Buffy Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 ... it is the case that I believe photons do not carry information. This new statment definitely does contradict what I have said in the quote given above....First, I wanted to speak about photons being the means by which the outside world communicates with us. The problem I faced was that it is generally believed that we receive information from the outside world. My need to discuss photons preceded the point where I could discuss my view of the nature of intelligence. So, in the beginning discussions of photons, I followed convention and speak of photons delivering information. At a later point, I develop my explanation about intelligence. It is then that I propose that photons do not carry information, at least not individually. Afterwards, I speak of photons as not carrying information. If I said this too early, it would be rejected as not making logical sense. ...if my work is followed in order, I make it clear the reason why I make this change or at least I intended to do this....It is true that it is useful to read proofs out of order, but it is hard to follow a proof that is missing steps. It may be that photon's not conveying information proves your explanation of intelligence, but that presupposes that you can show that they do not convey information. Conversely you could say that your theory of intelligence proves that photons cannot convey information, but that presuposes the enunciation of the explanation, beyond that the unsupported statement it was fixed before the universe existed and is contained in everything through an unexplained means. Its either true that it can be shown that photons do not convey information in which case another hypotheses like the concepts you indicate you have discovered may be the method for getting intelligence into things, or the explanation of this means needs to be described. What is perceived here is the use of circular reasoning in which two unsupported statements are claimed to imply one another, which is not convincing. Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted February 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 I have looked back at the posts and think that this one is the one that is offensive. Orbsycli I apologize. I should not have said nonsense. That showed frustration on my part. I have looked for my original offending post. It appears to be deleted. I had gone back and read it again. I decided I should have retracted the whole statement. I now do that. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo Toth Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 This is all a bit confusing. Could you explain to me what this intelligence is? Lazlo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 I wish you good luck getting a straight answer on that one lazlo, I still don't even know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 I don't think I fully understand your idea, so let me try to explain your idea to you, and then you can tell me if I'm wrong. It hinges on the idea of intelligence, correct? So, anthing that we know of the world comes in the form of photons, which are interpreted by our mind to provide information as to what our environment is. However, we cannot know whether this information is false or true, because any test for it would require photons. Is this part of it? I'll admit that I haven't had much time to read your site, and I apologize for that, but I think that, if you will be patient with me, we can learn from each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted February 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 This is all a bit confusing. Could you explain to me what this intelligence is? I wish you good luck getting a straight answer on that one lazlo, I still don't even know. I looked back through the messages. These are the relevant exchanges. Share with me some physical evidence you think exists, i'm extremely curious. I have an order that I wish to follow. James: I should have expanded on this answer. People with different views of the universe view the properties of the universe differently. I think it serves no purpose for me to point to something and say that is evidence of intelligent design, before presenting a different view. For example, the quote from you that follows below states a firm position. That is your view of the universe. I left it alone. I strongly disagree with it. You are entitled to it. There is nothing meaningful for me to say in response unless I establish the reasons for a different view. I admit, I cannot do that quickly or concisely. Intelligence itself can not be "encoded in a plasma ball"Intelligence evolved from what happened after the big bang. we are in no way significant in this universe, at all. You speak of intelligence as if it is something you can touch, pick up, move around, and hold high above your head. You speak of it as if it was a noun with mass. I speak of intelligence as a property of the universe. I consider it the most important property. It is not an object. However, we have learned to think in material terms. Intelligence needs to be looked at separate from the materialist viewpoint and yet fully related to our experience of living within the universe. I think the best way for me to share my view is for you to read Human Intelligence. I write more about intelligence in other essays; however, if you are interested, this is the first one to consider. It is sufficient for you to evaluate my point of view. It is not up to you to decide what is sufficient for me. Infact, I find it highly insufficient to read your first-considered essay on human intelligence. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted February 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 This is all a bit confusing. Could you explain to me what this intelligence is? Lazlo Hi Lazlo, I cannot explain the origin or cause of intelligence. My view is a scientific view. I do not have a religion to promote. I do not declare that intelligence was created by the Creator. The problem of defining cause is that there is either no end to it or there is a deadend to it. There are either an infinite series of causes for causes, or there is an uncaused cause for all other causes. Here is what I believe from following the evidence. This short answer will leave out a large amount of background information. Hopefully, it is sufficent to make a point of interest to others. I will try to follow a single, and narrow, path of reasoning. Please let me know if I have accomplished something from your viewpoint. The existence of intelligence is a scientific fact. We have the intelligence to comprehend meaning in the universe. Everything we think we know about the universe is the result of intelligent conclusions about the meaning of data. The discussion concerning whether or not we see a line in the sand is relevant here. It begins the process of realizing that all meanings and conclusions originate inside our minds. The line example, by itself may not be sufficient to demonstrate this. However, what can be said about lines can be said about all objects. We see them as being continuous. Our present knowledge of science reveals to us that objects are not continuous. In the case of the line, and of objects in general, we see that which is not real insofar as scientific analysis tells us. It is real to us and it serves our needs to see things in this manner. In general, we do not see the universe the way science explains it. We see it in ways that I believe could not have resulted from simply experiencing the properties of the universe. Our experience of discontinuity by means of incremental data can never show us the existence of continuity. It is 'unnatural', I mean this in the sense that it is not made known to us by theories of mechanical properties of the universe. I consider it to be natural in the sense that it is the most important property of the universe. It only exists within our minds. We were born with that concept. We were programmed to view the universe in this special way. This viewpoint of ours concerning the way we interpret the universe can be extended to everything we see. So, speaking only about how we view the universe, it comes from within us. It is original to us, exluding any discussion of lower lifeforms. However, its original cause is not our minds. We are made from the substance of the universe. This ability is made possible by the very substance of the universe that, according to orthodox theory, does not appear to ever had this ability itself. I think it would be instructive for us to follow this property backward down through our construction to our DNA. I do not expect to find it looking quite the same; however, since I reject either religious or scientific miracles, I do expect fundamental properties that contain all the potential for this ability to there. Since our DNA is not the beginning of everything, we should then look further back to the properties of the matter from which DNA is formed to find properties of this ability that are even more fundamental and yet still in control of its full potential. We cannot use our definitons of intelligence to guide us through this. The practice of tracing intelligence down the scale of complexity to a point where its traits, as we macroscopically define them, seem to dissappear is not really the practice of tracing intelligence. It is instead the practice of measuring our level of understanding of intelligence. This pursuit of the origin of human intelligence establishes, for me, that the cause of our intelligence, within the universe, is a property of matter. The use of the concept of matter having intelligent properties may seem uncomfortable and the concept of force clearer. However, which is more comfortable to say about our response to observing the universe? First, the universe exerted a force on us and something about us changed its velocity. Or second, the universe communicated with us and we understood its meaning. The pursuit of the cause of human intelligence, for us, stops with the fundamental constituents from which the universe is formed. At that point we reach the deadend. How come the universe experiences intelligence? What is its first cause? I do not know. What I speculate about it is that the intelligence of the universe is limited. It is controlled. I do not see it as being capable of creating itself. If it did not creat itself and if it is limited, then I conclude its source was a greater intelligence. I have nothing more to argue in defense of that view. It is personal. I do see the scientific pursuit of the cause of intelligence as very worthwhile and very important. Beyond the mechanics of materialistic theoretical physics there is a great deal more to account for in the complete evolution of the universe. This greater understanding cannot come from materialism. The unification of mechanical type properties with the cause of life and intelligence will explain both atomic phenomenon and human consciousness. It will describe the natures of motion and awareness. I think it is the case that there are wondrous properties of molecules that are not understood from the perspective of the combination of theoretical mechanical properties of the particles that constitute them. Molecules programmed with properties of intelligence and life have a purpose much greater than what physics or chemistry can tell us. If we are to understand life and intelligence, then we first need to understand we have not yet learned some very important natural properties of matter. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 Just an attempt to be helpful to the participants in this thread: James repeatedly claims not to have a religious aim. One reason why this appears to be a strange claim is his choice of wording in the title, ie "Intelligent design". This is usually connected with recent anti-evolutionist religious movements. It might be better to find another term to describe your philosophy, James, because "ID" is a red flag for many of us. Read more about Intelligent Design at Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo Toth Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 The existence of intelligence is a scientific fact. We have the intelligence to comprehend meaning in the universe. Everything we think we know about the universe is the result of intelligent conclusionsabout the meaning of data. ...Our experience of discontinuity by means of incremental data can never show us the existence of continuity. It is an 'unnatural', I only mean this in the sense that it is not made known to us by theories of mechanical properties of the universe. I consider it to be natural in the sense that it is the most important property of the universe. It only exists within our minds. We were born with that concept. We were programmed to view the universe in this special way. ...This pursuit of the origin of human intelligence establishes, for me, that the cause of our intelligence, within the universe, is a property of matter. The use of the concept of matter having intelligent properties may seem uncomfortable and the concept of force clearer. ...At that point we reach the deadend. How come the universe experiences intelligence? What I speculate about it is that the intelligence of the universe is limited. It is controlled. I do not see it as being capable of creating itself. If we are to understand life and intelligence, then we first need to understand we have not yet learned some very important natural properties of matter. My daughters tell me I am smarter than I think, but I'm not sure I missed something in what you say here. I guess what I'm confused about is what you mean by "intelligence"...what is it? I think I understand what you mean when you say its everywhere and something that scientists don't know about gets it there, but does that mean a mouse has the same intelligence I do? I do a bit of programming, what do you mean by "programmed in?" How does that happen? And you say that the intelligence in the universe is limited: does that mean we already know everything? How come we don't know things? I'm not very good at chess, is there a way I can get at this intelligence that others seem to be aware of and I am not? Thanks for your patience: I don't know a lot about these kinds of things. Lazlo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 What if we accept intelligence to be no more than the product of the complexity of neurons. Then intelligence wouldn't need a higher intelligence to inform it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 I'm with you Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted February 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 My daughters tell me I am smarter than I think, but I'm not sure I missed something in what you say here. I guess what I'm confused about is what you mean by "intelligence"...what is it? I think I understand what you mean when you say its everywhere and something that scientists don't know about gets it there, but does that mean a mouse has the same intelligence I do? I do a bit of programming, what do you mean by "programmed in?" How does that happen? And you say that the intelligence in the universe is limited: does that mean we already know everything? How come we don't know things? I'm not very good at chess, is there a way I can get at this intelligence that others seem to be aware of and I am not? Thanks for your patience: I don't know a lot about these kinds of things. Lazlo Hi Lazlo, Thank you for the questions. It will take some extra time to answer these questions. I missed some earlier posts to which I want to respond. I will attempt to answer all but one of the questions now and the other later. I guess what I'm confused about is what you mean by "intelligence"...what is it? My short answer is that intelligence is the ability to generate information and the ability to discern meaning in information. My long answer is at Human Intelligence. I will quote an excerpt from it: "...This stimulation of emotion is an important part of the means of communication of our subconscious mind with our conscious mind. In this sense, it is emotion that guides us through a learning experience. Our physical eyes supply us with data that does not yet have meaning. The emotions I am stressing now are special. They are emotional responses clearly programmed into us. There is another kind. For example, we can learn to feel happiness from possession of material things. It is certainly common to desire a special material object, and upon gaining possession of it to feel very happy. We may smile, laugh or shout triumphantly. This kind of emotional feeling is trained, tenuous and is not the instinctive emotion I am reaching for here. I am reaching for the emotion of happiness that is unique and has permanence. I will refer to it as real joy. Real joy is very different from the happiness of learned pleasures. Real joy is the feeling you experience while witnessing the birth of a loved baby. There are many more examples that could be given; however, it is the uniqueness of the emotion I wish to clearly identify. The emotion is unique because of the response it elicits from us. The emotion of real joy does not cause us to laugh. It causes us to cry. It does not cause us to squeal with delight. It causes us to become mute. Even if we try to speak, we may find we have lost that ability. It does not cause us to leap into the air. It is likely to cause us to feel weak in the knees. It does not cause us to act proud and haughty. It reduces us to a posture of humility and humbleness. It is a different and wondrous feeling indeed. It is the feeling that this joy is different from the other emotion called happiness. It lets us know this is the real happiness we are programmed to know. This is an example of our being naturally directed to fundamental truth. There is a general process by which natural truths are revealed to our conscious minds. We still have to learn how to use it to its fullest extent. We are not programmed to always cry when a fundamental truth is being revealed. The process is more complex than that. However, there must be preset physical responses, if we will recognize them, for confirming truth. If we allow our thoughts to be guided along this natural path of intelligent thought, then we can understand everything we are capable of knowing. ..." This excerpt deals with your question: ...is there a way I can get at this intelligence that others seem to be aware of and I am not? I pursued more than just talk when trying to resolve this question. Now I will perhaps sound like I am straying outside of reality, but I also wanted to know this answer. I put the idea to a test. I looked for a means by which I might know scientific answers. I developed a procedure to guide me. I used it to guide my thoughts toward a new theory of physics. I won't offer an explanation of the procedure, because I will look silly enough if my theory is exposed as being in error. Instead, I will disclose it if my theory is determined to be correct. My theory is at my website. I have put it on the Internet to put it to the test. Your question: ...does that mean a mouse has the same intelligence I do? I am sure you do not mean the same level of intelligence. My answer, then, is that the mouse's intelligence has the same source as yours. It is far more limited. However, the mouse's intelligence must be capable of interpreting much of the same data that we do. It also must be capable of discerning meaning from a very complex mix of always changing incremental data arriving at the speed of light. Your question: ...you say that the intelligence in the universe is limited: does that mean we already know everything?I mean that the intelligence in the universe is limited to that required for the operation of the universe. The universe cannot change its rules. The universe cannot change itself. This still means that the universe includes a great deal of intelligent meaning for us to discern. Now, in answer to what I think you really want to know. It is not that we are aware of knowing everything. However, the means by which we can learn everything about the operation of the universe is contained within us. It is our birthright. We are the means by which the universe comprehends itself. It gave us our properties, but they are only on loan. The matter from which we are formed was a part of the inanimate universe for eons. Now for an insignificant period of time it participates in human life. Afterwards, that matter will return to the inanimate universe. It is the same matter before, during and after. I think it is not surprising then that our matter can discern meaning from other matter which is the same and from which it came. The data received by us from other matter is the catalyst that draws out our intrinsic knowledge contained within our subconscious mind. Our subconscious mind then offers a conclusion that is presented to our conscious mind. In other words, everything we can learn is already contained within us. However, it has to be stimulated by outside data in order to be caused to rise to the level of consciousness. Ok. I think I have stuck my neck out far enough for now. I will wait for yours and others responses before continuing in this vein. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted February 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 Here is something off topic that may be of interest to Hypography administrators. I have a webpage parked at http://jamesputnam.com. Its purpose is to help people locate me on the Internet. They are directed to my homepage http://newphysicstheory.com. For four years now if someone were to search James Putnam, without the A, they could find me maybe in the top ten listings or more likely within the top twenty. I have been a member only since 12-19-04. I did not post until 2-13-05. However, if you google search James Putnam the two top listings now are snapshots of my Hypography profile. The first thing that viewers see is the name Hypography Science Forums. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 The first thing that viewers see is the name Hypography Science Forums. As well is should be, if we were to Google any of our names... :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 The first thing that viewers see is the name Hypography Science Forums. Believe me, it's taken a lot of hard work to get to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted February 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 The operation of the universe is controlled. That is why we observe consistency. = an assumption. Prove it. Principles of physics, the success of mathematical representation and prediction, and our ability to comprehend meaning from the universe now and backward almost to its beginning are the proof. It is consistent in its properties. They do not vary. The universe has evolved in a systematic manner. What would have made sense in its early stages makes sense today. What is true today is the result of what was potentially true from the beginning. The material complexity of today's universe evolved from simple, fundamental states. The process of evolution for the universe followed direction dictated by the fundamental properties of the universe. Being dictacted means being controlled. I do not know the nature of the control other than it was sufficient to eventually reveal both life and intelligence. For example, the cause of electromagnetism is declared to be electric charge. No one knows what is electric charge. I think you need to explain this one. This is a fact. No one knows what is electric charge. It is a name for a proposed cause of electromagnetic effects. We only know about effects. We do not know causes. We do not know what causes electromagnetic effects. The practice of assuming specific causes is very risky science. In Coulomb's electric force equation f=k(qq)/(rr) there appeared the unknown qualities (qq). It was not known why they were there. It was assumed they represented the cause of electrical effects. They were assumed to represent a unique cause. If we are wrong in identifying a unique cause for electromagnetic effects, a cause separate in nature from all other causes, then our theories involving electromagnetism are at great risk for being in error. The penalty for being wrong in this guess is that a large portion of physics theory would have to change immediately if we learned the true nature of electric charge. I know what they did seemed reasonable at the time. However, now physicists seek to unify their theories into a 'Theory of Everything'. The irony is that unity may have been possible beginning with the fundamentals. They were not looking for it at that time. If unity does exist at the fundamental level, then properties like electromagnetism are not unique. They are, instead, different aspects or manifestations of a single original cause. It is my position that a single cause does exist. That it is responsible for all effects. If this is true, then fundamental theory would change radically. This idea does not need to include life and intelligence in order to be tested. It is rather a matter of postulating a unified mechanical theory in the custom of orthodox theoretical physics. What I think needs to be postulated are properties of the universe that cause matter to form life and generate individual intelligent thought. And those properties are: list them here: I don't know them. But, I feel certain they must involve fundamental properties that contain the full potential for both life and intelligence as well as the simple motion of objects. Here is a quote of mine from Understanding the Universe: "It is continuity, order and unity that should lead us to answers about the nature of the universe. One problem we encounter is that we are no longer able to become knowledgeable in all fields of study. Specialization has become necessary for us to learn everything we need to know. Unfortunately specialization is not conducive to maintaining continuity. The work of physicists does not establish our knowledge of chemistry. The work of chemists does not establish our knowledge of life or intelligence. The best answers are known only after the problem is in full view. We do not have the problem in full view. We have pieces of the problem divided up among persons having widely diverse expertise. Each area of study could be in error and we would find it hard to recognize this. The problem is that unity is the key to removing error. The divisions that exist between disciplines are not the divisions of convenience they are intended to be. They are representative of many discontinuities in our knowledge of the universe. If all of our knowledge of separate fields cannot be brought together into a harmonious unity, then one or more are in error. So long as disunity is incorporated into the study of the problem, our solutions will not produce unity. Each branch of science should become guided by the necessity to find unity even in the approaches that each follows. Their approaches should be chosen to be in unison with one another. This challenge is analogous to the problem faced by theoretical physicists. If they establish their fundamentals by including disunity, then they cannot later find unity in their higher-level theory." Scientific analysis should begin from the point of view of using empirical knowledge learned in all fields to formulate a unified approach to determining the nature of the universe. The key or foundation to this approach cannot be the mechanical theory of physics. The key is to look to the common interpretive approach used by our collective intelligence. That is where the nature of the universe is contained. Life can provide the answers because life is where all answers are contained. The original condition of the universe made possible all properties for all time. If it is assumed that it is still possible for life to evolve at this time in the universe, then the properties of the universe that makes this possible are still in existence. The universe still knows these properties. We can also come to know them. Their existence is as 'physical' as any other property of the universe. The continuing existence of life demonstrates that those properties are still available for us to analyze today. We were formed by and function because of those properties of the universe." James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 Hey, how come I only realized just now about this thread. Must've missed a lot. Will catch up soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts