Relationship between Mysticism and Intelligence

If human beings are intelligent, then ‘intelligence’ is not a mystical (or religious) concept.  For this reason alone, there can be no basis for the assertion or ridicule that intelligent' origin of life is "mystical" "non-scientific" or "superstitious".

The implication is that physical manifestations of intelligence, if they are above or beyond our capability to understand, somehow in virtue of our ignorance alone, become ‘mystical’ superstitious or religious (in the derogatory sense). 

Far from being a ‘scientific’ position, this is one of hubris or ignorance; a stubborn denial that we are the best and brightest of all sentient beings in the universe!  We automatically leap and say, “if something is smarter than us -- or operates at a level beyond our understanding -- it must be G-d!”  As if millions upon millions of degrees or levels may not exist between us and whatever might be deemed a ‘supreme intelligence’.  Or, maybe ‘supreme intelligence’ is simply the whole? (see also: anthro-po-aliens).

Obviously to an ant, we are inconceivable beings, not just because of our size, but because what we do is motivated by such sophisticated and subtle motives.  Even to an elephant, the creation of a microprocessor, or even artifacts less technical in nature such as a crayon, would seem ‘mysterious’.  It is all a matter of perspective. 

That those aligned with materials science as a belief system --more than a stance for the sake of inquiry-- cannot see this obvious irony or double standard is perplexing.  But, it is not for lack of intelligence obviously – these are very smart and accomplished people -- rather it is bias and the allegiance to an idea beyond its intellectual merits; an allegiance that distorts all other facts beyond recognition.

These persons are aligned to the idea that our world is dualistic, that either one believes in the purposeless world of physical cause and effect (which accidentally created stars, planets, planetary orbits, simple life, complex life, human life) or one must be dogmatically religious, and believe in the literal interpretation of religious books (like koran, bible, torah, etc.).  This is an absurd position to take. Non-surprisingly, this rigid 'with us or against us' attitude leads to the very ignorance, prejudice and perpetuation of ignorance that once oppressed the sciences.  Now the sciences repress themselves, and those indoctrinated by their short-sighted and irrational beliefs.  

This obsession with central dogma is highly reminiscent of what motivated Church accusations of “heresy” – crimes worth of the excommunication (or worse) of all those who did not fall in line with the acceptable institutional narrative.

---%---

E is for Entropy

It isn’t that we “just haven’t found” it yet [the so-called natural process that generates living organisms].  There are in fact very specific natural laws prohibiting the spontaneous generation of biological systems.  The term is entropy.  It refers to the fact that in any natural system, left to its own devices, the system trends toward disorder.  From greater to lesser order and never the other way around.  For this reason, as we will later discuss – the entire Universe requires a supernatural explanation – as a strict, logical necessity.

If humans disappeared from the planet, our cities would crumble almost immediately.  If a living body ceases to live, ceases to acquire new energy and resources, it will degrade.  From order to disorder.  These are facts and they don’t operate the other way around – historically the ‘scientific’ argument has been “well they could operate the other way around” when in fact they have never been witnessed to do so.  And even if something could conceivably happen, that it is not impossible does not make it probable, likely, or scientifically viable in the real world.

--%--

As a practical fact, all living organisms are a direct product of the Cellular assembly mechanisms contained in their ancestor cells.    Every organism that has ever been witnessed to exist was assembled via the mechanics of the cell, as directed by the information in DNA.  A “first cause” is needed – one that contains all of the intelligence of the cell, and perhaps much more.

[Figure x Cellular Assembly]

Nature does not create Organisms any more than Nature creates automobiles.  Or stated another way, nature has been witnessed to produce life from non-life as often as it has produced sky scrapers – which is to say, never in the history of the world.  *

*Again, this fact no one disputes.  Material-only sciences seek to go against the facts and the theory behind them.

Think of automobiles.

Are they intelligently created? 

Of course they are… Is this a ‘supernatural’ or mystical (religious) claim?

Of course it isn’t … it is a practical fact about the source and cause required to make cars.

[curious case of non-present-day abio-genesis while advocating “past” abiogenesis].

If it is obvious and not mystical or religious, or a ‘fairy tale’, that intelligence can create things such as cars and houses and computers, then Intelligence itself is not a “mystical” or silly or foolish or outdated concept – but, rather, an irrefutable reality of the Universe and the world we live in.  We are intelligent – not a metaphor for intelligence.  Lest the word, and hence the distinction have no meaning; a framework that is unacceptable for there are in fact meaningful distinctions between artifacts and ‘naturally’ produced items.

We accept automobiles because 1) we made them, but also 2) they were materially arranged by material-bodied beings (matter moving matter).  The real problem, the real refusal to conceptualize the origin of life rests in the fact that ENERGY itself would have to behave intelligently in order to create life.   Yet, energy behaves intelligently anyway – we call it law.

[Quantum Choice] [Max Planck]

[Max Planck list of accomplishments]

Is energy behaving orderly (when it does not have to) any more radical than energy behaving intelligently?  It seems miraculous either way. 

The question can be asked another way.  Which is more extraordinary, a child speaking or a child doing physics calculations?  One is mathematical the other logical.

Universal order and individual logos are simply a different type of intelligence.  This is quite like our own ability to do math or write poems.  One allows for stability of the system, (engineering, infrastructure, etc.) and the other for creative expression within it (music, poetry, artistic design)!  Incidentally, intelligence already acts directly upon matter without intermediary (material) causes – and we are the evidence for this.

Neither case violates physical laws, though neither can be expressed or achieved by fixed causes.  CREATIVE causes are required.

Logic

A common response offered by those subscribing to the view of ‘life from accidental or chance chemical causes’ is that “Just because we haven’t found the answer yet, doesn’t mean it won’t be found…”

Think of it this way – if all the world’s scientists working together cannot create a single cell of living material… then, logically, a person or group capable of achieving this feat would be considered SUPERIOR to the rest.  If we cannot achieve it today, but expect to in a hundred years, this thinking operates on the assumption that we will be more advanced in the future, and our understanding increased. 

So, again, a ‘superior’ intelligence (to our own) is required to engineer life.  Thus our bias is manifest and irrefutable, for we continue to insist(!) that no intelligence or a superior intelligence is required which is the irrational consequence of refusing to relinquish the former as a viable proposition.

--%--

Separating ‘Strong Conviction’ from Facts

ALL systems of order whose origins are known for certain are the products of Minds.  To repeat, there is no system of order whose causes are understood which is not born within the intelligent mind.

Objectively, if you re-read the previous statements, this describes REALITY as it IS, and as we Find it to BE, every time we look, and without exception, bar none, end of discussion. 

If when reading the above you feel the author is making a religious statement, or is making a case for the existence of G-d, you are still conflating intelligences above the human order with religion. 

(Remember Her?)

Regarding the Motivations of Bias, members of the scientific community who seek to prove that accidents can create nano-technology and life are essentially seeking to prove a “G-d” is not necessary to explain or account for the natural world.  This pursuit pertains to ideology and institution, but not the pursuit of truth, impartial assessment of facts, or legitimate understanding.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BIO GENESIS

The reason the institution of science insists upon studying the origin of life as a chemical process is because any non-law based process would be deemed ‘supernatural’.  Thus it is stigmatized as religious, though there is no inherent relationship between the supernatural (per se) and the religious.

To describe the origin of life as a Supernatural event is strictly a logical fact.  As no natural process has ever been witnessed to create life from non-life.  We’ve explored oceans, beneath the earth, into volcanoes, in the sky, in space, on the moon, on the surface of mars, beyond our own solar system and never have we seen a ‘natural process’ convert inert chemicals into a biological organism. 

What does this fact mean to you??  That we just haven’t looked hard enough?  If this is the case, at least recognize the assumption that supports such logic – you presuppose that eventually we will find the ‘natural’ solution.  This amounts to blind faith – and again, blatant illogic as language requires intelligence.