Of Matter and Intelligence

           I had an interesting, and probably stupid, thought yesterday as I was sitting in the Temple.  I work currently at the recommend desk and have a chance each week to work at the recommend desk in the Baptistry.  The Baptistry is on the whole much less busy than the rest of the Temple which affords me the chance to engage in scripture reading and contemplation.  I thought yesterday about the nature of matter and energy and intelligence. 

            I have always thought that the scriptures support the idea of intelligence existing at all levels of material organization from the highest levels of animal life, man, to the lowest levels of organization we have discovered in the search for fundamental particles.  I have the impression that my supposition arose out of a couple of verses in the Book of Mormon in Helaman where Helaman discusses the weaknesses of men with a very unusual and curious comparison.  Helman emphasizes the nothingness of the children of men because “they are less than the dust of the earth.  For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.”  Hel. 12:7-8  He then moves higher on the organizational level, noting the obedience of hills, mountain, and the earth itself.  Helaman contrasts men who in Helaman’s words “set at naught [God’s] counsels, and…will not that he should be their guide,” Id. at 6, but rather are “quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world,” Id. at 4, with the dust, hills, mountains and earth that all respond to God’s voice.
 

I have reasoned that the comparison Helaman makes is completely meaningless unless the dust of the earth has some choice in the matter.  If the dust is simply acting as it must at God’s command, it cannot be described as having any superior virtue to man, nor can man be reasonably compared unfavorably to the dust.  If the dust is without any ability to act in a different manner, a comparison with man’s actions lacks any meaning because the difference between man and dust is fundamental-one has a choice, the other does not. 

This view is reinforced somewhat by Jacob’s observation about the strength of the faith that he and his people developed.  Jacob states that their faith had increased to the point that it became “unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.”  Jacob 4:6.  Jacob chose to describe their power as faith sufficient to cause trees, mountains and waves to obey their commands; he does not describe their faith as the power to make the trees, mountains and waves to move.

It is also reinforced by a couple of other scriptures.  In Moses, the earth is described as having a voice and expressing itself.  “And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?  And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?”  Moses 7:48-49 

Moreover, the Lord has described the earth in terms that suggest some level of intelligence and will: “the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.”  D&C 88:25-26.   Finally, the creation of the garden of Eden is described in the same manner:   “And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.  And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul.”  Moses 3:8-9.

 Now, I don’t subscribe to the fanatical environmental gaia hypothesis which places everything in nature off limits and posits that the earth would be a better place without any humans because the Lord has specifically told us that “all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; [y]ea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.”  D&C 59:18-19.  The Lord, however, has placed some limits on our actions.  We are to use all things which come of the earth “with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.”  Id. at 20.  These limits are open to interpretation, but I don’t think those limits can reasonably be seen as forbidding Man’s use of the things of the earth to improve his condition. 

I recognize that difficulties exist with the matter/intelligence hypothesis.  For example, how do all the levels of intelligence interact?  If each atom, or part of an atom, has some intelligence, how does that intelligence interact or become part of the intelligence of rocks, trees, waves, plants, animals or humans?  I have no idea, but I am for myself willing to suspend thinking about those issues to think about other implications of my supposition. 

So what?  Of what import is the notion that matter at the most fundamental level has some form of intelligence?   That will be the subject of a future post.  

Suspended in The Air

 Today I am traveling.  Left the house at 5:00 a.m. to catch a 7:30 flight to Kalamazoo (I love saying that name) via Detroit.  I like to travel.  And by that I don't just mean arriving at a destination; I like the act of traveling.  Something about the journey suspends my sense of time and place.  I feel as I imagine a quantum probability wave would feel (if it could feel-talk about anthropomorphizing!) before it collapses.  Anything is possible.  Maybe it is the isolation of being out of touch with the usual sources of information (telephone, mass media, email, internet), but I suspect not.  I have had the same feeling when I fly with access to the internet and email.  Whatever the reason I really enjoy the sense of unlimited possibilities that unfortunately evaporates once I have arrived-even when it is a nice place like Kalamazoo.

Anarchy

Today I read an opinion piece by Sally Kohn writing in the Washington Post .  A little class warfare.  Ms. Kohn's vision of class warfare includes imagining

millions of Americans withholding mortgage payments to banks that refuse to adjust underwater loans. Imagine divestment campaigns to pressure public pension funds and universities to pull their money from the private sector and put it into government bonds. Imagine students staging sit-ins to protest teacher layoffs. Imagine families who have lost their homes squatting in vacant, bank-owned properties.  

Well.  Class warfare it appears involves the ability of an individual to determine that his need is greater than someone else's and act unilatterally to satisfy that need.  But, Ms. Kohn does not go far enough.  On what principled basis can Ms. Kohn separate the ownership rights of banks from the ownership rights of an individual?  Or, say, from a family that owns a couple of rental homes in a limited liability company?   On what basis would an individual who has lost his home be prohibited from squatting in a neighbor's home?  Ms. Kohn's imagination is much too limited then. 

  Imagine you and your family leaving your home on vacation and returning to find a group of squatters who had decided that they needed your home more than you did.  What is the difference?  Ms. Kohn has already decided that the principle of private ownership supported by state force based on the rule of law has no meaning.  (The reason she has to imagine millions of Americans squatting in bank owned properties is to flood the system and prevent by shear numbers the banks from employing state force to vindicate their property rights.)  On what principle is an individual's ownership interest different from a corporation's?    Moreover, the abolition of private ownership supported by use of state force based on the rule of law would certainly not abolish the practice of possessing property to the exclusion of all others, it would merely change the mechanism for enforcing the practice.  Can it seriously be doubted that a squatter in another's home (bank or indvidually owned) would resist being removed?

    I am reminded of an article I read recently (can't now find the link) about squatters in England.  The author had visited a home in which squatters lived and when he attempted to explore some of the rooms was told that he was not allowed to enter.  The irony was lost on the squatters.  If you returned to a home occupied by armed inhabitants exactly how would you go about removing them?

   Is the change from enforcement of property rights (because make no mistake that perfectly describes the squatters' resistance to being removed) from state force based on law clearly announced and thoroughly delineated to individual force based only on the possession of superior force really an improvement?

  Let's imagine further.  As long as we are imagining Americans refusing to make mortgage payments because banks won't forgive a debt, imagine banks refusing to pay millions of Americans' deposit liabilities not because they don't have the money, but simply because depositors won't negotiate a reduction in what they claim to be owed.  Imagine employers refusing to pay wages or online stores to send purchased goods. Imagine any private contractual obligation worthless because no legal consequence flows from refusing to perform.  You cannot have access to the courts in Ms. Kohn's imagined universe because state enforcement of property rights based on the rule of law has been eliminated. In that case, how does one live? 

   Perhaps Ms. Kohn has something more sophisticated in mind rather than the complete anarchy her proposal requires.  Perhaps she would propose that individual ownership or obligations are sacrosanct, but entity ownership or obligations are not.  Perhaps her system only is implemented if certain wealth or income disparities are demonstrated.  We don't know because she does not tell us.  But it's unfair you say to require Ms. Kohn to propose a completely different ordering of society in an Op Ed piece.  Not at all.  Ms. Kohn proposes to tear down our society in a paragraph.  She must at least give us a reason for thinking that the logical consequences of the actions she proposes are better than the present system.  But, that is asking too much of her.  Ms. Kohn's is an emotional argument; it is not based on any rational system.  Ultimately, it is an appeal to people's greed.  If you lack something you want take it from someone else.  Greed satisfied by force.  That sounds like the kind of society I want to live in.