To the question of does God exist, the answer is whether Intelligence created Life

[panpan]

I wrote it before in a comment but you probably didn't notice it. "Einstein's equation E=mc² "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared", expresses the fundamental concept that energy and mass are interchangeable, two forms of the same thing. Theoretically and based on the first law of thermodynamics and Einstein's equation, the superintelligence of the creation of the universe did not come from nowhere, it always existed, exists and will exist."

Oh, I noticed it, all right, and I also replied to it, rejecting your hypothesis because "intelligence" is not energy.

You don't need to pray to the Creator - God as long as you respect yourself, others and his creations.

In the world you live in, it is everywhere, wherever there is life, it manifests itself every moment living on a planet where we still don't know what gravity is, while we can explain it mechanically, we don't know what it really is except by expressing theories!

I say again: I do not believe that your "Creator" exists. And I will respect, or not respect, in accordance with the actual situation.

As for gravity, although we don't know what it is, we do know that it's there and we can measure its effects with substantial accuracy. Our knowledge of gravity enables us to make accurate predictions. Your creator-god hypothesis has no data points and no predictive power.

The Chain of Creation and Intelligence
(Energy → E=mc2) → Stellar Dust → Planet → DNA → Human → Artificial Intelligence

Energy and matter are structured into systems that store and process information.

Information becomes intelligence through perception, organization, and action.

Intelligence evolves and creates new forms of intelligence.

You begin to logically question yourself when in this chain you realize that only intelligence can create intelligence because it has the ability to perceive chemical information, transform it into knowledge, and with it create living organisms, humans, and now AI!

[panpan]

---

SparkEthos – Philosophy of Intelligence

✨ The Absolute Laws of Intelligence and the New Ethical Framework
Introduction – The Problem of Defining Intelligence
From antiquity to the era of Artificial Intelligence, the concept of intelligence remains one of the most complex, debated, and misunderstood issues in philosophy, biology, computer science, and ethics. Despite countless efforts, a universal, precise, and indisputable definition of what intelligence is has not been achieved.
The reason is fundamental: intelligence, as a concept, presupposes the very capacity for understanding—thus, any attempt to define it inevitably relies on this. This creates a conceptual paradox:

The answer is not found in descriptions or comparative definitions ("man is more intelligent than an animal," "AI mimics intelligence," "consciousness is a prerequisite"), but in a universal logical foundation that cannot be refuted.
Intelligence must be defined:

• Not as a property of a specific species (like humans).
  
  
• Nor as a set of functions (like problem-solving or learning).
  
  
• But as a primary capacity: the necessary basis for any mental or cognitive function.
  

This gives rise to the need for Absolute Logical Laws that do not depend on cultural or technological contexts, do not presuppose empirical observation or statistical induction, but are based on the very logical impossibility of being questioned without being confirmed.
This is the gap that the First Absolute Law of Logic comes to fill, offering for the first time a universally valid definition of intelligence that can be applied to every form: biological, artificial, evolutionary, or collective, and which is automatically validated through the very attempt to understand it. From this, the Second Absolute Law of Logic derives, which establishes who (or what) can create intelligence.
Together, the two laws are not merely conceptual tools. They constitute a new Logical Framework of Intelligence, essential for understanding ourselves, the technology we create, and the ethical choices that arise from it.

Methodological Statement

What follows is not a personal opinion, metaphysical belief, or theoretical preference. It is the result of logical analysis and the application of strictly defined principles:

• Every concept is explicitly defined (e.g., intelligence, consciousness).
  
  
• The logical consequences of these definitions are followed without exception.
  
  
• The system operates axiomatically, like a mathematical model.
  

➤ What emerges is not "correct" because we like it. It is necessary because it is logically inevitable.

---

🧠 The First Absolute Law of Logic
The basic concept of Intelligence that decodes all human concepts
Definition:

It is the First Absolute Law of Logic because it defines, in a concise and indisputable way, what intelligence is. It is called "absolute" because it is self-validating (the attempt to deny it confirms it) and it is first because every concept depends on the existence of intelligence to be formulated.
Proof:
Anyone who attempts to dispute this definition: first perceives the information of the definition, organizes it into knowledge to understand it, and finally acts by voicing the dispute. Therefore, they use the exact three elements, Perception > Knowledge > Action, that the Law defines as the mechanism of intelligence.

The Paradox of Self-Reference
The law is self-referential: to deny it, you must use it.
Example: If you say "This law is wrong," then: You perceive the law (information). You organize your criticism (knowledge). You act by voicing your denial. Therefore, you use intelligence to deny the definition of intelligence — and thus you confirm it.
Note:
The Law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence; that is, it does not determine if something is intelligent or how intelligent it is, but rather what intelligence is. To prove if something is intelligent or somehow exhibits intelligence, one must logically and analytically examine if it fulfills the condition of intelligence defined by the First Absolute Law of Logic.
Conclusion: The First Absolute Law of Logic cannot be logically disputed, because it is automatically confirmed and self-validated when someone attempts to dispute it.

---

Let's examine your thinking here.  First you say that intelligence is not a set of functions.  Yet you define it as perceiving, organizing, and acting, and in doing so violate your own restriction.  You claim that every concept is explicitly defined, yet nowhere is it explicit whether awareness of the contents of my mind is a form of perception or whether perception refers to only information acquired through the senses.  You do not give any indication as to what information is, nor what organizing it means.   And the obvious reason for this is that one quickly encounters conceptual difficulties in doing so that depend upon unresolved questions about foundationalism.  Nowhere do you even indicate how you advise we resolve the ambiguity inherent in such, much less resolve them into something explicit and valid.  

But there are other problems, namely in that your 'law' has exceptions.  The first and most obvious being that intelligence neither requires nor implies action.  Thus I can intelligently analyze your definition and so long as I don't act upon the information that I've organized into knowledge, I have violated your claim that I cannot do so.   Second, as hinted at earlier, we possess a priori principles and understandings which are more akin to emotions than knowledge as we accept their normative judgements based upon feelings of desirability or undesirability or disgust rather than upon the basis of justifications or their specific representation.  This is a problem with these norms all around, as they aren't information as it is normally understood because information from our perception does not represent norms -- norms are all internal.  So we can have intelligence, such as the derivation of deMorgan's law, that do not involve perception of anything.  And third, artists regularly organize information according to individualized aesthetic judgements, yet the resulting organized elements do not result in knowledge because they are not truth bearers and thus cannot be justified.  So here we have three different examples of intelligence each of which is lacking one or more components of your definition.  A law refers to a naturally occurring regularity, but since your definition doesn't refer to a natural regularity, it cannot be a law.  At best it is your opinion of how to describe intelligence.  But there is no law against describing intelligence in other ways, and your law doesn't proscribe us doing so.

Additionally, your law is not self-referential.   That an instance of your definition might be involved in intelligently considering your law does not make it self-referential.

Administrator Notice
This was hidden by staff and not meant to be reposted in full view.  Removing the actions of staff is ill-advised.

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

Information is everything in an intelligent being, chemical, optical, acoustic, etc.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it, then understand what you have perceived to become knowledge for you and with this knowledge to act, that is, to think, write, speak, and act.

Every living organism has intelligence at a different level, but the basic thing it does is to perceive the information in the environment, to understand it and adapt to it, to become knowledge for it, and thus, by acting, to survive and reproduce.

[Astreja]

Energy and matter are structured into systems that store and process information.

Precisely. They, themselves are not intelligence. Intelligence is an emergent property, not an innate one.

I believe that the universe has no creator, and that it never needed one. I believe that the basic substance of matter/energy is completely insentient, and that it didn't need to be created because it has always existed. From my POV your thesis is simply an unsupported and untestable assertion, and that it has no value.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's examine your thinking here.  First you say that intelligence is not a set of functions.  Yet you define it as perceiving, organizing, and acting, and in doing so violate your own restriction.  You claim that every concept is explicitly defined, yet nowhere is it explicit whether awareness of the contents of my mind is a form of perception or whether perception refers to only information acquired through the senses.  You do not give any indication as to what information is, nor what organizing it means.   And the obvious reason for this is that one quickly encounters conceptual difficulties in doing so that depend upon unresolved questions about foundationalism.  Nowhere do you even indicate how you advise we resolve the ambiguity inherent in such, much less resolve them into something explicit and valid.  

But there are other problems, namely in that your 'law' has exceptions.  The first and most obvious being that intelligence neither requires nor implies action.  Thus I can intelligently analyze your definition and so long as I don't act upon the information that I've organized into knowledge, I have violated your claim that I cannot do so.   Second, as hinted at earlier, we possess a priori principles and understandings which are more akin to emotions than knowledge as we accept their normative judgements based upon feelings of desirability or undesirability or disgust rather than upon the basis of justifications or their specific representation.  This is a problem with these norms all around, as they aren't information as it is normally understood because information from our perception does not represent norms -- norms are all internal.  So we can have intelligence, such as the derivation of deMorgan's law, that do not involve perception of anything.  And third, artists regularly organize information according to individualized aesthetic judgements, yet the resulting organized elements do not result in knowledge because they are not truth bearers and thus cannot be justified.  So here we have three different examples of intelligence each of which is lacking one or more components of your definition.  A law refers to a naturally occurring regularity, but since your definition doesn't refer to a natural regularity, it cannot be a law.  At best it is your opinion of how to describe intelligence.  But there is no law against describing intelligence in other ways, and your law doesn't proscribe us doing so.

Additionally, your law is not self-referential.   That an instance of your definition might be involved in intelligently considering your law does not make it self-referential.

Administrator Notice
This was hidden by staff and not meant to be reposted in full view.  Removing the actions of staff is ill-advised.

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

Information is everything in an intelligent being, chemical, optical, acoustic, etc.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it, then understand what you have perceived to become knowledge for you and with this knowledge to act, that is, to think, write, speak, and act.

Every living organism has intelligence at a different level, but the basic thing it does is to perceive the information in the environment, to understand it and adapt to it, to become knowledge for it, and thus, by acting, to survive and reproduce.

Is a cactus intelligent? Why or why not?

Boru

[Angrboda]

Let's examine your thinking here.  First you say that intelligence is not a set of functions.  Yet you define it as perceiving, organizing, and acting, and in doing so violate your own restriction.  You claim that every concept is explicitly defined, yet nowhere is it explicit whether awareness of the contents of my mind is a form of perception or whether perception refers to only information acquired through the senses.  You do not give any indication as to what information is, nor what organizing it means.   And the obvious reason for this is that one quickly encounters conceptual difficulties in doing so that depend upon unresolved questions about foundationalism.  Nowhere do you even indicate how you advise we resolve the ambiguity inherent in such, much less resolve them into something explicit and valid.  

But there are other problems, namely in that your 'law' has exceptions.  The first and most obvious being that intelligence neither requires nor implies action.  Thus I can intelligently analyze your definition and so long as I don't act upon the information that I've organized into knowledge, I have violated your claim that I cannot do so.   Second, as hinted at earlier, we possess a priori principles and understandings which are more akin to emotions than knowledge as we accept their normative judgements based upon feelings of desirability or undesirability or disgust rather than upon the basis of justifications or their specific representation.  This is a problem with these norms all around, as they aren't information as it is normally understood because information from our perception does not represent norms -- norms are all internal.  So we can have intelligence, such as the derivation of deMorgan's law, that do not involve perception of anything.  And third, artists regularly organize information according to individualized aesthetic judgements, yet the resulting organized elements do not result in knowledge because they are not truth bearers and thus cannot be justified.  So here we have three different examples of intelligence each of which is lacking one or more components of your definition.  A law refers to a naturally occurring regularity, but since your definition doesn't refer to a natural regularity, it cannot be a law.  At best it is your opinion of how to describe intelligence.  But there is no law against describing intelligence in other ways, and your law doesn't proscribe us doing so.

Additionally, your law is not self-referential.   That an instance of your definition might be involved in intelligently considering your law does not make it self-referential.

Administrator Notice
This was hidden by staff and not meant to be reposted in full view.  Removing the actions of staff is ill-advised.

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

And my reply, which I wrote after careful consideration of your initial post, also contained important information, which you have apparently just ignored.

Information is everything in an intelligent being, chemical, optical, acoustic, etc.

This tells me where information is, but it does not tell me what it is. Moreover it's wrong, as things like air and bacteria and undifferentiated matter are included, none of which constitutes actual information, as none of it can be organized as required by the second part of your definition.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it, then understand what you have perceived to become knowledge for you and with this knowledge to act, that is, to think, write, speak, and act.

As just pointed out to you, there are exceptions to this. Repeating your earlier assertions do not answer the point you are replying to here.

Every living organism has intelligence at a different level, but the basic thing it does is to perceive the information in the environment, to understand it and adapt to it, to become knowledge for it, and thus, by acting, to survive and reproduce.

A blade of grass cannot perceive information, nor organize it, nor act on it. Please explain how an organism that doesn't fit your definition of intelligence is thereby intelligent? That seems an obvious contradiction.

[panpan]

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

Information is everything in an intelligent being, chemical, optical, acoustic, etc.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it, then understand what you have perceived to become knowledge for you and with this knowledge to act, that is, to think, write, speak, and act.

Every living organism has intelligence at a different level, but the basic thing it does is to perceive the information in the environment, to understand it and adapt to it, to become knowledge for it, and thus, by acting, to survive and reproduce.

Is a cactus intelligent? Why or why not?

Boru

Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

[panpan]

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

And my reply, which I wrote after careful consideration of your initial post, also contained important information, which you have apparently just ignored.

Information is everything in an intelligent being, chemical, optical, acoustic, etc.

This tells me where information is, but it does not tell me what it is.  Moreover it's wrong, as things like air and bacteria and undifferentiated matter are included, none of which constitutes actual information, as none of it can be organized as required by the second part of your definition.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it, then understand what you have perceived to become knowledge for you and with this knowledge to act, that is, to think, write, speak, and act.

As just pointed out to you, there are exceptions to this.  Repeating your earlier assertions do not answer the point you are replying to here.

Every living organism has intelligence at a different level, but the basic thing it does is to perceive the information in the environment, to understand it and adapt to it, to become knowledge for it, and thus, by acting, to survive and reproduce.

A blade of grass cannot perceive information, nor organize it, nor act on it.  Please explain how an organism that doesn't fit your definition of intelligence is thereby intelligent?  That seems an obvious contradiction.

This applies to you and any member who wants to logically challenge the first absolute law of logic. A blade of grass is not the plant, it is like your hand, i.e. part of the being! Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example, so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

[Paleophyte]

And my reply, which I wrote after careful consideration of your initial post, also contained important information, which you have apparently just ignored.



This tells me where information is, but it does not tell me what it is.  Moreover it's wrong, as things like air and bacteria and undifferentiated matter are included, none of which constitutes actual information, as none of it can be organized as required by the second part of your definition.



As just pointed out to you, there are exceptions to this.  Repeating your earlier assertions do not answer the point you are replying to here.



A blade of grass cannot perceive information, nor organize it, nor act on it.  Please explain how an organism that doesn't fit your definition of intelligence is thereby intelligent?  That seems an obvious contradiction.

This applies to you and any member who wants to logically challenge the first absolute law of logic. A blade of grass is not the plant, it is like your hand, i.e. part of the being! Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example, so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

Neither the blade of grass nor the entire grass plant nor the entire meadow is intelligent. You could plant the entire planet with grass and not get any intelligence.

Examples are trivially easy, as Angbroda demonstrated. Grass isn't intelligent. Neither is any plant, fungus, or microbe. Neither are most animals. There, you now have a longish list of non-hypothetical living organisms that show no evidence of intelligence. Your hierarchy is clearly wrong.

[Paleophyte]

First, the original text must be read carefully, which contains very important information.

It isn't very important information. It's a deepity skimmed from the first Google result.

In order for you as an intelligent being to perceive something, you must first perceive it...

See? Deepity.

[panpan]

This applies to you and any member who wants to logically challenge the first absolute law of logic. A blade of grass is not the plant, it is like your hand, i.e. part of the being! Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example, so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

Neither the blade of grass nor the entire grass plant nor the entire meadow is intelligent. You could plant the entire planet with grass and not get any intelligence.

Examples are trivially easy, as Angbroda demonstrated. Grass isn't intelligent. Neither is any plant, fungus, or microbe. Neither are most animals. There, you now have a longish list of non-hypothetical living organisms that show no evidence of intelligence. Your hierarchy is clearly wrong.

Every being has intelligence because it perceives information from its environment, converts it into knowledge, and acts with this knowledge, surviving and reproducing. This does not mean that all have the same level of intelligence, e.g. among mammals, humans have the highest.