The probability of intelligence naturally occurring in fundamental energy?

[Dennis Tate]

I am convinced that circuitry of some sort......
and later on something like synaptic pathway activity would naturally develop in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy as is explained by String Theory.

Chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe was entitled The Anthropic Principle. Dr. Hawking left me with the impression that he felt that some sort of "fundamental energy" would exist for something like infinite time even before the most recent Big Bang event of something like thirteen point eight billion years ago.

Assuming M-Theory with eleven dimensions of space and time, vs Bosonic String Theory with twenty six or even more dimensions of space and time then I am assuming that one or two fundamental energies would correspond with the highest vibrational energies, which... would seem to correspond to the tenth and the eleventh dimension.

If I am allowed to do so I would really like to challenge Write4U to this debate and one of the objectives would be for Write4U to reword my basic idea so that I am not making a truly stupid assertion......... I do not have the understanding of the technical jargon needed to do justice to this topic but from some of his discussions that I have read by him I have formed the impression that Write4U can correct my wording................

.... for a further debate later on that at least can be began here?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The probability of intelligence naturally occurring in fundamental energy?

I am convinced that circuitry of some sort......
and later on something like synaptic pathway activity would naturally develop in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy as is explained by String Theory.

Chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe was entitled The Anthropic Principle. Dr. Hawking left me with the impression that he felt that some sort of "fundamental energy" would exist for something like infinite time even before the most recent Big Bang event of something like thirteen point eight billion years ago.

Assuming M-Theory with eleven dimensions of space and time, vs Bosonic String Theory with twenty six or even more dimensions of space and time then I am assuming that one or two fundamental energies would correspond with the highest vibrational energies, which... would seem to correspond to the tenth and the eleventh dimension.

If I am allowed to do so I would really like to challenge Write4U to this debate and one of the objectives would be for Write4U to reword my basic idea so that I am not making a truly stupid assertion......... I do not have the understanding of the technical jargon needed to do justice to this topic but from some of his discussions that I have read by him I have formed the impression that Write4U can correct my wording................

.... for a further debate later on that at least can be began here?

is this a double up ?

did a thread get closed on this subject a month or so back ?

fundamental energy?

you need to define "fundamental energy"
there appears to be no scientific definition of fundamental energy

Write4U to reword my basic idea so that I am not making a truly stupid assertion

plagiarism
versus
faking
versus
getting someone else to do your thinking for you
versus
debate

then I am assuming that one or two fundamental energies would correspond with the highest vibrational energies,

you cant just jump to an assumed state of scientific fact
you need to show they are linked
and also define what is actually linked
in this case your mysticising a word with no definition f what it is
and then making a jump to assume and define a connection with no working model
no example
and no definition of the word meaning.

conceptual thinking requires logic
even though it may appear non logical to the laymen

 

[Dennis Tate]

The probability of intelligence naturally occurring in fundamental energy?



is this a double up ?

did a thread get closed on this subject a month or so back ?


you need to define "fundamental energy"
there appears to be no scientific definition of fundamental energy


plagiarism
versus
faking
versus
getting someone else to do your thinking for you
versus
debate



you cant just jump to an assumed state of scientific fact
you need to show they are linked
and also define what is actually linked
in this case your mysticising a word with no definition f what it is
and then making a jump to assume and define a connection with no working model
no example
and no definition of the word meaning.

conceptual thinking requires logic
even though it may appear non logical to the laymen

I am listening to this video right now......
this presents a powerful case that some major league Theoretical Physicists do also suspect that consciousness began even before the Big Bang.

Quantum consciousness and its nature in microtubules _ Dr. Stuart Hameroff.

Sir Roger Penrose thinks the same thing that Dr. Stephen Hawking wrote about in chapter thirteen of his book Stephen Hawking's Universe.... a series of Big Bang events before the most recent Big Bang.

 

[sideshowbob]

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

 

[Dennis Tate]

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

Yes.... and I admit it......
that could well be what is happening with me..... I plead guilty to having at least some level of "confirmation bias."

 

[Dennis Tate]

The probability of intelligence naturally occurring in fundamental energy?



is this a double up ?

did a thread get closed on this subject a month or so back ?


you need to define "fundamental energy"
there appears to be no scientific definition of fundamental energy


plagiarism
versus
faking
versus
getting someone else to do your thinking for you
versus
debate



you cant just jump to an assumed state of scientific fact
you need to show they are linked
and also define what is actually linked
in this case your mysticising a word with no definition f what it is
and then making a jump to assume and define a connection with no working model
no example
and no definition of the word meaning.

conceptual thinking requires logic
even though it may appear non logical to the laymen

Have you read "Stephen Hawking's Universe?"

I read it ... if I remember correctly.... more than twenty years ago. I would guess around 1995 to 1999 or so because after my third marriage I haven't read much of anything more than articles...... because my family keeps me pretty busy. (It was published in 1989, and if I remember correctly I picked it up at a used book store).

Chapter thirteen was entitled The Anthropic Principle and in that chapter Dr. Hawking explained an infinite number of Big Bang type events going back to eternity even before the most recent Big Bang event. He postulated an essentially infinite number of "unsuccessful universes" in which there was no life due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force NOT being properly tuned for life as we know it.

Fundamental energy on one level would be the energy that would compose those infinite number of "unsuccessful universes."

I do suspect that my question is answered here in this discussion somewhere..... the video given in post number one was definitely helpful.


http://sciforums.com/threads/is-con...-in-quantum-processes-in-microtubules.161187/

Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

 

[James R]

I am convinced that circuitry of some sort......
and later on something like synaptic pathway activity would naturally develop in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy as is explained by String Theory.

What convinced you of that? Sound a bit vague. Circuitry of some sort. Something like synaptic pathway activity. Nearly fundamental energy.

You keep using that term "fundamental energy", by the way, but that isn't really a thing.

Chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe was entitled The Anthropic Principle. Dr. Hawking left me with the impression that he felt that some sort of "fundamental energy" would exist for something like infinite time even before the most recent Big Bang event of something like thirteen point eight billion years ago.

What did he write that left you with that impression? Got a quote or two?

Assuming M-Theory with eleven dimensions of space and time, vs Bosonic String Theory with twenty six or even more dimensions of space and time then I am assuming that one or two fundamental energies would correspond with the highest vibrational energies, which... would seem to correspond to the tenth and the eleventh dimension.

Why are you making assumptions about something you admit you don't understand?

Chapter thirteen was entitled The Anthropic Principle and in that chapter Dr. Hawking explained an infinite number of Big Bang type events going back to eternity even before the most recent Big Bang event. He postulated an essentially infinite number of "unsuccessful universes" in which there was no life due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force NOT being properly tuned for life as we know it.

"Postulated" being the operative word. In other words, he was speculating.

Fundamental energy on one level would be the energy that would compose those infinite number of "unsuccessful universes."

Why?

 

[C C]

The probability of intelligence naturally occurring in fundamental energy?

Energy beings are a science fiction trope that's unlikely to be the case, though some experts resist declaring such completely impossible. You can see one of those addressing the issue in the video here (once beyond the couple of minutes of introductory fluff):

Next in order would be plasma-based life (below), which is arguably more feasible. But qualifying as "alive" does not mean the entity would be intelligent to a level rivaling or exceeding the human attribute.

Almost all instances of complex life during the last half-billion years on Earth have not qualified as sapient (to that degree). Evolution has no objective to produce intelligence no matter what amount of time goes by. It requires a convergence of unique circumstances. Even then, the qualifying species may have to progress in a certain cultural direction to be more than a primitive toolmaker (which again requires chance intersections of stimulus-serving events and conditions).

The Black Cloud: Though the presence of a sentient cloud of gas may seem unlikely, the story is grounded in hard science. The detection of the cloud is described using physics equations, all of which are included in the book. Hoyle brought his experience and knowledge as the Director of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society into the book. In a plot twist that foreshadows Hoyle's stance on panspermia, the cloud expresses surprise that intelligent life is capable of forming on planets.
- - - - - -

Freeman Dyson: Another possible form of life is the Black Cloud described by Fred Hoyle in his famous science fiction novel. The Black Cloud lives in the vacuum of space and is composed of dust-grains instead of cells. It derives its energy from gravitation or starlight, and acquires chemical nutrients from the naturally occurring interstellar dust. It is held together by electric and magnetic interactions between neighboring grains. Instead of having a nervous system or a wiring system, it has a network of long-range electromagnetic signals that transmit information and coordinate its activities. Like silicon-based life and unlike water-based life, the Black Cloud can adapt to arbitrarily low temperatures. Its demand for energy will diminish as the temperature goes down. [...] The superiority of analog-life is not so surprising if you are familiar with the mathematical theory of computable numbers and computable functions...
- - - - - -

(Aug, 2007) 'It might be life, Jim...', physicists discover inorganic dust with lifelike qualities: ". . . Now, an international team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organised into helical structures. These structures can then interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic compounds and life itself.

V.N. Tsytovich of the General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, in Moscow, working with colleagues there and at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany and the University of Sydney, Australia, has studied the behaviour of complex mixtures of inorganic materials in a plasma. Plasma is essentially the fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid and gas, in which electrons are torn from atoms leaving behind a miasma of charged particles.

Until now, physicists assumed that there could be little organisation in such a cloud of particles. However, Tsytovich and his colleagues demonstrated, using a computer model of molecular dynamics, that particles in a plasma can undergo self-organization as electronic charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized. This effect results in microscopic strands of solid particles that twist into corkscrew shapes, or helical structures. These helical strands are themselves electronically charged and are attracted to each other.

Quite bizarrely, not only do these helical strands interact in a counterintuitive way in which like can attract like, but they also undergo changes that are normally associated with biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, say the researchers. They can, for instance, divide, or bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure. These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma. ​

 

[Dennis Tate]

What convinced you of that? Sound a bit vague. Circuitry of some sort. Something like synaptic pathway activity. Nearly fundamental energy.

You keep using that term "fundamental energy", by the way, but that isn't really a thing.

What did he write that left you with that impression? Got a quote or two?

Why are you making assumptions about something you admit you don't understand?

"Postulated" being the operative word. In other words, he was speculating.

Why?

The sheer magnitude of fundamental energy and / or Energy from Quantum Vacuum...... (which to some degree must be essentially the same thing)..... has me convinced that energy that active would eventually form circuitry............

..... especially if Dr. Stephen Hawking Ph. D. was correct that that energy was moving around and doing something for infinite time before the most recent major Big Bang event of thirteen point eight billion or so years ago.

"It was not until 1920 that the idea of linking electromagnetism and
gravity resurfaced. At that time a new theory of gravitation had been proposed by Albert Einstein (1879-1955), called the general theory of relativity. It was a replacement of Newton's theory, which had stood unchallenged since 1687. Inspired by Einstein's work, a young German mathematician named Theodore Kaluza was seized by a curious idea. The theory of relativity links space an time together to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum. What would happen, mused Kaluza, if general relativity were formulated in five rather than four dimensions? This is what Kaluza did, and to everyone's astonishment it was discovered that five-dimensional gravity obeys the same laws as
four-dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell's laws for the electromagnetic field. In other words, gravitation and electromagnetism are automatically unified in five dimensions, where electromagnetism is merely a component of gravity!"

The only drawback of the theory concerns the extra dimension. Why
don't we see it? An ingenious answer was provided by Oskar Klein. A
hosepipe viewed from afar looks like a wiggly line, i.e. one- dimensional.
However, on closer inspection it can be seen as a narrow tube. It is, in fact,
two-dimensional, and what was taken to be a point on the line is actually a
little circle going around the tube. In the same way, reasoned Klein, what we normally regard as a point in three dimensional space could in reality be a little circle going around a fourth space dimension. Thus Kaluza's extra
dimension might well exist, but be impossible to detect because it is closed
(circular) and rolled up to a very small circumference. In spite of
these bizarre overtones, it seems probable that in future a "theory of everything" will make use of the idea of unseen higher dimensions."
....

"Although nature manifests four distinct forces, physicists believe that
each may be part of a smaller number of more primitive forces. At high energy, the electromagnetic and weak forces appear to merge into a single "electroweak" force. Some "grand unified theories" suggest that a further amalgamation takes place between the electroweak and strong forces at as yet unattained energies. The most ambitious unification schemes envisage an amalgamation of all four forces into a single "superforce" at ultra-high levels of energy."...

"The real burden in the next three centuries will not be the development of fancy mathematics, but the experimental testing of these ambitious theories. All current thinking about total unification assumes that the effects of linking all the forces and particles together will only become manifest at energies that are some trillion times greater than those currently attainable in particle accelerators. Probably we shall never reach such energies directly" ( A Theory of Everything" Volume 21 of "The World of Science)​

Chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe implied that he felt that fundamental energy was forming an infinite number of universes....... many with no life in them.... due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force NOT being properly tuned for life as we understand it.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Energy beings are a science fiction trope that's unlikely to be the case, though some experts resist declaring such completely impossible. You can see one of those addressing the issue in the video here (once beyond the couple of minutes of introductory fluff):

Next in order would be plasma-based life (below), which is arguably more feasible. But qualifying as "alive" does not mean the entity would be intelligent to a level rivaling or exceeding the human attribute.

Almost all instances of complex life during the last half-billion years on Earth have not qualified as sapient (to that degree). Evolution has no objective to produce intelligence no matter what amount of time goes by. It requires a convergence of unique circumstances. Even then, the qualifying species may have to progress in a certain cultural direction to be more than a primitive toolmaker (which again requires chance intersections of stimulus-serving events and conditions).

The Black Cloud: Though the presence of a sentient cloud of gas may seem unlikely, the story is grounded in hard science. The detection of the cloud is described using physics equations, all of which are included in the book. Hoyle brought his experience and knowledge as the Director of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society into the book. In a plot twist that foreshadows Hoyle's stance on panspermia, the cloud expresses surprise that intelligent life is capable of forming on planets.
- - - - - -

Freeman Dyson: Another possible form of life is the Black Cloud described by Fred Hoyle in his famous science fiction novel. The Black Cloud lives in the vacuum of space and is composed of dust-grains instead of cells. It derives its energy from gravitation or starlight, and acquires chemical nutrients from the naturally occurring interstellar dust. It is held together by electric and magnetic interactions between neighboring grains. Instead of having a nervous system or a wiring system, it has a network of long-range electromagnetic signals that transmit information and coordinate its activities. Like silicon-based life and unlike water-based life, the Black Cloud can adapt to arbitrarily low temperatures. Its demand for energy will diminish as the temperature goes down. [...] The superiority of analog-life is not so surprising if you are familiar with the mathematical theory of computable numbers and computable functions...
- - - - - -

(Aug, 2007) 'It might be life, Jim...', physicists discover inorganic dust with lifelike qualities: ". . . Now, an international team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organised into helical structures. These structures can then interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic compounds and life itself.

V.N. Tsytovich of the General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, in Moscow, working with colleagues there and at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany and the University of Sydney, Australia, has studied the behaviour of complex mixtures of inorganic materials in a plasma. Plasma is essentially the fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid and gas, in which electrons are torn from atoms leaving behind a miasma of charged particles.

Until now, physicists assumed that there could be little organisation in such a cloud of particles. However, Tsytovich and his colleagues demonstrated, using a computer model of molecular dynamics, that particles in a plasma can undergo self-organization as electronic charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized. This effect results in microscopic strands of solid particles that twist into corkscrew shapes, or helical structures. These helical strands are themselves electronically charged and are attracted to each other.

Quite bizarrely, not only do these helical strands interact in a counterintuitive way in which like can attract like, but they also undergo changes that are normally associated with biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, say the researchers. They can, for instance, divide, or bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure. These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma. ​

You could be right......

many scientists may hope that there are energy beings.......

but even more influential scientists may find that idea rather scary and / or a matter of parapsychology or even theology and they may not wish to write or speak much of anything on the topic publicly.

After I read chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawkings' Universe I wondered if rather than being an Atheist as he claimed... if instead Dr. Hawking was in actually an Agnostic with some leanings toward taking Dr. Albert Einstein's admission of being a "Pantheist after the order of Spinoza" somewhat seriously????

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I am listening to this video right now......
this presents a powerful case that some major league Theoretical Physicists do also suspect that consciousness began even before the Big Bang.

suspect
scientific theorisation at advanced levels is quite different to subjective homogeneous simplifications
(scientific suspicion/speculation and theory guess to statistical values, is completely alien to common religious thinking of the masses)
what you have left out of your comment is a HUGE critical point about this line of theory

in this particular case
the big bang is perceived as probable to be one of other bangs

this is conceptually a lot like simpleton religion
except underneath it is highly advanced intellects with vast arrays of hard science practice theory & laws.

like giving a machine gun to one monkey
and a computer to the other monkey
then claiming the monkey with the computer or machine gun is more likely to create civilized peaceful society

rare is it ever that simple
and when it is
most of modern civility has already been exsanguinated

Stuart Hameroff ... Dr, Professor, Anesthesiologist & Psychologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
Stuart Hameroff (born July 16, 1947)
is an American anesthesiologist and Professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness and his controversial contention that consciousness originates from quantum states in neural microtubules. He is the lead organizer of the Science of Consciousness conference.

learning to drink from a fire hose is the activity of comprehending what these scientists are saying

what you have stated in your comment is
micro tubules pre exist the big bang
is that really the simple take away ?
probably not
im going to listen to where this connects


... "self collapse of the quantum wave function" ...
... "platonic values embedded in space-time geometry"...



Forrest for data storage .... by using laser-Beams (& sharks) LoLZZZZZZz

... "im not sure what this really means, but it's nice and a lot of people kinda like it"...

... "ok so that's going on in microtubules, which is actually connected to space time geometry"...

 

[Dennis Tate]

suspect
scientific theorisation at advanced levels is quite different to subjective homogeneous simplifications
(scientific suspicion/speculation and theory guess to statistical values, is completely alien to common religious thinking of the masses)
what you have left out of your comment is a HUGE critical point about this line of theory

in this particular case
the big bang is perceived as probable to be one of other bangs

this is conceptually a lot like simpleton religion
except underneath it is highly advanced intellects with vast arrays of hard science practice theory & laws.

like giving a machine gun to one monkey
and a computer to the other monkey
then claiming the monkey with the computer or machine gun is more likely to create civilized peaceful society

rare is it ever that simple
and when it is
most of modern civility has already been exsanguinated

Stuart Hameroff ... Dr, Professor, Anesthesiologist & Psychologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
Stuart Hameroff (born July 16, 1947)
is an American anesthesiologist and Professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness and his controversial contention that consciousness originates from quantum states in neural microtubules. He is the lead organizer of the Science of Consciousness conference.

learning to drink from a fire hose is the activity of comprehending what these scientists are saying

what you have stated in your comment is
micro tubules pre exist the big bang
is that really the simple take away ?
probably not
im going to listen to where this connects


... "self collapse of the quantum wave function" ...
... "platonic values embedded in space-time geometry"...



Forrest for data storage .... by using laser-Beams (& sharks) LoLZZZZZZz

... "im not sure what this really means, but it's nice and a lot of people kinda like it"...

... "ok so that's going on in microtubules, which is actually connected to space time geometry"...

A stronger word than "suspect" is actually called for when we think deeply about the fact that Stephen Hawking Ph. D. in a sense risked his career by what he wrote about The Anthropic Principle and about a Cyclic Model including a potentially nearly infinite number of unsuccessful universes even before the Big Bang event.

He profoundly offended a high percentage of his peers in Theoretical Physics by what he wrote on that topic................

One obvious and logical reason that they got offended was because they realized it would be essentially impossible to test his theories.




Look at the title of this rather brilliantly written blog:


Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP

• By John Horgan on September 13, 2010

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

Actually M-theory is just the latest iteration of string theory, with membranes (hence the M) substituted for strings. For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith.


M-theory suffers from the same flaws that string theories did. First is the problem of empirical accessibility. Membranes, like strings, are supposedly very, very tiny—as small compared with a proton as a proton is compared with the solar system. This is the so-called Planck scale, 10^–33 centimeters. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of membranes or strings that we have for, say, quarks would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around, scaling up from our current technology. Our entire solar system is only one light-day around, and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator, is 27 kilometers in circumference.


Hawking recognized long ago that a final theory—because it would probably involve particles at the Planck scale—might never be experimentally confirmable. "It is not likely that we shall have accelerators powerful enough" to test a unified theory "within the foreseeable future—or indeed, ever," he said in his 1980 speech at Cambridge. He nonetheless hoped that in lieu of empirical evidence physicists would discover a theory so logically inevitable that it excluded all alternatives.


Quite the opposite has happened. M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which "predict" an almost infinite number of possible universes. Critics call this the "Alice's restaurant problem," a reference to the refrain of the old Arlo Guthrie folk song: "You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant." Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn't predict anything, and hence isn't a theory at all. Proponents, including Hawking, have tried to turn this bug into a feature, proclaiming that all the universes "predicted" by M-theory actually exist. "Our universe seems to be one of many," Hawking and Mlodinow assert.

I personally lean heavily toward an "almost infinite number of possible universes" so Mr. John Horgan did a good job of explaining why M-Theory can be profoundly offensive to many true scientists....... ( and I am no scientist) ............ but at least I do enjoy reading about all of this.

 

[Luchito]

I am convinced that circuitry of some sort......
and later on something like synaptic pathway activity would naturally develop in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy as is explained by String Theory.

Chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe was entitled The Anthropic Principle. Dr. Hawking left me with the impression that he felt that some sort of "fundamental energy" would exist for something like infinite time even before the most recent Big Bang event of something like thirteen point eight billion years ago.

Assuming M-Theory with eleven dimensions of space and time, vs Bosonic String Theory with twenty six or even more dimensions of space and time then I am assuming that one or two fundamental energies would correspond with the highest vibrational energies, which... would seem to correspond to the tenth and the eleventh dimension.

If I am allowed to do so I would really like to challenge Write4U to this debate and one of the objectives would be for Write4U to reword my basic idea so that I am not making a truly stupid assertion......... I do not have the understanding of the technical jargon needed to do justice to this topic but from some of his discussions that I have read by him I have formed the impression that Write4U can correct my wording................

.... for a further debate later on that at least can be began here?

About a primeval energy causing the current status of the universe existency is a fundamental settlement that can't be ignored in science.

However, String Theory, Hawking with his superfluous multiple universes, and similar good for nothing ideas born from similar pseudo scientific people will take you out of the right path.

Think about the next, you have your fundamental energy, a new term which is accepted as a technical word in this discussion, and by the way, congratulations, you are the author of a new technical term. Be careful not to mess up at the time of organizing your thoughts in order to provide the required definition of it.

I'll give you a tip, because I see you trying and trying to find answers that the current good for nothing theories of today can't provide.

The tip is that your fundamental energy must be ordered. Of course the procedure at the time of its development will include chaos, but the outcome will be order.

With this fundamental energy theory in your hands, you can go far away, but you better discard the absurdities of Hawking and others, because their stories have no value at all.

Wish you the best with your fundamental energy.

 

[exchemist]

About a primeval energy causing the current status of the universe existency is a fundamental settlement that can't be ignored in science.

However, String Theory, Hawking with his superfluous multiple universes, and similar good for nothing ideas born from similar pseudo scientific people will take you out of the right path.

Think about the next, you have your fundamental energy, a new term which is accepted as a technical word in this discussion, and by the way, congratulations, you are the author of a new technical term. Be careful not to mess up at the time of organizing your thoughts in order to provide the required definition of it.

I'll give you a tip, because I see you trying and trying to find answers that the current good for nothing theories of today can't provide.

The tip is that your fundamental energy must be ordered. Of course the procedure at the time of its development will include chaos, but the outcome will be order.

With this fundamental energy theory in your hands, you can go far away, but you better discard the absurdities of Hawking and others, because their stories have no value at all.

Wish you the best with your fundamental energy.

You are replying to a post from 6 months ago and the poster in question was banned a month later. (And your post is gibberish of course, but that's to be expected.)

 

[DaveC426913]

(And your post is gibberish of course, but that's to be expected.)

Not to mention:

 

[Luchito]

You are replying to a post from 6 months ago and the poster in question was banned a month later. (And your post is gibberish of course, but that's to be expected.)

No wonder I didn't see his avatar in the topics anymore.

Replying to the quetion of the topic anyway, the first form of intelligence is not perceived by our senses but inserted inside us by nature. It's like TV transmission where waves arrive to all houses but only the ones that have the antenna pointing the path of the signals, are the ones capable to decipher them.

He might be banned but I have the feeling he does check this forum from time to time. Perhaps he might read this last input. My hope.

 

[Write4U]

If I am allowed to do so I would really like to challenge Write4U to this debate and one of the objectives would be for Write4U to reword my basic idea so that I am not making a truly stupid assertion......... I do not have the understanding of the technical jargon needed to do justice to this topic but from some of his discussions that I have read by him I have formed the impression that Write4U can correct my wording................

Why doesn't anybody actually use the proper definition of "intelligence".

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

Intelligence is most often studied in humans but has also been observed in both non-human animals and in plants despite controversy as to whether some of these forms of life exhibit intelligence.[1][2] Intelligence in computers or other machines is called artificial intelligence.

It is clear that intelligence is a property (evolved level) of sentience that allows for motivated decision making, perhaps even a form of free will.

But that is not what the question addresses, IMO.

This is about the apparent logical deterministic processes that appear to be intelligent in nature, but are expressions of mathematical functions processing relational values. IOW, non-sentient quasi-intelligent functions.

This qualifying term is defensible on many levels, most of all, it does not require a motivated agency, but is a deterministic mathematically based processing of naturally occurring relational values, inherent potentials Bohm's Implicate) that may become expressed (Bohm's Explicate) in reality.

Bohm also referred to this process as a constant "unfolding" and "enfolding" of potential values inherent in the fabric of spacetime itself. It is not biological intelligence, but a natural logical deterministic quasi-intelligent mathematical function.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why doesn't anybody actually use the proper definition of "intelligence".

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

This is about the apparent logical deterministic processes that appear to be intelligent in nature, but are expressions of mathematical functions processing relational values. IOW, non-sentient quasi-intelligent functions.
...
Bohm also referred to this process as a constant "unfolding" and "enfolding" of potential values inherent in the fabric of spacetime itself. It is not biological intelligence, but a natural logical deterministic quasi-intelligent mathematical function.

WOOHOO! A TRIPLE WHAMMY WOO WINNER!




I am going to start a forum challenge. A prize will go to the first member that can craft a post that triggers Write4UBot to spam every one of its boilerplate word-salad-dumps in a single post.

 

[Arthur Smith]

Is this forum on the way out?

 

[Write4U]

Is this forum on the way out?

Why do you ask?
Why don't you contribute something interesting so that we can discuss it?