Jump to content
Science Forums

Is adversity necessary to develop intelligence?


pgrmdave

Recommended Posts

In order for a system to maintain itself their needs to be a movement between at least two points.

Every thing is the universe moves this way, intelligent is nothing new to this system, from elemental particles to planets everything is in motion, the need to think, move, act, eat, make love, is all the ways the universe keep us moving, This cosmic dance sustains the world. We connect the universe to itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As for as seeing the order in the universe,

 

This has to do with the higher cognitive function of turning the quantum potential into . consciousness This is what we do for the universe we collect information download it into a point that weaves threads of memories.

The experience of time is than created so eternity can than have something to be balanced against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to do with the higher cognitive function of turning the quantum potential into conscience.
OK, one piece at at time. How does higher cognitive function turn quantum potential into conscience? Conscience is usually interpreted to mean an innate sense of right and wrong. If the universe is deterministic (and without a creator), there would be no such thing as right and wrong. If it is deterministic and has a creator, theists would suggest that the source of conscience is the creator, not the determinism of the universe. Which position are you decribing or refuting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Biochemist, I see what you mean.

 

This is a little at odds with the prevailing notion that quantum motion actually is random, but I suspect that the pure determinists would postulate that even quantim movement is predetermined.

I remember watching a program about string theory entitled "the elegant universe" where that thought was explained. I also remember the anchor saying that Einstein hated the idea of randomness and declared :"God does not play dice!"

What I'm driving at is that, paradoxically, one could be an atheist and believe in randomness, while a believer, such as Einstein, believes in a predetermined universe. Am I correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm driving at is that, paradoxically, one could be an atheist and believe in randomness, while a believer, such as Einstein, believes in a predetermined universe. Am I correct?

 

What about the camp that thinks God created the universe and left it to evolve on it's own? Couldn't they believe in randomness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the notion of god being omniscient by default make it deterministic?

 

I don't know if all of the believers in that camp believe that god is omniscient. What if some of them simply believe that god only got the ball rolling. Would they fit the bill? I can't particularly say that I know anyone from that camp to ask. It would be nice to have their input here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the notion of god being omniscient by default make it deterministic?
What about the camp that thinks God created the universe and left it to evolve on it's own? Couldn't they believe in randomness?
I think that theists (even Christians, a distinct subset of theists) are all over the map here. Let me take a Christian perspective first, since I don't think I can represent eastern religion on the variances.

 

Among Christians, there are a bunch of folks who believe God intercedes in our lives regularly. There are also a bunch of folks who rely on God's omnicience to presume that his interventions were planned as a part of the determinism of the universe. But( FT-) there are folks who assume God's omnicience and yet do not fall into the determinism camp.

 

I don't know of any explicit discussion of randomness (in the sense that we use it here) in Christian theology. There could be one, but Christian discussions of determinism tend to be limited to the behavior and influences in humans. Theologians tend not to focus too much on quarks and gluons. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if some of them simply believe that god only got the ball rolling...
There are lots of those folks, although this is not a common Christian perspective. In the narrow case of evolution, there were quite a few folks (theological evolutionisists) that took this approach on the evoluition discussion. That "start the system and hands off" model did not necessarily apply to other discussions of Christian thinking, even among theological evolutionists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that theists (even Christians, a distinct subset of theists) are all over the map here. Let me take a Christian perspective first, since I don't think I can represent eastern religion on the variances.

 

Among Christians, there are a bunch of folks who believe God intercedes in our lives regularly. There are also a bunch of folks who rely on God's omnicience to presume that his interventions were planned as a part of the determinism of the universe. But( FT-) there are folks who assume God's omnicience and yet do not fall into the determinism camp.

 

I don't know of any explicit discussion of randomness (in the sense that we use it here) in Christian theology. There could be one, but Christian discussions of determinism tend to be limited to the behavior and influences in humans. Theologians tend not to focus too much on quarks and gluons. Go figure.

I would say that most Christians either believe whatever they were taught or whatever suites their purpose at the time, without giving any particular concept much thought. Some denominations think each individual person is predestined to either be saved or not, regardless of what they do or what happens to them. That is not at all the same as determinism, since the players are not part of the scene.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that most Christians either believe whatever they were taught or whatever suites their purpose at the time, without giving any particular concept much thought...
Hmmm. That model applies to most everyone. (e.g., 5% of people think, 10% think they think, and 85% are looking for a slogan). But among thoughtful Christians (and there are certainly some), they evaluate their position against facts or opposing thought regularly. I don't think it is productive to hold the thoughtless against the thoughtful. Not in physics, biochemistry or religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher, if I understood what you said, you are suggesting that higher cognitive functions turn quantum motion into consciousness. Some folks (including me, I think) think that is a syllogism, because higher cognitive functions are consciousness. Help me here

 

 

 

Had to look up " syllogism," I think in dynamics not in words and visualize how energy moves in the universe. What I am saying is that the source that we emerged from is one that see's eternity with one "eye" and though our lives experiences the field time with the other. These opposites sustains the eternal aspect as well as the temporal. We also have these two field with in us when we experience beauty or oneness with the universe we are finding our center aspect and move closer to a feeding the universal one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to look up " syllogism," ... We also have these two field with in us when we experience beauty or oneness with the universe...
Sorry about the odd words.

 

You sound a little like an Eastern mystic, but I get your drift. You aren't making a cause-effect statement, you are hypothesizing (or postulating) a cosmic relationship. True?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that most Christians either believe whatever they were taught or whatever suites their purpose at the time, without giving any particular concept much thought.

 

I would say that most everyone either believes whatever they were taught or whatever suits their purpose at the time...

 

It's somewhat silly to assume that everyone who believes in Christianity also needs to be well versed in quantum mechanics. It's also silly to expect a guy skilled in quantum mechanics to be able to clean a salmon in under 5 seconds, or have a detailed understanding of globalization as it relates to corporate economy and Andean coffee farmers. Is it their responsibility to learn, or our responsibility to teach them, or does it really matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...