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

[Paleophyte]

Since only intelligence can create Intelligence, which is stated by the second law of logic based on the first, the intelligent person will try to find the intelligent creator of the intelligent DNA, using his logic!

This indicates only that your "second law" is irredeemably flawed.

[Paleophyte]

Of course, Artificial Intelligence does not have its own intelligence, it is intelligence that has been given to it by intelligent beings, that is, by us. It will be its own when it can maintain and reproduce itself, which will not be long in coming technologically.

This proves that only intelligence can create intelligence.

Apparently, you've missed the bit where you admitted that AI doesn't have intelligence. You don't seem to be intelligent enough to understand what you're saying, much less what anybody else is. This proves that nnot only does intelligence not create intelligence, but on a bad day it isn't even capable of understanding intelligence.

As it proves that intelligence is a form of energy that can manifest itself both biologically and technologically as everything is energy that manifests itself in different ways.

If it's a form of energy then it has mass, per the famous E=mc2 equation that you referenced earlier. Kindly tell me how much mass intelligence has.

But now we have the absolute laws of logic that logically show us the right direction to search and the first step they show us is that life is intelligent!

Your 'absolute laws' are neither absolute nor laws. They're grandiose titles that you've given your whimsies. 'Intelligence is the ability to perceive, organize, and act on information' isn't some breathtaking new Law of Intelligence. It's the bare bones of a Google result, the least possible definition that could possibly be recognized as referring to intelligence, and woefully incomplete.

[panpan]

"Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

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."

Is someone unable to act unintelligent? Without assistance and artificial aids, would Hawking have ceased to be intelligent when he was no longer able to act?

Based on the first absolute law of logic, every biological being has intelligence. If it has a problem, gets sick, etc., it does not function properly.

[panpan]

Of course, Artificial Intelligence does not have its own intelligence, it is intelligence that has been given to it by intelligent beings, that is, by us. It will be its own when it can maintain and reproduce itself, which will not be long in coming technologically.

This proves that only intelligence can create intelligence.

Apparently, you've missed the bit where you admitted that AI doesn't have intelligence. You don't seem to be intelligent enough to understand what you're saying, much less what anybody else is. This proves that nnot only does intelligence not create intelligence, but on a bad day it isn't even capable of understanding intelligence.

As it proves that intelligence is a form of energy that can manifest itself both biologically and technologically as everything is energy that manifests itself in different ways.

If it's a form of energy then it has mass, per the famous E=mc2 equation that you referenced earlier. Kindly tell me how much mass intelligence has.

But now we have the absolute laws of logic that logically show us the right direction to search and the first step they show us is that life is intelligent!

Your 'absolute laws' are neither absolute nor laws. They're grandiose titles that you've given your whimsies. 'Intelligence is the ability to perceive, organize, and act on information' isn't some breathtaking new Law of Intelligence. It's the bare bones of a Google result, the least possible definition that could possibly be recognized as referring to intelligence, and woefully incomplete.

The reference to Einstein and the first law of thermodynamics is a logical answer to the fact that intelligence and matter are interconnected and probably, as I have already said, determine the self-sustaining intelligence of the universe. Armed with the absolute laws of logic that you do not accept but constantly confirm with every intelligent position you take, we will be able to explore the intelligence that created us.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

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."

Is someone unable to act unintelligent? Without assistance and artificial aids, would Hawking have ceased to be intelligent when he was no longer able to act?

Based on the first absolute law of logic, every biological being has intelligence. If it has a problem, gets sick, etc., it does not function properly.

Is a cactus intelligent? Why or why not?

Boru

[Paleophyte]

The reference to Einstein and the first law of thermodynamics is a logical answer...

No, it's merely a wrong answer. How much mass does intelligence have? You can't answer that next logical question because your assumption that intelligence is energy is wrong.

Armed with the absolute laws of logic...

Those aren't laws, they're your flawed opinions dressed up in grandiose terms. Nobody else but you calls them that because you're some rando arguing on the interwebs.
  - There are three laws of logic, but these can be attributed to Plato and Aristotle. They aren't absolute and nobody capitalizes them.
  - There are laws of thought, from Liebniz, Schopenhauer, Russel, Godel, and a host of others. Many of these are widely debated and none of them even vaguely resemble your overdressed opinions.
  - There are laws of intelligence, but most people are referring to espionage. Neither absolute nor what you're carrying on about.

[The Grand Nudger]

@  Kindly tell me how much mass intelligence has.

About three pounds, on average, for a human.  Might be a few ounces short for some of us....

[Astreja]

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 Valkyrie]

Wow!

A whole wall of text to say and prove nothing.

I only achieve that when I'm VERY drunk.

[Angrboda]

---

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:

How can something define itself, without falling into circular logic or arbitrary assumptions?

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.

The purpose of this work is to present, document, and establish these laws as the foundation of any future discussion about intelligence.

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:

Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

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.

Consequently, the very act of disputing it confirms it.

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.