Can intelligence come from non-intelligence?

Question

A correspondent says:

"Regarding your question to call the "First Cause" a "Natural Event". A Creator can not lack a quality that his creation has. If we are intelligent human beings then me must assume necessarily that our creator is at least as intelligent as we are. Therefore this "Natural Event" is an intelligent entity and not a mindless entity as the words "natural event" may suggest."

My reply is:

"A creator *can* lack a quality that his creation has. Can we compute long division a trillion times a second? Computers can. Do our eyes see infra-red? Cameras do. Can we detect the EM radiation from Jupiter passing through our bodies every second of the day? Radios can. And so on, and so forth. So, that's disposed of that premise.

The notion that intelligence requires intelligence to create it is clearly self-refuting, because if that were the case then intelligence could never exist. Your intelligent creator would require an even more intelligent creator, which in turn would require a more intelligent creator still, and so on ad infinitum.

Infinite regression is a common problem with religious arguments. You have to accept that your premise is false. Intelligence does not require intelligence as its origin. Complexity does not require greater complexity to create it. The ONLY answer which works is the incremental emergence of complexity from simplicity, of intelligence from non-intelligence, of organisation from chaos, and this is indeed exactly what we see in the universe. There are countless examples in nature of order arising spontaneously from chaos, of complexity arising spontaneously from simplicity. It's simply how the universe works. I will show you what I mean in detail, if you wish, but just think of how atoms come together in molecules, and molecules into larger molecules, and scraps of gas and dust into planets and stars, and so on."

Who is right?

CheshireCat: Thank you.

bettierage: Cheers :-)

Nick: Good question. The ability to anticipate the consequences of your actions and to modify them accordingly, would probably be an important component. Also, the ability to learn, to have new ideas... I'm sure there must be others.

Nicole: That's a non-answer because the only way we have of figuring things out is to think about them - it's simply pointless to tell someone that thinking is inadequate. It's all we have.

RB: The most parsimonious explanation is that it's an illusion - something we think we perceive, but isn't really there. Just like an optical illusion, in fact - we all know they're illusions but we see them anyway. 'Spiritual' things are just things which we haven't all accepted are illusions yet.

Saint: Interesting comments... thank you :-)

scifiguy: An excellent and fascinating example, thank you.

The Resurrectionist: Very good points, thank you.

AutumnLilly: If there has to be a 'non-temporal' realm then why does it have to be 'spiritual' and why would it have to contain an intelligence? Why not just a non-temporal, non-intelligent agent of some sort? In point of fact I think intelligence *requires* time. How can you think if no time passes, for one thought to succeed another?

Exodus: I will have a look at that, thanks.

Martin: If you find it improbable that a living organism could exist uncreated then how much more improbable must it be that a super-intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe exists uncreated?

Answer 1

I have to confess that I was the "correspondent" and that I was pleasantly surprised with the brilliant examples of computers, cameras and radios being apparently more capable than their creators.

Here is the meaning of the statement that our Creator can not lack a perfection that his Creation possesses.
If the infra-red camera in your example had the capacity to be fair in it's judgment and think, he would have to recognize that his creator, man, is gifted with a higher intelligence that he is, because he was able to design and build it in the first place. That although he is able to receive information, process and deliver it in a coherent form to his creator, man, he does not understand anything at all about that information. That he is in no ways comparable to his creator. That his creator is a higher form of existence than he is. And for him to assume that his creator has no intelligence given all the above, would be absurd.
The same thing is true with the super computer and the EM radiation receiver.

Your last paragraph is full of potentially interesting questions. Why don't you ask them separately ?
Infinite regression is not needed to demonstrate the existence of a cause which is uncaused, unique and universal.
The incremental emergence of complexity emerges from simplicity only if ...
Order can not arise from chaos unless...
Please use the illustrative examples that you mention, they will help all of us.

Answer 2

Several problems would need to be addressed. You talk about complexity coming from simplicity, order coming out of chaos, etc.
Do scientists KNOW what the conditions were when these simple organisms formed?
You mentioned a slow process. How slow? How much time was needed?

There should be fossil evidence that addresses both conditions and time. However, I have read that there is ample evidence that shows the contrary. I am not a scientist, however, it is relatively easy to grasp some concepts.

There is a website that addresses the "conditions and time" question.

http://www.halos.com/

Answer 3

None of those things - computers, infra-red, cameras and such are "intelligent." They cannot think for themselves. They cannot say, "I refuse to do what my programing tells me to" Those things have no free will to choose. They are only capable of actions that human's programmed. Only intelligent beings can freely choose action.

Infinite regression is only a possibility in a temporal relm. But what if existance was something other than temporal? What if existance was merely a state of infinite being that has no beginning and no end, only present. In a temporal relm, we have no true "present"since time can be infinitely divided into smaller fragments, there is no suspension of time. We are always moving into the future. However, what if existance on the spiritual relm consisted nothing else but of an absolute continuum - an eternal present and state of being?

Answer 4

It all depends on how we define intelligence. Sentient tool-users? Dolphins and some whales are plenty intelligent, but have developed in a different environment. Crows has language, 'society', 'language', and have even been witnessed to use tools. (Bending wires to get a juicy grub. They had to bend the wire in a particular and complex way. All the test subjects did it right the first or second try.) We would be arrogent to assume our brand of intelligence is unique among all Earth creatures. Certainly our social adaptations have allowed us to pass wisdom down to our young, removing the requirment that they 'build the pyramid' each generation. We are more technically, and maybe socially, successful than most the other beings who share our world with us, but we musn't seperate ourselves from nature to the extent that the 1800's anthropologists did. We can dominate our environments, but that does not mean there is nothing of value in those environments.

Answer 5

"A creator *can* lack a quality that his creation has. Can we compute long division a trillion times a second? Computers can. Do our eyes see infra-red? Cameras do. Can we detect the EM radiation from Jupiter passing through our bodies every second of the day? Radios can. And so on, and so forth. So, that's disposed of that premise.

Computers cannot do anything but process electronic signals and come up with data output that their creators use for their own ends. Cameras cannot "see". They can only process light and produce images that their creators use for their own ends.

The notion that intelligence is required to create intelligence is just a narrowing down of the truth that intelligence is required to create anything that has a purpose to it. Otherwise something that comes about via random chance has no purpose for it's existence unless an intelligent being comes upon it and puts it to use for a purpose.

Were you created for a purpose or are you just a big cosmic accident spinning along on an insignificant dirtball with no real significance whatsoever?

God says that you were created in his image to love Him and to receive salvation by accepting the gift of eternal life that He offers through faith in his Son.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

"then how much more improbable must it be that a super-intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe exists uncreated?"

The whole universe should not exist because something cannot come from nothing. That is, something cannot come from nothing unless there is an extra-dimensional, super-intelligent being, an "uncaused, first cause" who created this universe for his own good pleasure and who has condescended to communicate with beings like us.

That conundrum was what kept me from being an atheist for the 40 or more years that I wasn't a Christian. I knew that it just didn't make logical sense for matter to "just always have existed". The Big Bang theory only pushes the problem further back in time. At least it only pushes it further back in time if you don't believe that it is compatible with the first verse of the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Answer 6

I believe you are correct. I can think of another, very simple example: children. Children don't always always surpass their parents, or teachers, but it does happen quite often. I've seen plenty of children who grow up to be more intelligent than their parents, their "creators". Even some who surpass any of their teachers. People are perfectly capable of learning things that they have never been taught by anyone. If that weren't true, we would never make any progress, in anything. No one would ever be able to surpass the previous greatest scientist, or artist, or musician, or mathematician. That's obviously not true.

Edit: Earl D: I hope you're trying to argue for Icarus' point, and not against it, because that's what you're doing.

"How do you expalin SAVANTS.

They can add faster than a computer."

Actually, they can't, really. They can add faster than a *person* can type the information into a computer. Take the human out of the equation, and the computer still wins.

"They can play piano at the age of 3 or 4."

Yes. Without being taught by someone who already knew how to play. Exactly Icarus' point.

Answer 7

You are right.

I've done work in artificial intelligence where I had no idea what the proper behavior for the robot would be. What you do in this sort of situation is program a few simple behaviors with some random variables into the robot and test them. You pick the behaviors that performed the best and use their random variables as the base for the random variables used in the next generation of tests.

After many generations of tests have been performed, the "random" variables will no longer be random. The robot will have found a way to perform the desired task, despite the fact that the programmer had no idea how to do it.

This is just one example of how evolution is successfully used to generate intelligence from what is essentially ignorance.

Answer 8

I think ultimately, all we are is just a collection of definitions, made up by humans who invented language and words to try and explain their own existence. "Intelligence" is a word, and nothing more. It explains nothing to me outside of the definition my dictionary gives to it. To put my trust in the definition is to ultimately put my trust in the man who made it up. I put my trust in no man.

Answer 9

You obviously thought about your answer before you spoke, your opponent spoke before thinking. That is a common problem when some people try to apply religious solutions to problems in reality.

Answer 10

How do you expalin SAVANTS.

They can add faster than a computer.

They can play piano at the age of 3 or 4.

They can beat computers at chess