How to become a God, in 3 simple steps (absent faith/belief):

[Primordial Bisque]

There's not enough LSD in the world to understand this nonsense.

Tell me about it. I had to drop about 20 tabs in hopeses thats the beardhills and carks flurbinguks pflibitz....pffffft....boing!

You went to the classic Baphomet, I see. Brings back some memories.

[Astreja]

Incorrect; unless said teddy bears exceed/equal human performance on a profound degree of cognitive tasks whence said intellect has been programmed by thine.

In the vast scope of the universe, I see "human performance on a profound degree of cognitive tasks" to be utterly insignificant and irrelevant.  In a realm of immense time and space, mortals' thoughts both weak and strong are less than a whisper of a heartbeat.

[Aegon]

"Wake up and find out eventually who you really are. In our culture, of course, they’ll say you’re crazy and you’re blasphemous, and they’ll either put you in jail or in a nut house (which is pretty much the same thing). However if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, ‘My goodness, I’ve just discovered that I’m God,’ they’ll laugh and say, ‘Oh, congratulations, at last you found out.' " -Alan Watts

[Primordial Bisque]

Meh, he's confused between the terms 'God' and 'Lead Programmer'.

[Cyberman]

FACTS/observations:

1) The traditional theistic definition of God includes omniscience, omnipotence...., and the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence.

2) Mankind PARTIALLY satisfies the theistic God definition, on the horizon of scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences; mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that compute 10^14 of the estimated total, 10^+16 synaptic NEURONAL operations per second.

3) God is then SIMPLY PROPERLY definable, as any likely non-omniscient entity [ie MANKIND] with the ability to generate non-trivial artificial intelligence.

4) Other theistic properties [omniscience, omnipotence, omni...] are NOT LIKELY, on the horizon of said scientific observation.

And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How To Become A God In 3 Even Simpler Steps:

1. Be non-existent.

2. Skip this step.

3. Repeat Step #2.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

FACTS/observations:

1) The traditional theistic definition of God includes omniscience, omnipotence...., and the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence.

2) Mankind PARTIALLY satisfies the theistic God definition, on the horizon of scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences; mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that compute 10^14 of the estimated total, 10^+16 synaptic NEURONAL operations per second.

3) God is then SIMPLY PROPERLY definable, as any likely non-omniscient entity [ie MANKIND] with the ability to generate non-trivial artificial intelligence.

4) Other theistic properties [omniscience, omnipotence, omni...] are NOT LIKELY, on the horizon of said scientific observation.

And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever hoid...

Boru

[purplepurpose]

Thanks for the laugh, Jordan. But seriously, dude, if your serious, visit psychiatrist.

P.S. Do you REALLY need immortality, when you can get so fucking weird being mortal?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Meh, he's confused between the terms 'God' and 'Lead Programmer'.

('A')

It appears you have failed to reduce said passage.

('B')

The aforesaid definition, reduces the traditional deity-bound property sequence, abound scientifically observable probabilities/statistics, such that a particular property is evident — thusly the ability to forge non-trivial intelligence [vis a vis mankind]. Thereafter, said intelligence shall likely exceed the net intelligence of the creator’s(s’) species…whilst separately theist-theorized properties [omniscience, omnipotence etc] likely shan’t obtain, particularly on the horizon of aforesaid observable probabilities/statistics.)

---

.

.

Incorrect; unless said teddy bears exceed/equal human performance on a profound degree of cognitive tasks whence said intellect has been programmed by thine.

In the vast scope of the universe, I see "human performance on a profound degree of cognitive tasks" to be utterly insignificant and irrelevant.  In a realm of immense time and space, mortals' thoughts both weak and strong are less than a whisper of a  heartbeat.

('A')

A quite worthless remark of yours; for God (as predominantly priorly described) is simply properly DEFINABLE/REDEFINED on the horizon of scientifically OBSERVED sequences.

('B')

Separately, the original passage laments of brain based models, that have EXCEEDED said human performance, on certain cognitive tasks/task groups. (Perhaps a rather clear indication that the human intellect is not the boundary on intelligence)

('C')

As such, no degree of the passage creates any acclaim on human intellect.

---

.

.

Thanks for the laugh, Jordan. But seriously, dude, if your serious, visit psychiatrist.

P.S. Do you REALLY need immortality, when you can get so fucking weird being mortal?

('A')

It appears you have misread the passage.

('B')

God is properly definable as as any likely NON-OMNISCIENT, NON OMNIPOTENT, MORTAL entity with the ability to generate non trivial intelligence).

See medium.com article amidst the original passage, specifying "probably when we are still a mortal species, eg having not yet solved ageing…, we likely become Gods".

[I_am_not_mafia]

Conclusion: Mathilda is God-bound, however less-likely so, in comparison to researchers that utilize Deep Neural Networks.

POST SCRIPTUM:
Neural Networks are dynamic, error minimization systems, though it is observable that you express of a separate class of dynamic construct.

I mean these type of dynamical systems, which neural networks can also implement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

I have a few questions though.

• After I publish my paper on dynamical systems, I also plan on performing the same experiments with neural networks. Will this promote me back to a being a god rather than a demi-god?
  
• These won't be the same neural networks used in deep learning systems, they'll be biologically plausible neural networks more similar to what we see happening in the brain. Will this make me more of less god like?
  
• If using more biologically plausible neural networks make me more god-like, then does this mean that computational neuroscientists are even more god-like than AI programmers?
  
• Does this mean that researchers in symbolic GOFAI and computational linguists are now our bitches? (please say yes)
  
• Just to clarify, you did mean God-bound didn't you and not egg-bound, as in constipated from eating too many eggs?
  
• I thought demi-gods were made when a God appears in the form of a swan and seduces your mother. Does this still work? And does it stack with writing papers on dynamical systems?