[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 552 KB, 978x903, 723ecc3fb92774c6990af77bc550e4ba.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16117862 No.16117862 [Reply] [Original]

How did intelligence arise in a dumb universe? That means reality produced something smarter than itself.

>> No.16117881

> reality produced something smarter than itself.
trying to assign human concepts to reality *sigh*
ngmi

>> No.16117887

>>16117881
This isn't a response.

>> No.16117890

are planets smart because matter clumped together? or are they smarter than hydrogen clouds?

>> No.16117893

>>16117890
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

>> No.16117903

>>16117887
Yes it is. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

>> No.16117918

>>16117893
>Intelligence is most often studied in humans but has also been observed in both non-human animals and plants despite controversy as to whether some of these forms of life exhibit intelligence.[4][5] Intelligence in computers or other machines is called artificial intelligence.
just like we'll be able to make AGI/ASI.
think two low IQ parents can't make a high IQ child?

>> No.16117922 [DELETED] 

>atheist philosophy

>> No.16117924

>>16117881
>assign concepts
We assign attributes, not concepts
You don't look at a pile of apples and "assign math" to them. We assign color or taste to them.
Inversely, we apply concepts, not attributes.
You don't look at a pile of apples and apply a color or taste. We apply math and can count them.

We can apply the concept of intelligence to reality, the same way we can apply math or science to it.

>> No.16117927

>>16117918
>think two low IQ parents can't make a high IQ child?
False equivalency. This is an abuse of how gene transmission works.

Whatever base reality is, everything comes from it, and given that intelligence is manifest in the world it follows that it is part of the ontological structure of fundamental reality.

>> No.16117959

>>16117881
>>16117903
The only answer we need here

>> No.16117985

>>16117922
>atheist philosophy
= motte-and-bailey every single time desu ne?

>> No.16118042

>>16117890
theyre smarter because they can see the future

>> No.16118290

>>16117862
the universe isnt dumb, you are

>> No.16118306

>>16117862
With chaos comes order. Law of nature. Enough black holes and exploding stars and yada yada creates hyper order which is the infinitisemally small and complicated us

>> No.16118388

>>16117862
The truth is that it didnt
Your thoughts are no more complex or important than a rock tumbling down a mountain. Both are events that were predetermined since the Big Bang.

>> No.16118392
File: 792 KB, 280x158, 1596213148635.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16118392

>>16117862
>reality produced something smarter than itself
But you are reality, there is no separation

>> No.16118397

>>16118392
How am I not myself?

>> No.16118533

>>16117862
That dumb universe mixed shit for bilions of years.

>> No.16118617

>>16118397
define "myself"

>> No.16118624

>>16117881
What a stupid post

>> No.16118655

>>16118397
How are you not part of reality?

>> No.16118658

>>16117862
within your body it clearly hasn't

>> No.16118682

>>16118397
You are yourself, and you are also a part of reality, does this make any sense?

>> No.16118698

>>16117862
The universe has yet to create anything intelligent. Fore, compared to the most intelligent entity to arise, the intellect of all other entities are inconsequential. And seeing as the universe is still so young, it is to be expected that the most intelligent entity that will ever exist, hasn't been created yet.

>> No.16118705

>>16117862
Extend the concept of evolution down to the organization of matter and it will make more sense. It's primarily probability at play.

>> No.16118708

>>16118397
You (subset) reality, you = you (in) reality. Reality =/= you

>> No.16118712

>>16118698
>And seeing as the universe is still so young
How would anyone know that? Have we seen the lifespan of other universes to compare ours against?

>> No.16118728

>>16118712
>How would anyone know that?
There is still so much Hydrogen left to fuse. There are still so many young stars. There is so little products of fusion, relative to how much Hydrogen there is.

>> No.16118731

>>16118728
And how do we know that universes don't die in some other way unrelated to fusing hydrogen?

>> No.16118735

>>16118731
What are you talking about?

>> No.16118744

>>16118731
in what way can the universe "die"?

>> No.16118747

>>16118735
How can we know that unfused hydrogen is a sign of the universe being young or old if we've never observed the lifecycle of a universe to know how long they last and what influences that length?

>> No.16118808

>>16118747
You're insinuating that entropy will reverse, and completely stable elements like Carbon and Iron will spontaneously fission back into Hydrogen?

>> No.16119023 [DELETED] 
File: 308 KB, 1147x610, Screenshot 2024-04-08 133609.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16119023

What happens if I view the eclipse with 3D glasses?

>> No.16119035

>>16117862
It arose as a survival mechanism. The smarter you are the easier it is to stay alive and breed.

>> No.16119059

“Life is the universe looking at itself” is a very satisfying statement.

Intelligence IS the intelligence of existence.

Why is this so hard to understand?

>> No.16119815

>>16119059
Because it's utterly smoothbrained. "The universe looking at itself" is a vague hippie-dippie thing to say that speaks nothing of the actual engineering problem we're faced with regarding the origin of DNA, the cell and later life forms.

>> No.16119828

>>16119815
It sounds like you’re just unsatisfied with existence.
>the actual engineering problem we're faced with regarding the origin of DNA, the cell and later life forms.
Causality.

>> No.16119836
File: 5 KB, 365x378, ohfuck.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16119836

>>16118655

>> No.16119841

>>16119815
>vague
No.
>speaks nothing
It solves the hard-on for consciousness problem: matter = mind.
>engineering problem
Who's engineering what now?
>"The universe looking at itself"
What is even the alternative? Is your consciousness made of other stuff than what you observe? Did you come from outside the universe? Were you born inside the universe but with a wall between your mind and outside the body? Are you a ghost animating a meat puppet? What else do you believe schizo?

>> No.16119864
File: 49 KB, 564x681, 626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16119864

>>16119841

>> No.16119883

>>16119864
>Posting a .jpg means winning
Son I'm disappoint in your lack of vocabulary.

>> No.16120038

>>16117862 https://imgur.com/gallery/E1BCqSx

>> No.16120041

>>16117862
Consciousness is in all Atoms.
The Atom is God.
Intelligence is God. Knowledge is God. Wisdom is God.

>> No.16120688
File: 368 KB, 685x511, 498365_1_En_8_Fig15_HTML.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16120688

>>16117862
Consciousness holds primacy over matter

No such thing as a "dumb universe"

Next question

>> No.16120807

the universe is far smarter than you'll ever be, there will only ever be a few people to outsmart it -

myself being bigger than it

>> No.16120817

>>16117862
Sequential information acquisition

Intelligence dies when people get easily distracted cough attention defficit disorder on the academy

>> No.16120825

>>16117862
I don't know, humanity is not all that smart honestly. We surround ourselves in garbage, often ruin the homes of animals and plants, and we can't even stop ourselves from being racially, slowly suffocated into extinction.

>> No.16120925

>>16117862
The universe is pan-psychic and eventually will culminate and reform back into pure consciousness. Things only seem dumb because they are separated.

>> No.16120930

>>16120925
We all one numbnutians

Sad end were the ai turns science into an anti human hivemind

Look a person of different skin tonality

>> No.16120981

>>16117862
>That means reality produced something smarter than itself.
why would there be a problem with that
there's no conservation law for intelligence

>> No.16121357

Only God knows. It would be impossible for a morty like me to understand. Or perhaps because total nothingness is impossible and life would arise anyways.

>> No.16121477

I looked at the sun wearing eclipse glasses but had binoculars in front of them. The sun burned a pin sized hole through the glasses and I saw a white flash for a split second. How fucked am i

>> No.16121486

>>16117862
It got very lucky (or unlucky, if you're depressed).

>> No.16121499

>>16118712
‘Other universes’ is a meaningless concept, because by definition the universe includes literally all things which exist in any form.

>> No.16121505

>>16121499
Surely, then, you must agree that means a relative age judgement like "so young" is equally meaningless.

>> No.16121509

>>16121505
not at all in a cyclic universe

>> No.16121534

>>16117862
Doesn't the moon's "size" relative to the sun's differ depending on where it's viewed from

>> No.16121552

>>16121534
Not really, they're both so far away that there's no land on Earth where you'll actually see an appreciable difference in the proportions. The highest peak on Earth is some 5 miles above sea level which is roughly 0.002% of the distance between Earth and the moon, let alone from the moon to the sun. That small of a change won't do shit to your perception of the moon and sun's relative size.

>> No.16121567

>>16121552
The harvest moon looks absolutely massive, explain that.

>> No.16121587

>>16121567
The moon's distance from Earth varies by up to 30,000 miles in its orbit. The moon itself moving closer and further from Earth is exponentially more significant than any change in height you could experience standing on the ground anywhere on Earth. At any given distance of the moon from Earth you can't appreciably change your perspective of its size, but that distance between Earth and the moon does change appreciably.

>> No.16122333

>>16120981
there is truly a conservation law of knowledge, which is not the same as information

>> No.16122946

>>16122333
And neither of those is intelligence.