Theorem: The Intelligent Self‑Sustaining Universe

[panpan]

[Alan V]

Consciousness, a fundamental tool of observation, interpretation, and understanding physical phenomena,
➤ remains unexplained by materialistic or mechanistic models of physics.

Since so much of your argument depends on this assertion, and since this assertion is not true, your argument fails.

Neurophysiological discoveries have demonstrated that consciousness is virtual rather than any sort of independent substance or being. This is supported by studies of dementia, drug use altering brain functioning, sleep and dreaming, the effects of anesthetics, and so on.

Consciousness is, in fact, an evolved brain function which depends on certain brain structures, chemistry, and activation, all of which are now mapped out in some detail. It is not easily explained by reductionistic materialism because it seems to be emergent, but that does not mean that emergent materialism, as an alternative approach, doesn't encompass it. In fact, consciousness emerges every day when we wake from deep sleep, so it is a common observation that it is not an independent being at all.

Simply put, you haven't done your homework.

[panpan]

Consciousness, a fundamental tool of observation, interpretation, and understanding physical phenomena,
➤ remains unexplained by materialistic or mechanistic models of physics.

Since so much of your argument depends on this assertion, and since this assertion is not true, your argument fails.

Neurophysiological discoveries have demonstrated that consciousness is virtual rather than any sort of independent substance or being.  This is supported by studies of dementia, drug use altering brain functioning, sleep and dreaming, the effects of anesthetics, and so on.

Consciousness is, in fact, an evolved brain function which depends on certain brain structures, chemistry, and activation, all of which are now mapped out in some detail.  It is not easily explained by reductionistic materialism because it seems to be emergent, but that does not mean that emergent materialism, as an alternative approach, doesn't encompass it.  In fact, consciousness emerges every day when we wake from deep sleep, so it is a common observation that it is not an independent being at all.

Simply put, you haven't done your homework.

Consciousness is a property of intelligence and is inherent in all life forms. There is also acquired consciousness, but as far as we know, developed consciousness exists only in humans. But it also exists in the creation of intelligence in life forms and, consequently, in the Universe!

[Angrboda]

Since you seem unwilling or unable to constructively engage any criticisms of your work, your development of it, your posting of it, and your ostensible defenses of said work are nothing more than a waste of time, an unintelligent exercise in failing to perceive valid counterpoints, organize them into sensible rebuttals, and act by articulating those points of rebuttal, your activity is simply a rather large and purposeless endeavor. A truly intelligent person recognizes the limits of their own intelligence and implicitly and explicitly affirm their potential fallibility, that they could be wrong. You seem to lack any such commitment, making your exercises in reasoning little more than self-congratulatory masturbation.

That being said, I will make a few comments.

The first is that explanations may be better or worse depending upon the extent to which they embody various qualities such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, coherence and consistency, testability, and so on. In particular, I'd like to focus on the quality of explanatory power. This is the quality that an explanation has that results in a person having a greater understanding of a thing after the explanation than they did beforehand. And while your explanation claims to enable an understanding of intelligence by referring to perception, information, and so on, most listeners already posses an understanding that in some vague way intelligence is related to these things. After having read your explanation, the average listener is not going to have a substantially clearer understanding of intelligence than that with which they started, despite your voluminous verbiage. Thus your explanation has little to no explanatory power and thus would be described as a poor explanation on this basis alone. Perhaps addressing such aspects might be an avenue toward improvement, but I doubt you possess the capacity for doing so.

The second is that littered throughout your explanation are a series of bare assertions. These are a massive flaw in any attempt at persuasion if, as the case here, such bare assertions are controversial and points of contention. You shuffle a lot of words around in attempts to obscure the nature of these bare assertions, but at the end of the day they remain unexplained and undemonstrated. This is fatal to any argument.

And I'm still wondering what answer you gave to Astreja's paradox would be, as that appears to have gone unanswered. If intelligence requires an intelligent cause, then what intelligence created the creator, and what intelligence created him, and so on. You seem to have posited an infinite regress with your argument on its whole. Such an infinite regress must be addressed before one can move on to any further examination of your argument, and since you have not done so, further discussion is not warranted.

In this latest excursion of yours, you've presented an argument that leads to a similar paradox in your discussion of the thermostat. In it you suggest that the thermostat is not intelligent, despite showing POKA, because it's exemplification of POKA was the result of the intelligence of its creator, not any intelligence inherent in the thermostat itself. This is problematic as you have asserted that man and his intelligence is necessarily the result of a greater intelligence, that the attribution of intelligence belongs to the creator, not to the created. Thus we can conclude that man has no "real" intelligence, and that his attribution as intelligent is merely derivative. However, this presents a problem as POKA is modeled upon the processes that a human engages in. If said processes are not "real" intelligence, that true intelligence lies in the creator, then we're left with no model of true intelligence, only a false model that is not real intelligence. This leads to the rejection of your first law among other problems. If POKA is not real intelligence, then I am not using intelligence to refute your first law, regardless of the presence of POKA. The more significant problem is that it opens up a fissure wherein intelligence refers to what the creator does, not what the creation -- man -- does. Since we have no access to what the creator does, we have no way to meaningfully determine what intelligence actually is and what it consists of.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Since so much of your argument depends on this assertion, and since this assertion is not true, your argument fails.

Neurophysiological discoveries have demonstrated that consciousness is virtual rather than any sort of independent substance or being.  This is supported by studies of dementia, drug use altering brain functioning, sleep and dreaming, the effects of anesthetics, and so on.

Consciousness is, in fact, an evolved brain function which depends on certain brain structures, chemistry, and activation, all of which are now mapped out in some detail.  It is not easily explained by reductionistic materialism because it seems to be emergent, but that does not mean that emergent materialism, as an alternative approach, doesn't encompass it.  In fact, consciousness emerges every day when we wake from deep sleep, so it is a common observation that it is not an independent being at all.

Simply put, you haven't done your homework.

Consciousness is a property of intelligence and is inherent in all life forms. There is also acquired consciousness, but as far as we know, developed consciousness exists only in humans. But it also exists in the creation of intelligence in life forms and, consequently, in the Universe!

Is yeast inherently conscious? Do you run across many self-aware cucumbers? Does kelp ever experience existential angst?

Boru

[Deesse23]

You neither are able nor willing to engage in a fruitful discussion, so i wont wont waste any energy or bandwidth to engage with all your asinine talkig-points. There is however a specific one that clearly demonstrates how utterly ill-informed either you or the script you are parrotting is:

Thermodynamics, via the Second Law, predicts increasing entropy — decay and disorder.

➤ Yet the universe begets life, order, information, and even consciousness.

Whoever (you or your scrpit) post nonsense like this, is CLEARLY completely ignorant of physics and math*.
PARTS of the universe increasing entropy by evolving into stars etc. ans ultimately life does not violate the general principle of 2nd LoT at all. The OVERALL entropy still decreases, and it decreases FASTER than it would without forming stars and life, which just emphasizes that the 2nd LoT DOES work. This is not a matter of opinion*, this is a FACT, and can easily be see by anyone capable of a certain level of math and physics.

Now, what we need here now, is you to address this point SPECIFICALLY. No walls of text, no preaching, no sermons, no pamphlets, no distractions. All we need is YOU to admit that your SCRIPT was wrong and YOU were wrong for parroting this shit (because, clearly you didnt just make up all this shit on your own, and if so you need PROFESSIONAL help, like i already said).

...and now, please let me finish my bottle of red wine while you are going to write down your apology and your admission that you were full of (bull) shit when you were spamming the forum with your mental feces, that you have NO clue whatsoever about math (entropy) and physics (thermodynamics), and probably a multitude of other things.


* yes, entropy is math, not physics
** creationist science vs non-creationist and other busslhit

[Paleophyte]

❓ What do all these mean?

That we don't know everything yet.

This theorem proposes that:

That isn't a theorem. Those are the arse dribblings of an incontinent gerbil. But hey, good luck with the Nobel Committee.

“How can you create something that requires intelligence, without having that intelligence?”
The answer is obvious: You cannot.

See, this is simply wrong. And that's why everything else that you say is wrong. You start with a failure and just amplify that while ignoring everything that might indicate to you that you have a serious problem.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your screed because it's pretty obvious that you have no interest whatsoever in honest discussion.

[panpan]

There is a confusion, I observe. The definition of intelligence does not presuppose the definition of its quality. The quality of intelligence, like consciousness, is a product of intelligence. Each creature has a different quality of intelligence depending on its evolutionary level, and we see this in the consciousness of people, where the quality also differs.

[Deesse23]

What took you so long? Reading and learning about entropy? I suppose not.

[Paleophyte]

There is a confusion, I observe.

There' no confusion. You think that trees are intelligent. You claim that intelligence can't arise from non-intelligence but can arise from idiocy. You might want to examine the theological implications of your imbecile deity because it's no longer clear who is making whom in their own image.