/sci/ - Science & Math

Theres no order or chaos in nature. Thats a human concept.

>>7588356
nature is a human concept too, so nature doesn't exist?

>you cant no nuffin
>cant even no that you cant no nuffin

>>7588351
>doesn't our intelligence have to be caused by a higher intelligence for it to be dependable?

You just said you can't trust it to be dependable though

Christfags still 0

>>7588383
I said that our intelligent can't be dependable on the premise that our intelligence has an unintelligent cause.

i.e. i'm of the opinion that our intelligence must in some sense be a part of or participate in or be enlightened by a supreme intelligence in which intelligence the truth is absolutely self-evident and clear; with this supreme intelligence as the First Principle and source of our own intelligence we can have dependable knowledge.

>>7588387
But that thought could just be the product of undependable intelligence

>>7588351
>then why should we trust its discernment whatsoever?

We can't, not always it called "cognitive bias".

>doesn't our intelligence have to be caused by a higher intelligence for it to be dependable?

Whence come the intelligence of this higher intelligence? And from where does <span class="math"> this [/spoiler] intelligence get it's intelligence? At some point you have to just stop and claim that there is nothing above this intelligence and that it appeared ex nihilio. Quite where you stop is completely arbitrary and completely dependent on what you believe. If you're an atheist you (probably) stop at evolution, if you believe in the ancient alien "hypothesis" you stop at some nebulous extraterrestrial, and if you're a theist you stop at god.

>doesn't our intelligence have to be caused by a higher intelligence for it to be dependable?
With that logic how was the highest intelligence able to form?
And if your answer is "It just is", well guess what you can apply that on anything with lower intelligence aswell then.

>>7588407
well, the classical defence of this position is that the highest intelligence is self-subsistent being, i.e. it is the ground, the foundation, of all being. In this being there is no distinction between essence and existence, i.e. it's very essence is to exist. This is the First Principle, not just of intelligence, but of everything. It is the One, the Source.

>>7588453
Sounds like a case of special pleading to me.

Interesting concept.

Evolution occurs because living organisms are better at using and dispersing energy from the environment. A plant does a much better job at turning high-energy visible light into low energy infrared light than say, a rock. Living things are just better at dispersing energy through a system, especially through processes of replication. I'd imagine that the rise of intelligence would aid in the ability of humans to see this as the truth, and attempt to harness the energy for our own means, while trying to be as non-invasive to the natural environment as possible.

We've seen that this is clearly not the case because some people actually think things like hydrofracking are good. So idk, I think our greater "intelligence" just kind of happened, maybe an accident? Maybe somewhere down the evolutionary line we broke the rules, and now we're doomed to suffer the knowledge of our own deaths.

>>7588483
>So idk, I think our greater "intelligence" just kind of happened, maybe an accident?

How can our intelligence be an accident though? How can all of our knowledge and principles be based upon an accident? That means that our knowledge has no sure foundation.

>Evolution occurs because living organisms are better at using and dispersing energy from the environment.

But how did the unliving, unintelligent environment know that living organisms would disperse energy better, and how did it endeavour to form living things once it gained that knowledge? Why does the "environment" care about how efficiently energy is dispersed through it? Do you think that the "environment" has a natural tendency to find ways to disperse energy "better"?

>>7588462
No, >>7588407 & >>7588399 were right so suggest an infinite regress. There is in an infinite regress in the order of being, the order of thought, the order of logic, etc. All these regresses show that there must be a first principle of being, thought, logic, etc., which is self-subsisting, which subsists in itself, which is uncaused, not derived from any prior principle. A kind of cosmological, ontological, logical axiom.

>>7588351
>Then how should we trust its discernment?

The basic -if rather oversimplified and flippant - answer is "you should not." The brain is loaded with cognitive biases, an intuition that misaligns with reality as often as not, and a wide variety of persistent errors in reasoning.

>>7588679
So, if we can't trust the intellect to form principles, why should we believe the principle of Darwinian evolution?

>>7588351
>how can the greater come from the less?

How can someone physically weak become someone physically strong?

>how can order arise out of chaos?

Because it wasn't chaos in the sense you are implying.

>doesn't our intelligence have to be caused by a higher intelligence for it to be dependable?

No.

>>7588351
so you think Darwinian evolution is real? let me ask you this simple question: how many legs do spiders have?

>>7588351

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

evolution is based on the unproven assumption of uniformitarianism.

>>7588715

>>7588351
>hey /sci/, if Darwinian evolution is true, that means that our intelligence was made by a series of blind, unintelligent causes . . .

Evolution makes shit more complex than we can make every day. Can you make a cat? Didn't think so. How about a whale? Nope. You can't even make a tree.

>doesn't our intelligence have to be caused by a higher intelligence for it to be dependable?
Do you think human intelligence is dependable? Are you twelve?

>>7588483
>We've seen that this is clearly not the case because some people actually think things like hydrofracking are good

That doesn't mean we are not intelligent. It just means we are exploring possibilities. Because of our limited knowledge we cannot be 100% efficient in our endeavors, so we must "explore" different paths, some of which are "wrong", in order to achieve things. Which is just how nature made us by evolution. The forces that made nature are actualized by everything it makes, including us. We are no different than an evolutionary process. The same type of processes and forces permeates all levels of existence.

evolutionism is a description of the universe which takes into account a number of uncertain assumptions, including that the moon has the correct amount of dust on it based on how old the earth is, and how much salt is in the ocean based on how old the earth is.

also, if the earth is as old as many people think (over many millions and billions of years), then all carbon should be dispersed and carbon dating wouldn't work at all, based on how the half life of carbon-ions is.