Talk:Universal Intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents


[edit] Start

Hi, I am beginning to put this page together, please be patient. :) If you can help organize or add references, I'd be greatful. Thanks. --Hughgr 21:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks for starting this. It will be a valuable contribution to the chiropractic category. -- Fyslee 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem :) I'll continue to expand as I get the time. Jump in anytime.--Hughgr 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I know I've been adding a lot of quotes, but it'll get straightened out soon :)--Hughgr 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Just keep plugging away. I'm a preacher's kid and was "breast fed" on theology, so this is familiar turf for me. Let me know if I'm getting in the way or creating confusion. -- Fyslee 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Your getting in the way. LOL J/J Looking good, keep it up. Your perspective is refreshing.--Hughgr 22:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think it needs the "theology" tag?--Hughgr 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think problem solved, until somebody else comes along :)--Hughgr 23:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think of it so much as "need"ing the theology tag, but requiring it, since it relates to theology. -- Fyslee 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It is all very interesting...I recall reading (can't remember where/one of the Palmer books) that a greek philosopher (Theles) saw fit to divide religion and medicine (500 b.c.), I'll have to look that up.--Hughgr 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Great job! This is excellent guys! Hope you didn't mind my tweaks. You can change them back if it changed the meaning that you referenced. I'll keep adding as I think of things. Fyslee, I assume you'll help with fixing the references:) Unless you just want to fix our bungled attempts instead:) --Dematt 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I'm unsure about the proper style for indenting quotations and the use of quotation marks and italics in that situation. (I find it difficult to read long passages that are italicized.) There is a proper and uniform way to do it here at Wikipedia, but I'm unsure. Here are a few places to look:

If we can get the style right now, it will save us a lot of work later. -- Fyslee 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's "do it" :)--Hughgr 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure

I added this catagory "Where its seen or used today" and I don't know if I like the title, but for a lack of a better one, I used it. Feel free to change it if something more appropriate comes to mind.--Hughgr 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "Modern, non-chiropractic, quotes"...? A belief in Universal intelligence is certainly not limited to chiropractic, and there could just as well be a section for those views in the article.
The Judeo-Christian concept is of a personal God, who is personally present and manifest universally, so the ability to believe in UI is closely related to being able to believe in God in this sense, but includes an additional (possibly unwanted and resisted) requirement of accepting to enter a personal relationship with this supernatural creator being, with all the other theological implications it involves: creation, the fall, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, Christian (or Jewish, of course....) ethics, etc. Now I'm a skeptic, but still understand (being a preacher's kid) this matter perfectly well.
That chiropractic is based on a philosophy which has theological aspects, is a historical fact. That some chiropractors still believe it and find that it provides satisfactory answers to many existential questions is very understandable to me. I also believe that most modern chiropractors probably don't really go up in it all that much, and many even distance themselves from the theological aspects. Yet some really do take their "chiropractic" as seriously as any Baptist takes his churchgoing. Many of those who do this are to be found at http://www.planetc1.com/index.shtml . Here they go on real chiropractic missionary trips to spread the gospel of chiropractic. These people really have a mission to spread wellness to needy people. Their zeal is admirable, even if I don't personally believe in their gospel.
This article is important not only as a source of documentation for basic chiropractic thinking (historical, as well as for those chiros who still believe), but also as an expression of the chiropractic gospel. Since it exists, it deserves place here at Wikipedia. If Planet chiro DCs can edit here in a NPOV way (not trying to sell their concept, but simply stating it), they might add some interesting dimensions. What do you guys think? -- Fyslee 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hows that for a catagory title? And I agree with what you wrote above. The early chiros, it seems, wanted to combine the concept of theology with health care (I added a quote relating to that, ie. Thales) From what I've read, they wanted to avoid religous dogma, but have the "idea" of religion, hence calling "God", UI. Also, due to the differing religions around the world, they wanted someone who "worshiped" a "God" of wood or stone to be able to understand what they ment. I'm not sure what you mean by the planet chiro ref, but I know what you're getting at. Palmer College had "missions" to third world countries, but I never heard of them talk like they were "selling" chiro or "spreading the message", only wanting to provide some health care to people in need. It's not something exclusive to chiro, I think they got the idea from M.D.'s doing similar things.--Hughgr 05:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming that you were familiar with the Planet chiro website. I have read quite a bit there throughout the years and some of the messages and planned activities are very similar to the activities planned by churches and missionary groups. The only difference is that missionaries "sell" Jesus, and the DCs "sell" chiropractic, but the language and fervor are nearly identical. The Planet chiro DCs use the same language, pep talks, and methods as evangelists planning a series of evangelistic tent meetings where they hope to get in contact with a lot of lost souls (those unacquainted with chiropractic) and introduce them to a new lifestyle (their gospel).

I'm very familiar with MDs going on such trips. I'm from Loma Linda, California, home of Loma Linda University Medical Center. They have a heart team that travels every summer (starting in the ´60s) to some unfortunate third world country, where they perform free open heart surgeries. While they do wish to help sick people in need, their real motivation is to create good will towards Christianity and their own church (SDA). They are using health care to sell God, so the comparison to the chiros mentioned above isn't exactly the same, where they are using missionary techniques to create good will towards chiropractic.

BTW, is this edit a quote from Joe Strauss (F.A.C.E.)? If so it needs quotation marks. -- Fyslee 08:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't belong to any "camp" in the chiro world. (I think thats the majority in chiropractic. :) I had stumbled across the planetchiro web site once, years ago, but don't remember getting that impression. Not a big deal to me, everyone has their own agenda and I'm sure some think of "converting" :) others to chiropractic, or medical, or religion...(you won't find me in the airport giving out flowers :) One of my favorite sayings is: I think with my own head, for I have no other head with which to think. :) And I'll put quotes around that Strauss quote and give the proper reference. This page is new and needs a lot of clean-up, eh.--Hughgr 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names and quotes

Hey guys, in the new section on non-chiropractic usage, shouldn't we have the name of the person noted, such as the John Putnam source. I could see how this could get confused if quotes start to run together. Maybe by naming the source, it will keep the ideas in context. I saw this somewhere else, I'll try to find it.--Dematt 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dematt, I think we can do either, but this page just got started. Feel free to organize and systamatize anyway you feel like. I just wanted to get this page started by adding some info and then seeing where it went. Fyslee is adding good info, especially with his background. I was especially impressed with "pantheistic". :) So far the format is taking shape as we go. But, I can't find all the ref. info for Struass' "Chiropractic Philosophy" textbook. Does anyone elso know it? Who printed it?--Hughgr 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DD and Universal

When putting in the reference for the first sentence of this article last week, I changed the sentence, but after reading some of the information you guys have presented, I am not sure it is correct. Is there evidence that DD was just expounding on previously defined Universal Intelligence, or did he give it the name himself? I think most chiros are taught that he was the first to use it.--Dematt 12:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I put that in. I didn't intend for it to mean DD was the first to come up with the term Universal intelligence, he was just the first to use it in chiropractic philosophy. And it is an assuption I'm making from doing a search of the "green" books. Computers are great, eh.--Hughgr 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So, from your reading, do you think that DD got it from other sources and then adapted it to chiropractic. If it were, this is the place to get it right. Of course, I recall(meaning I could have forgotten) being taught as though he came up with it. That's what's so good about this wiki thing, I'm learning more here:)--Dematt 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking like you were thinking, DD came up with it, but now I'm NOT thinking that :) Also, it seems to have multiple meanings, for examle, a google search comes up with numerous artifical intelligence sites, so I added that catagory, but haven't expanded on it since I know nothing about, yet :) Do you (Dematt) like the "new" format?--Hughgr 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It works for me. You probably have several options and this is certainly a choice that will work. This way, we can expound on the chiropractic definition of UI and let other editors who are interested and familiar with other uses expound on their own. Though, remember, it is going to be wikilinked to the chiropractic article, so when they click, they need to at least see something related to chiropractic in the lead. Also, if we were able to keep dates associated with the quotes, we might be able to see that they are related or not related in that sense. We could start with; "Soandso made the earliest documented reference to Universal Intelligence in 1200 BC in his something." What's the oldest quote we have?--Dematt 12:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find when it was first used. I'm still looking. I found a math formula for AI but I can't get it to transfer. [1] (on pg 13) Do you have any idea how to do that?--Hughgr 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! That formula looks awesome, but do you think it really works? Looks like quackery to me:) BTW, I have no idea how to transfer it, but I bet Arthur Rubin does.--Dematt 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what it means :)lol but it looks cool. In searching for a usage of UI prior to DD, I came across this [2] but it doesn't implicitly say he said it...what do you think, and I'm still searching.--Hughgr 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell if this means Pythagoris came up with it or not??????
I think it looks like Anaxagoras 450BC was the first, then Plotinus in 250AD. But did you notice on that web site that in 1900 that Freud (unconscious mind)and James(pragmatism) were both in their prime. There was a lot of controversary then about whether science could prove anything about the mind. Sound familiar? --Dematt 02:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
God, in the view of Pythagoras, was ONE, a single substance, whose continuous parts extended through all the Universe, without separation, difference, or inequality, like the soul in the human body. He denied the doctrine of the spiritualists, who had severed the Divinity from the Universe, making Him exist apart from the Universe, which thus became no more than a material work, on which acted the Abstract Cause, a God, isolated from it. [3]
It's seems like it came into lexicon over time, and cannot be attributable to one single person. I don't know, and I'm wearing on searching :) But its still all very interesting. Where's Fyslee when I need him :)--Hughgr 00:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You may be on to something. Did you notice how that last source you gave me was from freemasonry? I think Fyslee said DD or BJ were into freemasonry. Did you notice how some of the words were all CAPITALIZED, like some of BJ's writings were. Maybe this is the source that DD was "borrowing" from???? This is cool. I feel like we're reading something that we shouldn't:) I'm not sure I'm ready for a course in freemasonry. That is supposed to take a lifetime in itself and very few make it to the top. Or I could be totally wrong:O--Dematt 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This came from the same page,
This doctrine, that gave to the heavens and the spheres living souls, each a portion of the universal soul, was of extreme antiquity. It was held by the old Sabaeans. It was taught by Timaeus, P]ato, Speusippus, Iamblichus, Macrobius, Marcus Aurelius, and Pythagoras. When once men had assigned a soul to the Universe, containing in itself the plenitude of the animal life of particular beings, and even of the stars, they soon supposed that soul to be essentially intelligent, and the source of intelligence of all intelligent beings. Then the Universe became to them not only animated but intelligent, and of that intelligence the different parts of nature partook. Each soul was the vehicle, and, as it were, the envelope of the intelligence that attached itself to it, and could repose nowhere else. Without a soul there could be no intelligence; and as there was a universal soul, source of all souls, the universal soul was gifted with a universal intelligence, source of all particular intelligences. So the soul of the world contained in itself the intelligence of the world. All the agents of nature into which the universal soul entered, received also a portion of its intelligence, and the Universe, in its totality and in its parts, was filled with intelligences, that might be regarded as so many emanations from the sovereign and universal intelligence. Wherever the divine soul acted as a cause, there also was intelligence; and thus Heaven, the stars, the elements, and all parts of the Universe, became the seats of so many divine intelligences. Every minutest portion of the great soul became a partial intelligence, and the more it was disengaged from gross matter, the more active and intelligent it was. And all the old adorers of nature, the theologians, astrologers, and poets, and the most distinguished philosophers, supposed that the stars were so many animated and intelligent beings, or eternal bodies, active causes of effects here below, whom a principle of life animated, and whom an intelligence directed, which was but an emanation from, and a portion of, the universal life and intelligence of the world.
This sounds too much like DD and BJ. --Dematt 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I think I recall reading in one of the Palmer books that BJ had applied to the Freemasons, was rejected, then severals years later joined. A block down the hill from Palmer college is the "Masonic Temple". PCC has since aquired it, my grad commencment was in there:), as well as Guy R.'s inauguraton, which may have been the first use of it, if I remember correctly. I don't know of DD's history with the Freemasons though. I did happen to watch a History channel show on them about a month or two ago. As I recall, it did seem similar to chiro philo, in that you had to hold to a "higher power", but they didn't "preach" a particular religion. In fact, they had a rule that they didn't talk religion or politics at their meetings. :)
So, from the info I've been gathering, I still don't know when or where it was first used. I don't even know when "universe" was first used. That would be an interesting starting place. From the research I've done so far, defining "intelligence" is hard enough. :)--Hughgr 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that both DD and BJ were Freemasons. DD was also a spiritualist, but I don't know if BJ was. They didn't get their theology from Christianity, that's for sure! -- Fyslee 08:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm thinking of a different format

Hi Fyslee, since UI has been used before chiro and is currently used outside of chiro, perhaps we should start the lead with a description of UI (you're the expert in this area :) and have the chiro usage in a lower section. Right now it reads like its strictly a chiro term.--Hughgr 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, I found this on Co-intelligence. They defined Universal intelligence as:
"intelligence that resides within or beyond nature -- from ecological wisdom to the Tao and "God's will".
Includes concepts like self-organization and co-evolution." -- Hughgr 21:57, 10 July 2006


I've found this as a possible generic def.
Universal intelligence is the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually compatible forms. Our human intelligence is but one manifestation of that universal dynamic. The more we are conscious of universal intelligence and connect ourselves to it, the more intelligence (and wisdom) we'll have to work with."[4]
What'd ya'll think?--Hughgr 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm definitely not an expert on this subject. Hugh, you're already becoming an expert just by doing this article, and that's great. Dematt is also becoming quite an expert on "all things chiropractic." Researching articles and editing is a learning experience.
I'd suggest that there be a large section on the chiropractic uses (divided into historical and modern day), and let other (non-chiro) editors add and edit other sections according to their interest and knowledge. If the other sections get large enough, then they can split into separate articles.
BTW, I can also be contacted by email. -- Fyslee 09:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm liking it

This is looking good. It's got some good info in it that makes sense in a mystical sort of way. I now have a better understanding of Universal Intelligence than I did before. It will be interesting to see it grow. Good Job--Dematt 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying :), this is becoming an interesting subject for me. It is "mystical", like religion. But I think the main thrust is that religion has a "dogma" associated with it, which people who use UI want to avoid. But the AI group simpily uses it as a measure to compare their programming skills :)--Hughgr 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I read something interesting on the "organization vs. random" thought relating to the big bang theory of the start of the universe: "have you ever seen any resembleance of organization after an explosion?" hehe--Hughgr 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The question sounds good enough, but compares apples to oranges. The results of an explosion (in our vicinity, whether by explosives, terrorists, car crash, etc.) leaves debris spread around on the ground, lying motionless, and the pieces of debris are unable to really influence each other. The big bang theory posits a very different picture, with debris floating through space, with pieces of varying size and gravitational forces encountering each other and interacting. The closest I can come to something like that with a normal explosion would be an explosion of a device filled with metal shavings and lots of small magnets. I can imagine that one would later find some magnets exerting an influence on metal shavings that are very close by, and thus find an ordering of those shavings. -- Fyslee 19:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"Organization" is subjective. Back in my God-fearing days, I propounded that "Chaos" is God's greatest disguise. The more we try to understand chaos, the closer we would get to God. If you think about chaos within the terms of physical dimensions rather than the levels of a diety, we can say that humans have a firm understanding of three dimensions of time/space and decent though limited construct of the fourth. Time itself kind of makes sense to us if we think of it linearly, but what about the dimensions beyond that? Quite possibly, they are too complex for the current human mind to begin to grasp. However, string theory theorizes that there are ten dimensions to the universe - that "strings" vibrate in ten dimensions. Oddly enough, ancient Kabbalists supposedly wrote about the ten levels of God's mind. Physcially speaking, it is postulated and widely believed that all matter has an effect on all matter... in kind of a butteryfly-flapping-its-wings-causing-a-tsunami sort of way. Gravitational force exists with all matter, though it isn't very noticeable to us until you reach massive poroportions, relatively speaking. Gravity is believed to be caused by a warping of space caused by matter. So the theory goes that even in an explosion, the shrapnel flying every which way - magnetic or not - does have a gravitational effect on itself, even if it is imperceptible to the naked eye. Then you start looking into quantum theory and how particles can become "entangled". In labortories - and this might sound kooky, but it is true - quantum scienitists have "entangled" two particles such that even when separated by great distances, the two still have an effect on each other (moving one causes the other one to move). I know it sounds freaky, but it is a reality - though not fully understood. Einsstein called it: "spooky action at a distance". Anyhow, there's some food for thought. Levine2112 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's good food Levine:) And Fyslee, OK I see what your saying. So you could say there are "universal laws" (gravity, radiation, etc.), that act on all matter. A good question would be, why does matter have/need gravity? I think thats where science is limited, because it doesn't ask, and can't ask, those kinds of questions. On a different note, what if you throw six dice, what are the odds that they'll come up all aces? What if you throw 6 trillion dice and they come up all aces? In the end, it seems to depend on each and everyones own perspective, which of course is subjective.--Hughgr 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Why does matter matter have/need gravity?" Interesting. The "have" part is sort of explained in gravitational theory. As the matter of the universe expand, it stretches the fabric of the universe, so to speak. The warping effect that matter has on the fabric is dependent on the matter's mass. Size is an issue too. Look at a Black Hole, a tight pinch in outer space thought to be caused by a tiny yet extremely massive collapsed star. It's the "need" part that makes me go: hmmm. Is matter dependent on gravity? Very interesting question in deed... but perhaps its a chicken-or-the-egg postulation; unanswerable. As far as dice go, it's important to remember that the chances of six aces coming up is them exact chance as any other one combination. It seems like it should be extra rare because we see an order in six aces, or that they come up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. But actually these combinations stand just as good of a chance of coming up as say 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 6 or 1, 2, 3, 6, 6, 4. Six dice or six trillion dice - statistics, in this sense, isn't subjective at all. All things being equal, one thing stands as much of a chance as any other one thing. Mind-boggling, huh? Levine2112 23:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Researching Universal Intelligence has taken me on a "philosophical" path ;) I think I understand what you are saying with statistics, but as per your example, the number combinations are a non issue. Lets say you throw six dice, and they come up with the combination of 3,2,5,2,4,1. Now throw them again, what are the odds that they'll come up with the same combination again? Now, throw them a trillion times. What would the odds of that pattern happening a trillion times?
Thereau gave a good example. Say your walking through the woods and you find a pocket watch. Now suppose, for the purpose of this example, that you've never seen a pocket watch before. You examine it, pop the back off and see all the gears, etc. Would you conclude that the parts that made the watch rolled down a hill and randomly came together to make the watch? Or, would you think that somebody, somewhere designed and built that watch, even if you didn't know who they were.
I think that gives the best example I can find for UI, but I haven't found a source that Thereau said that...:)--Hughgr 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I want to know what you are comparing dice throws to? And is Life the pocketwatch? In an infinite galaxy for an infinite time, even something as complex as a pocketwatch could come together randomly. If you beleive that life is accidental and that evolution just happens, then even Thoreau's proverbrial pocketwatch was assembled as a result of random chance, despite being assembled by watchmaker. Levine2112 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I'm being to existentialist. :) Your point, well put by the way, is exactly the opposite of seeing organization instead of random chance. Question, do atoms show organization? There are specific numbers of protons vs neutrons with clouds of electrons in differing "shells". Only two in the first one, etc.. IMO, that shows organization. Under atom it says "Properties of the atom in present theory". :) In every field, there's an enormous amount of "intelligence" :) that we don't know. Perhaps it's just the easy way out. :) See agnostic  :) ;) :)--Hughgr 05:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kierkegaard argued that "truth is subjectivity"

Is organization proof of intelligence? Is a crystal - a very atomically organized rock indeed - intelligent? (I know some people at yoga with me who wouldn't hesisate to say yes, crystals are emphatically intelligent.) Or is the crystal subjectively categorized as organized by what we consider to be an organized structure? The perceptual difference between 1,1,1,1,1,1 and instead of 4,5,3,4,2,6? The crystaline shape could merely be the result of basic atomic laws that dictate the shape of how certain bonds form in certain conditions. You apply a lot of heat and a lot of pressure to coal and you got yourself a diamond. Is there an intelligence at work? I think there is a fine line between what we consider to be scientific (chemical, physical, numerical, bioloical) laws and what we think of as intelligence. I guess what I am trying to say is that I'm just as dwarfed, mystified, baffled and awestruck by the universe as the next person. There are no answers within our immediate grasp because a system that holds true on this planet may fall apart in another world. For instance, there are those higher order elements on Periodic Table, you know? The ones that only have theoretically have existed in a lab under ideal conditions lasting only for a fraction of a second. I think Lawrencium or Nobelium are ones. Anyhow, now imagine a world matching those ideal conditions where those atoms thrive and simpler atoms like oxygen and carbon don't exist. The scientific laws of that world could possibly be a great deal different on that planet. Crystals would grow differently and if life in some form existed there, it would rewrite our concept of biology. Whoa. There I go rambling again. Anyhow, Kierkegaard argued that "truth is subjectivity". Well Søren, I guess that depends on how you look at it. Levine2112 08:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of UI, I wouldn't say a crystal is intellegent, but rather it shows organization, a sign of intelligence. Would you agree that something is either organized or its random? And if its organized, something/someone must have organized it? I don't think there is another option on this one (random vs organized), but I'm always open to thoughts and ideas. Your "other planet" analogy was a bit of a tangent, but in the end who can really say. If you say, "I know", your called arrogant. IMO, "intelligence" is an abstraction. Cheers--Hughgr 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. Sounds alot like Intelligent design..... (I grew up as an SDA, inerrant bible, literal six day, young earth creationist.) I'd say that intelligent production results in organization, but not all organization is produced by intelligence. Some things just "are." Mass causes gravity which results in organization and stratification. None of that has to involve intelligence. -- Fyslee 10:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is all a matter of gut feelings - as Hughgr put it: Who can really say? For the record, on a gut-level, I tend to agree with Fyslee. Some things just "are". I think organization is highly subjective. However, when it comes to what we consider life, I believe there is an intelligence at work. Not an intelligence in our sense of a supreme being guiding the way plants and animals and fungus and bacteria and virus grow and mutate, et cetera. More of a guiding principle hard-wired into the chemistry of life. That prinicipal is survival. Survival, I believe, is based on an awareness of being. Even in a single-celled organism there is some mechanism at play telling the organism to survive; a will to survive, if you will. Maybe this is the genesis of the Freudian ego or id. That on some minute level, even bacteria knows it is; knows it is special; knows it must survive (as a self and/or as a species). I don't know where this guiding principle of survival came from. Maybe it is a soul - the breath of life - placed there by a god or some kind of advanced intelligence. But as I said, I tend to think it was just happenstance... the universe is infinite and since life is a chemical possibility, it was bound to happen somewhere. Whatever you believe, the survival instinct is very much real. Survival is an intelligence that isn't neccessarily learned but rather biologically infused at the core of life. If you believe in evolution, then you agree that life keeps mutating and changing, trying out possibilities to see what survives best. Perhaps at the start, there was life without the survival instinct but it didn't work. It couldn't work. Life without survival is essentially death... failure of a species. So life mutated until the survival instinct was part of it and the first successful species could arise. I know... I know... It's a huge leap of faith I am taking, but I am just postulating here. And at this point of my life, I would rather take rational shots in the dark than just believe in an Allmighty. Levine2112 18:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree Fyslee, it does sound like intelligent design. But like Levine said, I think we all have a "gut-level" feeling either way, and either way is fine, because thats all that really matters. I'm doubtful we'll every really know, can the finite comprehend the infinite? Thats what "cooks my noodle", trying to imagine limitless time and space. As far as "life" is concerned, thats a whole different discussion. But life is different. I believe Strauss makes a comparison with electricity, in that we don't know what electricity is, but we know it exists because of its properties and actions. Same with gravity. This would be where the word "force" comes in, which would lead to quantum physics, to which I don't know much about. :)--Hughgr 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sherman

Read this chiro text from http://www.sherman.edu/edu/aboutchiro/philo_journal.html

"Article 3. In the previous Philosophy Journal, we explored the concept that universal intelligence continually coordinates and integrates all matter through properties (persistent patterns of motion) and actions (variable motions). We concluded that motion is tone."
"Article 4. In previous Philosophy Journals, we explored the understanding that the link between the immaterial (intelligence) and the material (matter) is force. The two aspects of force, the physical energy and the information carried by the energy, determine how the motion of matter is changed and what patterns of motion (properties and actions) will be physically expressed."

Does that give you a headache?.....;-) -- Fyslee 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, maybe warps the noodle a litle though :) A big problem is how do you define intelligence. Is it just information? This website has an interesting definition "Intelligence is the ability to adapt to new conditions and to successfully cope with life situations." Sounds like "mother nature" to me, whatever mother nature is...:) In the end, its an abstract term.--Hughgr 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to over simplify it and say that intelligence is merely the ability to be aware. Levine2112 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio?

What is the copyvio, mccready? Please explain so it can be corrected.--Hughgr 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the same question. Until Mccready explains himself on this talk page, then my edit summary stands:
  • "no explanation on talk page, no label!"
-- Fyslee 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sourcing

The sourcing is a little weak. If its N, it will have been referred to in more than just those 2 textbooks. DGG 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)