- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
That the universe can be explained!Loren Booda said:What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
That their own existence is something special and even sacred instead of being an out control form of self replicating pests who disturb the serenity of planets.Loren Booda said:What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
Instead of being? Isn't it considerably more rational (after all Loren did constrain the question to "intelligent civilizations") to acept the fact that even an "intelegent civilization" could be (and most probably will be) an out of control form of self replicating pest? I see no evidence that Human beings (our only reference here) are not out of control self replicating pests.MeJennifer said:That their own existence is something special and even sacred instead of being an out control form of self replicating pests who disturb the serenity of planets.
Well, if you don't like "existence exists", then how about "Je pense, donc je suis." (Descartes was French, not Latin.)Loren Booda said:Isn't a common intelligent philosophy more than such circular reasoning as "existence exists"?
Say Dick, is not your theory of "explanation" that you discussed many times on this forum based on a fundamental axiom that "existence exists" ? That is, is not existence prior to explanation ? If not, can you explain why not ?Doctordick said:Instead of being? Isn't it considerably more rational (after all Loren did constrain the question to "intelligent civilizations") to accept the fact that even an "intelligent civilization" could be (and most probably will be) an out of control form of self replicating pest? I see no evidence that Human beings (our only reference here) are not out of control self replicating pests. Have fun -- Dick
If not these words, from whence does your philosophy derive ? "Existence exists" is nothing more than a statement where its negation is a contradiction, and clearly a "common intelligent philosophy" would never hold a contradiction to be true.Loren Booda said:Isn't a common intelligent philosophy more than such circular reasoning as "existence exists"?
"Existence exists" is nothing more than a statement where its negation is a contradiction, and clearly a "common intelligent philosophy" would never hold a contradiction to be true.
Loren Booda said:What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
Could you explain what you mean by "exists"?Rade said:Say Dick, is not your theory of "explanation" that you discussed many times on this forum based on a fundamental axiom that "existence exists" ?
Not without the concept of "an explanation"!Rade said:That is, is not existence prior to explanation ? If not, can you explain why not ?
Oh, and could you explain what is controlling it?Rade said:Second, gene replication, if it is anything, clearly is "controlled"--but do you talk about a difference between "control" and "regulation" vis-a-vis cybernetic theory ?
In words, does your "definition of explanation" = that which enables one to infer the properties of some complex system from the properties of its parts together with the laws of their interaction.Doctordick said:...it's my definition of "an explanation"...
Could you please explain what you mean by "explain"Doctordick said:Could you explain what you mean by "exists"?
I do not see how this process is a "philosophy"--a goal perhaps--but a philosophy ? Perhaps I do not understand how you define "philosophy" as relates to your OP.Loren Booda said:How about the philosophy "seek out other intelligence"?
Philosophy has almost as many definitions as there have been philosophers, and no simple definition can do it justice . . . In its broadest meaning, Philosophy encompasses all of human knowledge and all that may be known, including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired.
OK, but now I have a problem, for if philosophy is concerned with the "scientific method", and "faith", what use "science" and "religion" ? I view the three as distinct, as shown here:Loren Booda said:. . . In its broadest meaning, Philosophy encompasses all of human knowledge and all that may be known, including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired...
Loren Booda said:What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
My definition is quite simpel:I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.Rade said:Could you please explain what you mean by "explain"
OK, then when you asked me to "explain exists", it is (using your definition of explain) my expectation from known information of awareness that there is something, as opposed to nothing. And thus results the fundamental axiom of philosophy, "existence exists".Doctordick said:My definition is quite simple:I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.
Yes, two-way interactions seem appropriate, thus revised:Loren Booda said:Why not a continuum of knowledge, as PIT2 may be suggesting, including a two-way interaction? Also, does the resultant structure of QCD (not just the triad of quarks and gluons) fit any phenomenon of philosophy? Finally, do you think knowledge will come full circle if science meets religion?
I would agree, I see no reason that they are "separated"--my view (perhaps in error) is that science (uncertain knowledge) and religion (uncertain belief) are opposites, and that philosophy (search for truth) is the agent that interpenetrates with both of them to form a unity of opposites. Philosophy thus the limit of the unity, the search for truth can only lead to uncertainty.Loren Booda said:Rade, In the 25th Anniversary Edition of The Tao of Physics, page 20: "The roots of physics, as of all Western science, are to be found in the first period of Greek philosophy in the 6th century B.C., in a culture where science, philosophy and religion were not separated.
Rade said:I would agree, I see no reason that they are "separated"--my view (perhaps in error) is that science (uncertain knowledge) and religion (uncertain belief) are opposites, and that philosophy (search for truth) is the agent that interpenetrates with both of them to form a unity of opposites. Philosophy thus the limit of the unity, the search for truth can only lead to uncertainty.
Edit: But philosophy (the search itself) is an absolute, it is the limit.
Intelligence in the context of the cosmos refers to the ability of living beings to perceive and understand their surroundings, solve problems, and adapt to new situations in the vast expanse of the universe.
While we have yet to discover and interact with other intelligent species in the cosmos, there are theories that suggest that there may be commonalities in the development and expression of intelligence among different species.
As of now, we do not have a definitive way to measure intelligence in the cosmos, especially when it comes to non-human species. However, we can observe and study behaviors and cognitive abilities that may indicate intelligence.
Some factors that may contribute to the development of intelligence in the cosmos include environmental conditions, genetic makeup, and evolutionary processes. Additionally, the ability to learn and adapt to new situations may also play a role.
Studying intelligence in the cosmos allows us to gain a broader perspective on the concept of intelligence and its potential variations. It also raises questions about the uniqueness of human intelligence and the factors that have led to its development. This can further our understanding of our own species and the role intelligence plays in our evolution and existence.