Commonalities of intelligence in the cosmos

[Loren Booda]

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

 

[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

 

[Rade]

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]

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")?

 

[Rade]

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 ?

 

[Rade]

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]

Rade,

"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

 

[Rade]

...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.

 

[Rade]

Could you explain what you mean by "exists"?

Could you please explain what you mean by "explain"

 

[Rade]

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.

 

[Rade]

. . . 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.

 

[PIT2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

 

[Loren Booda]

Rade,

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?

 

[nannoh]

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

In order of philosophical evolution.

1. Egocentrically based philosophical reasoning.

2. Big bearded guy is running the show
(externally based philosophical reasoning.)

3. Survival is the common denominator.

4. Love is the common denominator.

5. Stay within the established natural laws or cease to exist.

 

[Loren Booda]

nannoh,

Worth contemplating (and acknowledging).

 

[Doctordick]

Could you please explain what you mean by "explain"

My definition is quite simpel:I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

If you are confused by that definition, note the following: "given known information" can be absolutely anything you wish it to be (whatever it is you are explaining); your "expectations" consist of what you expect (as guided and defined by that explanation). :yuck:

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

My definition is quite simple:I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

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".

 

[Rade]

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?

Yes, two-way interactions seem appropriate, thus revised:

$$[ science <-----> philosophy <-----> religion]$$​

Perhaps QCD (http://webphysics.davidson.edu/mjb/qcd.html ) is like the philosophy of the dialectic--THESIS (matter color quarks), ANTITHESIS (antimatter color quarks) SYNTHESIS: Negation of the opposition between thesis and antithesis (Matter observed is color neutral).
Perhaps science never meets religion, as there is a limit of the calculus, the limit of both scientific and religious knowledge may be philosophy ?

 

[Loren Booda]

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]

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.

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.

 

[sd01g]

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.

The science that requires empirical verification to establish what is true should not be considered "uncertain knowledge" in the same sense that religion generates "uncertain knowledge". I agree that philosophy can be a bridge between science and religion but to say that the search for truth can only lead to uncertainty is nonproductive. The search for truth can lead to POWER which is much more useful than uncertainty.