# Commonalities of intelligence in the cosmos

#### Loren Booda

What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org

#### Doctordick

What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
That the universe can be explained! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Have fun -- Dick

R

Before explanation must come some"thing" to explain, before a "thing", existence itself, thus the "most shared commonality" from whence all philosophy in this universe must derive is the fundamental axiom: existence exists.

#### Loren Booda

Isn't a common intelligent philosophy more than such circular reasoning as "existence exists"?

#### MeJennifer

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.

#### Doctordick

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.
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. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Have fun -- Dick

#### DaveC426913

Gold Member
Isn't a common intelligent philosophy more than such circular reasoning as "existence exists"?
Well, if you don't like "existence exists", then how about "Je pense, donc je suis." (Descartes was French, not Latin.)

#### Loren Booda

How about Rene Magritte when drawing a pipe - "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ("This is not a pipe")?

R

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
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 ?
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 ?

R

Isn't a common intelligent philosophy more than such circular reasoning as "existence exists"?
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

"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.
This is a Cretan truism for rocks to rationality. There are an infinite number of statements for whom ". . . negation is a contradiction, and clearly a 'common intelligent philosophy' would never hold a contradiction to be true." Of what fundamental significance are these to intelligence?

How about the philosophy "seek out other intelligence"?

#### sd01g

What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
Perhaps: What is reality? and what is its origin?

#### Doctordick

Subtleties of exact thought!

Say Dick, is not your theory of "explanation" that you discussed many times on this forum based on a fundamental axiom that "existence exists" ?
Could you explain what you mean by "exists"?

And, by the way, that's not a "theory of explanation", it's my definition of "an explanation"! Definitions and theories are very different things.
That is, is not existence prior to explanation ? If not, can you explain why not ?
Not without the concept of "an explanation"! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now if I had the concept, "an explanation" to work with, "existence" could be "something which might be explained!"
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 ?
Oh, and could you explain what is controlling it?

You should understand that, baring other interpretations, an explanation is, in essence, a theory! Just because you have an explanation for something, it doesn't follow that you are correct.

Have fun -- Dick

R

...it's my definition of "an explanation"...
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.

R

Could you explain what you mean by "exists"?
Could you please explain what you mean by "explain"

R

How about the philosophy "seek out other intelligence"?
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

From Wikipedia:

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.

R

. . . 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:
$$[ science <-----philosophy-----> religion]$$​
with philosophy linking science to religion--in a way similar to how the gluon links matter and antimatter quarks in the pion. Your comments (pro-con) are appreciated.

#### Loren Booda

Your vectors seem a visualization (progression of knowledge) aesthetic in its simplicity, as is its interesting metaphor (QCD).

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?

### Want to reply to this thread?

"Commonalities of intelligence in the cosmos"

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving