Can life evolve into massless, pure, intelligent energy? Explain your answer pls.
What is intelligence? A very abstract concept in and of itself very difficult to measure or define.
What is mass? We know that everything is made up of atoms which are in constant motion. Does mass exist or are we all and everything we know massless energy?
Intelligence in this instance is "consciousness."
Mass = what it is referred to in Einsteins e=mc2
Let me ask you a question. Do you know the answers and are just refusing to enlighten the rest of us or are you sincerely asking the question?
Why would you ask that question? That would be like asking me what caused the "big bang."
No one knows or can know at this point in human evolution, yet the question will be asked until someone can eh?
Isn't curiosity the essence of human learning? I think it is.
Is the forum used to provide discussion of the unknown?
Must one have the answer to pose a question on the forum?
I, personally,like to pose question which might, just might inspire thought and possibilities.
Is that wrong?
If it is to you, I respectfully submit that you are not human.
OK/...thanks for questioning...:-)
Your question will only make sense to people who don't understand what energy is or how it is applied. That way you can philosophize proven science, and know one will know the difference.
qwark I like questions in fact I question everything. Questions are easy answers are not. I have read some of your hubs and find we ask similar questions about similar things in life. Sometimes people post questions just to criticize those that take the time to respond. I do not think anyone can answer the question is there intelligent energy the only answers you are going to receive will be simple conjecture.
Thanks for responding.
I try to offer "food-for-thought."
If my questions, produce only opinion, so be it. Yesterdays science fiction is todays reality.
I pay no attention to those who's replies are ignorantly inane.
I enjoy "hubbing" with those who try to understand and offer challenging responses..don't you?
I appreciate all intelligent conversation. I read your hub.
Have you studied Buddhism?
I have spent over 20 yrs studying anthropology and the evolution of all of man's religious inclinations. All are based upon ignorance. Ignorance engenders fear...fear casues the creation of superstition...and all of man's god's have been the result of man's insecurities. His imagination is unbounded..and it continues today...but then that is not the subject of this "forum" hub eh?...
Again, thanks for asking.
I did not know that Buddhists believe in a god as described by Christians but more in line with the intelligence you described in your hub.
ohh now. as interesting as your studies are I wonder if you have it all figured out as much as you think you do. "Ignorance engenders fear" Did you ever ponder the idea that the fear was derived from casualties and/or natural disasters. There is no literature supporting the conjuring mind to the age old question. Not in the beginning anyway. Just what you guys have figured out. haha.
The level of your intellectual dirth is amazing!
I will no longer waste time "hubbing" with you
I cannot lower my response to your level of ignorance and think that you can, in any manner, understand.
I thank you for trying tho.
just as I finished reading your hub too. dang it. Its interesting that you people so passionately want people to understand your interpretation on life but then you are so quick to insult a "believer". Don't get your feelings hurt, its just that your life study is no more valid than mine.
Strictly speaking, there is Kinetic energy (energy in motion) and Potential energy (stored energy). All objects that are massless always travel at the speed of light.
Doesn't look to promising.
Did you mean pure consciousness?
If that's what you meant...yes consider it.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Probably so. If it made its way in, then I suppose it has to make its way out.
Not sure if it just disappears...
sure, why not.
we become more and more technologically advanced and need to use our bodies less and less. well, not me, but they are out there.
you know those troglobytes that live deep in caves under the earth? or those strange blind fish that live deep in the darkest recesses of the ocean? they don't even have eyes anymore because they don't need them down there where they are. if earth survives before the Sun supernovaes, man could evolve into some creature that doesn't need his body at all, eventually becoming massless, pure, intelligent energy.
At last I have found a person who can understand the potent powers of limitless evolution.
now if only you could live the 97.658 trillion years to see it happen.
it's cosette, actually, after that character in Les Miserables.
it just makes sense to me. let's go pick out a china pattern
Now consider the same question I asked Sandra.
Reason: humankind had evolved to energy, it would still be a mass of energy, just simply having no shell. Your individual body would no longer be necessary.
Should humankind evolve to that point, there would be no reason to not draw the conclusion that sustained life could exist in that form. But, for now is only conjecture, nothing based on fact, in our reality.
Oh, btw- just the topic alone, made me think of the Movie Powder. It's about a very unique young man.
Powder! One of my favorite movies
Can you imagine much older forms of "consciousness" having evolved elsewhere in the our universe or beyond that, somewhere far beyond the limits of what we term "our" universe and having existed long enuf to have outlived a need for protoplasmic mass and exists as just 'energy?"
Anything is possible until it's proven otherwise. I don't see how evolution could produce such a leap since Darwin's survival of the fittest requires physical genetics (DNA) to function in the culling process.
To make a jump from a physical entity to a pure energy entity would require something other than evolution as we know it. But, there may be undiscovered ways to evolve also. Who knows?
Great question by the way and some great discussion also.
Actually, it doesn't. We are all in freefall and the earths surface is accelerating up towards us. That is what you "feel" on the bottom of your feet while standing.
You mean to say, centripetal & centrifugal force ?
I think he does, but he doesn't understand what he means. LOL
Nope. Those are pseudo-forces. I'm talking strictly about gravity and it's effect on us. We aren't being 'pulled down' towards the earths surface, that was Newton's error. Einstein came along and corrected Newton by postulating the equivalency between gravity and acceleration. He was right because his mathematics are dead accurate and Newtons were off.
My question has nothing to do with earthly life and the simple physics we understand. My question has to do with the possiblity of life billions of years older than life on this planet and the effects of ubiquitous evolution on them...or "it."
Yeah, I get that. But, the physical laws to overcome will still be here.
My, My ...lolol touchy!
Of course I want answers...but relevant ones.
What you posted was not in any manner relevant to my question about "intelligent energy."
When ya get it right, or even close, I'll let ya know..:-)
Gravity is the centripetal Force that keeps you and everything else from flying away on earth. If the pull of Gravity (g) or (G) did not exist we would fly off of the earth because of angular momentum. Show us the math that you obviously understand and speak of.
Nope. Centripetal force is 'pseudo-force' required for accelerated motion that seeks the center of the curved path like a merry-go-round or a car going around a curve. Everything on earth is NOT in accelerated motion, many things are at rest.
Gravity does not pull, that was Newtons error, action-at-a-distance. His calculations were close enough to put probes on Saturn or a man on the moon, but were not accurate.
The matter/energy is on one side of the equations and is equivalent with spacetime geometry on the other side.
Yes, everything on earth can be considered to be in motion. Try looking from space down to earth, or from an airplane. Even if you do consider things at rest it is negligible compared to the force of gravity.
I still say gravity pulls. If there were a hole to the other side of the earth would you not continue to fall until the center?
Lastly, that equation lets you calculate space time intervals between two points. The Theory of General Relativity must use velocities close to or at the speed of light, and gravitational fields that are larger than those on earth to be accurate.
TGR and Newton's Laws can be both be argued correct so you win, because you understand them both and have chosen a side.
No, many things are at rest, they are not in motion. Who cares about looking down from space, irrelevant.
That's fine, but you would be wrong.
What does that have to do with anything?
Totally wrong. I already explained that to you.
Nope. GR is accurate, Newtons laws are not. Simple really.
It has to do with motion and constant acceleration.
It has to do with the effects of gravity at the center of the earth. You know, where there is none. Where you would be pulled to indefinitely.
TGR assumes 4d and that gravity is bent space time. You have not explained anything. Newton's laws are as accurate and flawed as Einsteins. Einstein himself admitted flaws in TGR.
I would agree it has to do with acceleration, which is what Einstein postulated with gravity; The Equivalence Principle.
"No experiment can distinguish the acceleration due to gravity from the inertial acceleration due to a change of velocity."
That was Newtons idea; action at a distance. He thought that gravity was a force reaching out across space and pulling on objects towards the center of its mass, as that is very much what it appeared to be doing. Using classical mechanics, we could plug in numbers and put a man on the moon, amongst a host of other applications. His ideas stood most tests for more than three centuries, until Einstein had another idea and another test; The Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury.
It predicts that, as well, with astounding accuracy.
What flaws did he admit, exactly?
the kind of energy Einstein had in mind when he created the equation: e=mc2....take it from there.
That is summation of all energy. Not just intelligent energy.
Try to understand the question.
The concept is not difficult.
Altho it may be for you. I have to consider that..:-)
This already exists also. When you die, your body decomposes, and energy transfers from one form to the next.
Imagination for energy without body is nice. I can think of this as anime/manga story and it's worth to sell.
Well gravity is intelligent it thinks about pulling you down
For those of you who would like to seriously consider my forum post, I have written a "hub" I titled; "The Reward." If you have the time and inclination, read it. My question may become less of an enigma for ya...it may cause you to consider the possibility...:-)
It is said that the Lord is so bright that one can not look upon Him. Moses became luminesant after spending time with God atop the mountain. I think thats what you are getting at. You are looking for God still.
I know you won't, but if you want to know why I ask these questions...read my "hub;" "The Reward."
What makes your story faith based is one sentence in your hub. Actually one word. Why men like Dawkins are much more successful at making 'believers' out of what I would call 'nothing' at all is the fact that they don't use words like this. If you want to be successful at promoting your religion you will learn how to never ever use sentences or words such as this.
"With the passage of aeons of time, somehow, intelligent life emerged and flourished."
Your writing is beautiful, just take out the "somehow". Then backtrack your education and see how much science has to use the word. Its amazing really. Dawkins would never use that word and thats why he could sell ice to an Eskimo.
I have never seen evidence to prove it to me. I finished the book Evolution A Theory in Crisis about three months ago and it put a lot of doubts in my head. All my life I believed in evolution now I have many questions. I am not saying I do not believe I am saying I do not know. This was the first question I posed in these forums and almost got my heart ripped out by the answers i received. Evolution is a tough subject on hubpages.
If you have been studying the subjct "evolution," you know that "micro" evolution has been proved. Simple life mutates, adjusts, adapts and evolves new species very rapidly. In fact so quickly they their evolution can be empirically proved. Complex life? Observable evolutionary changes take hundreds of thousands of years...Macro evolution has not yet been proved, but given time and effort it will be.
if it is proved beyond a doubt, do you think that it has boundaries?...in any manner or form?
If evolution is proven then I see no way to tell how far we will evolve the sky is the limit.
ArthurI just posted a reply on your question about nations going bust.
What I'm referring to in ref to the limits of the processes of evolution have nothing to do with conemporary man's shallow and infantile thoughts about religous belief
Do you think that as time passes and man's mental powers increase there can be a slow and gradual diminution of the need for a protoplasmic mass to do its bidding?
So you are talking about just being a brain. A literal blob? Sure, why not.
Not at all.
The brain has mass.
I am infering naught but pure, conscious energy.
That's what I already suggested. Yes, sure why not.
Need to see some proof. Evolution has been using the words "proof" and "fact" since 20 min after it was conjured up. "Fact, man evolved from Ape" wait "fact, man and ape evolved from squirrel like animal". "Proof, lizard fossile found with wings" wait "Proof, China's archeologists tampered with the fossile and carved wings into the stone."
God can't even laugh at the circus.
Gosh, lets all grab a latte and speak as intellectuals. This is deep people
Knowing that our universe is approx 13 billion yrs old..and life appeared about 4 billion yrs ago on planet earth, do you think that the possibility exists that enuf time has elapsed for evolution to have created conscious, free roaming, living forms of energy?
Well by my standards there's a simple math equation really. and see its going to take a few more of these delightful lattes and hundreds more hours of supreme intellectual gatherings before you can get out of me, see. <-- insert I'm so smart dialect.
You would be, with your question, trying to define, "GOD" in some way, shape or form. To simply say that consciousness exists as energy, in and of, itself.
This type of thinking, might lead one to believe in God. However, consciousness is a sense, incorporated into free will thought. Without consciousness, we as a race(humans) would not be able to tell that we were alive.
Life wouldn't have any meaning whatsoever without consciousness.
Good Day qwark
Though this topic is inactive I thought I'd weigh in anyway. Myabe we can start it back up again. In any event I think it might be a good idea in addressing a question like this, is to start with the evidence we have in front of us. Its thin but we do have some evidence.
You have asked if life can evolve into intelligent, formless energy. The first thing we might do, for efficiency, is to define and even limit the scope of inquiry -- at least to begin with. Can we stipulate that we will only consider human beings?
First of all, I gather you would have us understand evolution as possibly moving from one level involving the physical to a higher plane in which we will thus become liberated from our bodies. And this formless state of intelligent energy would represent a relative apex of our development. If we're agreed about what the question is let's proceed.
If we start with the evidence we have -- and presuming we all subscribe to the idea of evolution -- we notice, that the roughly two million year period of becoming us featured our increasing intelligence closely corresponding to or correlating to the increased delicatification (I just invented the word 'delicatification') of our bodies.
That is to say that as we got smarter our bodies, yes, got "weaker," but more importantly, remolded on a sleeker, slimmer, less robust, yet in some ways more versatile basis. We lost our claws, fangs, heavy hair covering, some of our musculature and physical strength. We also created tools and this meant that we didn't have to apply as much muscle power directly to the land to feed ourselves and make a livelihood.
Now, I assume this process of the increasing delicatification of the body along with the increasing intelligence of our species, that occurred over a two million year period, takes us closer to that state of formless pure intellect that you suppose, yes? This would have to mean that over time the body becomes less and less and less emphasized as the intelligence (first in terms of brain size, then perhaps transcending this into storage of its capacity in the electrical impulses that travel back and forth between neurons along synapses) becomes more and more and more emphasized.
In theory, I suppose this might be possible provided that the increasing delicatification of the body always occurs as a consequence of our constantly increasing intelligence, which relieves the body of more and more of its necessary usefulness and purpose for existing. The body becomes smaller and smaller, and more and more delicate until it ceases to manifest because our consciousnesses have absolutely no further use for it.
by xxxhitmanooo 10 years ago
Although human beings are considered the smartest species on this planet, in actuality we know very little about the mysteries that surround us and the rest of the universe. We may have learnt to use our surroundings to our advantage to some extent and we may have become technologically advanced to...
by mischeviousme 10 years ago
If you are a member of a religious group, you'll find that they frown upon thinking for yourself. If you ask any questions, that would appear to go against the doctrine, you might as well have insulted the entire religion.
by nightwork4 10 years ago
Is intelligence really needed to be a doctor?what I mean is that to be a doctor , people need to be smart in school. wouldn't an average person be able to do the job just as well as long as they have a good memory?
by kirstenblog 9 years ago
I have often wondered about this. I personally have no education beyond that of High School. I do not hold any special qualifications and think of myself as being average in intelligence. I do read a lot and pay attention to as much as I can as a habit. If there is text I read it, even a cheesy ad...
by PaulStaley1 6 years ago
Is a college degree a measure of intelligence?I don't have a degree. Because of that I think I have a chip on my shoulder. I see so many people out there with degrees that are just plain morons. I think, nowadays more then ever, it is more about money, and showing your...
by marinealways24 12 years ago
In your own words without quoting religious text or quoting atheist text, what are the main points that rule life being intelligent or ignorant?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|