I honestly don't have any clue what you're talking about so if you refuse to explain yourself I'm going to just assume you are being a retard. I'll retract any and all percieved injustices if you only explain where I've gone wrong in your mind.

[Bonsay]

Okay. I'm really not sure how this pertains. Can you explain yourself further? If its just the word alive that you take issue with, then it can be easily over looked and we can focus more on the "intelligent" and "aware" aspects. I'm saying that we are just atoms and other particles, the same as everything else in this universe. So if I'm "alive" then so is everything else. Alive is just a certain type of chemical reaction if we look at it from this perspective. Intelligent and aware are just byproducts and are nothing special (from the objective point of view). And here I see the problem. The objective view we created by using science tells us one thing, while my subjective thoughts tell me something else. Yes, as I said earlier the thoughts could be a byproduct, but they don't feel like it to me, right now.

[Xaqaria]

So would you speak for or against seemingly inanimate things being aware?

[Bonsay]

So would you speak for or against seemingly inanimate things being aware? This is the thing bothering me, so I don't know the answer to awareness related questions.

[Absolute]

Well it would depend if it had a consciousness or not. Technically beneath our flesh lies nothing but conscious energy which most people call spirits or souls. If you'd like to think of a tree or a chair as an inanimate object being aware, it wouldn't make much sense because it has no conscious (whether or not it has something similar to what we commonly see as a brain).