bump

the value in this thread is a post by Jason1990.

Were we to do a study of all leaves found on the ground it would turn out that most leaves end up there due to natural processes. So you could say that for any given leaf found on the ground odds are it wasn't because a human plucked it from a tree.

However were we to do a study of how life originates we would conclude that right now 50% of the lineages of life originate via the products of intellect while the other 50% of lineages originated via unknown origin(could be intellect, cold be natural processes sans intellect).

What is shows is that when an intellect creates life it is not "magic".

However were we to do a study of how intelligence originates we would conclude that right now 100% of the intelligent entities exist as life forms and there are no known intelligent entities which are not also 'life'.

And I took the time to do it this way because I know you hate FYPs. Don't say I never do anything for you. The reasoning you're applying is self-refuting.

Would you link the post please?

worst argument ever, Stu I see you never give up... oh wait this is an old thread, forget about...

If I recall all his posts were pretty good.

The problem with your claim that my argument self refutes is in order for you to make your counter argument, you have to make an assumption that intellects other than lifeforms are non existent or logically impossibru. None of my arguments make an assumption that it is logically impossible for us to exist without intellect.

Now you could claim that any intellect you observe is likely to be lifeform and I would agree with you unless there is some other compelling reason to disagree.

No, I don't need to assume that. Re-read the argument and you'll see it makes no such claim. It only claims that no non-living intelligences are known to exist.

So then you agree that it is logically possible for a non lifeform to be intelligent?

Not necessarily. It's not logically impossible, unless 'life-form' is taken as part of the definition of 'intelligent'.

I don't think unicorns are logically impossible FWIW.

You're confusing me. What is the difference between these two statements:

A)I think the existence of unicorns is a logically possible.
B)I don't think the existence of unicorns is logically impossible.

If 'unicorn' is defined as 'horse-like creature with a horn' then it's clearly not impossible, logically or otherwise, for such a creature to exist (in fact, I expect to see them in my lifetime, give it forty years, say).

But that's by the by. I think that machine intelligences are likely to exist in the future. Clearly, if I think AIs are practically possible, I must think that they are logically possible. But what if I say that I would consider an AI to be a life-form? AIs in that case don't represent a case of non-living intelligence.

So what if I say that I'd consider any intelligence to be a life-form? What if the question 'Do you think non-living intelligences are possible' is like the question 'Do you think square circles are possible'?

So as to the possibility of non-living intelligences, regrettably it's a question of definition. If by definition all intelligences are life-forms, then, clearly, no, there can be no non-living intelligences. If not, then maybe.

I don't really see how it's relevant, though. The issue is just that your argument that the only life whose origin we know involves purposive intelligence can be phrased just as well as its origin involving previously extant life-forms.

Just because the process can be analyzed and replicated by intelligence doesn't mean it nescacarily originates from intelligence. what a ******ed argument.

Just because it is logically possible that the process could originate via random happenstance doesn't necessarily mean it did. Both circumstances are logically possible so we need to look for reasons to favor one over the other. The ability for intellect to create life allows theists to use a lot of the very same arguments atheists have been using.

Im not sure what you mean by intelligence can create life stu.

1) use heavily loaded terms which have multiple possible meanings highly contingent upon context
2) construct argument using said words
3) ????
4) god!

The logic in this post is comical. There's no way scientists could ever prove A. There's no possible way to prove it without having some sort of human intervention. And once again, you're jumping to the "we don't know how it happened so it must be God" hypothesis.

Why would you ever think B is easier? A planet would need to start out with A and undergo billions of years of evolution under the right conditions before it could ever have B. It may be true for our planet to have B more likely to happen in the near future, but that doesn't mean it's always been the case, or that it's the case for other planets in other solar systems.

Sorry I didn't read past this ******ed first post. I just needed to rage.

So you think it is impossible to prove that life emerged from a natural process? I think that claim is silly. If something had crawled from one of Stanely Miller's beakers abiogenesis would be considered a scientific fact right now.

What do I think is easier? Well if humans(or any other intelligent beings) start doeing things like Venter frequently then most lineages of life that is within the sphere we can observe will be the products of intellect. If we can produce it, then we can mass produce it.

For me to accept your counter argument I would have to accept an assumption that no intellects existed or likely existed about the time life originated on this planet. I see no reason to accept such assumption nor have you even suggested a reason why I should accept it. Yet it is the foundation of your claim.

Yes, and for me to accept your original claim, I would have to accept an assumption that intellects did exist, or likely existed, about the time life originated on this planet. I see no reason to accept such assumption nor have you even suggested a reason why I should accept it. Yet it is the foundation of your claim

No, you err in thinking I am making an assumption that an intellect did in fact exist at the time life originated on this planet. I am making no such assumption. I am merely arguing why such an assumption is reasonable to use in other arguments.

Our arguments are similar in that in both mine and his it is logically possible no intellect existed at about the time life originated on this planet. Where we differ is that in mine it is also logically possible an intellect did exist at about the time of the origin of life on this planet. However his argument assumes that is a logical impossibility.

It is his very narrow minded assumption, that an intellect could not have been present at the time life originated on this plaent that I am challenging. His thinking is so myopic that his conclusion and his assumption are basically one in the same. My argument considers both possibilities and then provides reasons why to favor one over the other.

Apparently the argument I presented is so strong that in your mind you began to think of the possibility of the existence of an intellect at abiogenesis as an assumption.