(November 24, 2016 at 5:03 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 12:03 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: 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?
  

('A')

Simply: 

ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:Mankind ( AI programmers/researchers... ) are BECOMING Gods.

_definition_: AI researchers but include computational neuroscientists. (AI Researcher: Any entity that researches, such that non trivial intelligence is hypothesized/encoded) 
See quote via ('B').

.


.


('B')

I had long expressed of said plausible systems, particularly, in an earlier response betwixt thine, via http://atheistforums.org/thread-46062-page-22.html.

ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:The paths via machine learning faces:


'...A' Hardware replication. [From  C. elegans worm neuronal replication, to Henry Markram's mammalian brain constructs]

'...B' Theory-bound compactions of neuronal cognition [Deep Neural Networks-aligned models, Convolutional Neural Networks, Recurrent Neural Networks, Long Short Term Memory, Deep Reinforcement Learning that utilizes Deep Neural Nets...]

Therein:

[0] - '...A' is but entirely non-human surpassing. [approximates worms, partial mammalian brain as observed in '...A']

and

[1] - '...B' has already produced models that exceed human performance, in cognitive, non trivial tasks.[Although the human brain oscillates abound higher efficiencies entirely, brain based models excel in individual tasks/task groups as observed in '...B'.]

.


.

('C')

Thusly, deep learning has but generated human performance exceeding models, whilst non-deep learning [strictly biological-plausible aligned] models have not.
However, non-deep learning models enhance as time diverges.

You are thereafter God-bound, on the horizon of _definition_ via ('A'), and the outcome/result sequences of the paths/methodologies stipulated; whence non-deep learning [strictly biological-plausible aligned] models relent that of the task proficiency computation par deep learning models.

PGJ, take away your access to a computer and what do you become? Gibberish. 

Not much of a god when your totally dependent on an object.

(November 24, 2016 at 11:59 am)mh.brewer Wrote: PGJ, take away your access to a computer and what do you become? Gibberish. 

Not much of a god when your totally dependent on an object.

Beyond computing, I do body building:










.

.

.

POST SCRIPTUM:

You are quite accurate, for I become nonsense, absent computational access.

Albeit, the notations of mine, abound the definition of God, persists such that God is any likely non-omniscient/mortal/non-omnipotent (ie energy dependent, and therein, perhaps computer dependent...) entity, with the ability to generate non trivial artificial intelligence. [As priorly observed amidst the original passage]

Jordan, your formality would be charming, if charming meant "fucking annoying".

(November 24, 2016 at 10:31 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 11:59 am)mh.brewer Wrote: PGJ, take away your access to a computer and what do you become? Gibberish. 

Not much of a god when your totally dependent on an object.

Beyond computing, I do body building:










.

.

.

POST SCRIPTUM:

You are quite accurate, for I become nonsense, absent computational access.

Albeit, the notations of mine, abound the definition of God, persists such that God is any likely non-omniscient/mortal/non-omnipotent (ie energy dependent, and therein, perhaps computer dependent...) entity, with the ability to generate non trivial artificial intelligence. [As priorly observed amidst the original passage]

Are these those art thingies where you have to un focus your eyes to see the image?

Are you a squid?

I'm late replying to the OP so I went with the video version.

(November 24, 2016 at 11:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm late replying to the OP so I went with the video version.

I am reminded of (skip to 0:14 seconds):

I feel you could offer us a lot of interesting discussion on other topics if you could let go of this weird idea. Or at least, stop telling us about it

(November 25, 2016 at 2:33 am)robvalue Wrote: I feel you could offer us a lot of interesting discussion on other topics if you could let go of this weird idea. Or at least, stop telling us about it

(A)

I have observed your blog.

I have detected a quite profound error; you specified in some region, in an opinionated nature.

You need purge all opinion/belief. (Otherwise, in discussions with theists, you are likely to fall in the 'that's just your opinion" loop)

.

.

.

(B)

A separate error, persists where you "don't wish that religion ends".

That is nonsense:

Here are some QUICK FACTS to think about:

1) It is a fact is that the HAPPIEST PLACES in the world have the LEAST RELIGION.

2) It is a fact that the places with the LEAST CRIME have the LEAST RELIGION.

3) It is a fact that the WEALTHIEST nations have the LEAST RELIGION.

4) It is a fact that the MOST EDUCATED persons tend to be the LEAST RELIGIOUS.

Evidence[1] - HAPPIEST PLACES:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressive...religious/

Evidence[2] - LEAST CRIME:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithh...-the-most/

Evidence[3] - WEALTHIEST nations:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...dpscatter/


Evidence[4] - MOST EDUCATED people: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...e-atheists

Okay... so it's your opinion I shouldn't have opinions? How can anyone not have opinions?

I don't wish for religion to be forced to end. I didn't phrase that well, and I should change it. It's impossible to end it anyway, all you could do is clamp down on organised religion.

Edit: I updated my wording.