Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not to mention all the other limitations such as the long emergency halting Moore's Law before it even completes

Quite the longueur.
Albeit, such a profound pasage of yours , changes not the fact, that exponential technological change occurs, and therein, kurzweil's graphs entail such a transition.

Maybe if you had actually read what I said then you would have realised that this exponential technological change will probably not continue forever. You are doing the classic mistake of extrapolating a curve.

May I interest you in a pyramid scheme? Profits have been increasing exponentially.

[brewer]

I have an Amway position available.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Well, at least you seem to have turned off the Lite Brite show. 

Maybe I'll try to read some of your commentary now.

It's like we've been visited by a parallel version of Little Rik from an alternate universe where Rik is some kind of brilliant genius.

[chimp3]

The word god is never, ever an observable statistic. Merely an embellishment to an otherwise ordinary profession. Computer programing. Simply substitute "dude" for every time you impose the word "god" and we keep things in human perspective.

Incorrect.

Simplification: 

[0] The theistically-hypothesized God entails a particular property [the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, ie human intellect]


[1] Mankind is an observable sequence.

[2] Mankind shall likely encode a particular property; [whence mankind shall likely generate artificial intellect that shall exceed the net intelligence of its species]



[3] At the compaction of the theistically-theoirized God, amidst statistic [2], God is thereafter properly scientifically statistically definable as some likely non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity, with the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence...

Gods do not exist. People created their gods. Therefore , their gods are no more intelligent than they are. People creating AI are simply people. We have already invented computers that play chess better than the best human players. But to embellish that accomplishment by bestowing godlike status to the programmers is a comic book super hero fantasy.

[Whateverist]

Read the first page. Wow, wonder if this guy shouts colorful language all the time like this in real life. It is off putting .. so I'll be off.

[Mudhammam]

Man in 2016 BCE: IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Man in 2016 CE: IT'S SIMULATIONS ALL THE WAY DOWN.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Quite the longueur.
Albeit, such a profound pasage of yours , changes not the fact, that exponential technological change occurs, and therein, kurzweil's graphs entail such a transition.

He's a media scientist only out to promote himself to get funding by over selling AI and relying on a team of people to do the work for him. He's been talking about reaching super human intelligence of AI in 2040 for years now based on really a dodgy understanding of how the brain works and assuming that Moore's Law will carry on forever. I lump him in with the likes of Kevin Warwick and Sam Harris. In other words, he sells fantasies.
....
Each human is part of a population that has evolved over time. Intelligence requires being embodied in an environment, and that takes time. 

....
Maybe if you had actually read what I said then you would have realised that this exponential technological change will probably not continue forever. You are doing the classic mistake of extrapolating a curve.

May I interest you in a pyramid scheme? Profits have been increasing exponentially.

[*A]
Your prior postulation  was but invalid; for:

[0] 
It is likely that Kurzweil's/Sam's accomplishments exceed yours.

[1]
Brain based models, (that approximate the human neuronal cycle (10^15 flops), are on Moore's Law, likely at 2020's horizon.

See IBM's neurosynaptic chip. 
Intriguing: IBM's phase change chip.


[*B*]

Such non-human models are not bound in the profound [non-trivial macroscale time] trial-error regime. 
Data scientists have this day, generated brain based models that exceed/equal human intellect on cognitive tasks/task groups, ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. Such advances, at the juncture of said data scientists, DID NOT require MACROSCALE scopes of time.

---

Incorrect.

Simplification: 

[0] The theistically-hypothesized God entails a particular property [the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, ie human intellect]


[1] Mankind is an observable sequence.

[2] Mankind shall likely encode a particular property; [whence mankind shall likely generate artificial intellect that shall exceed the net intelligence of its species]



[3] At the compaction of the theistically-theoirized God, amidst statistic [2], God is thereafter properly scientifically statistically definable as some likely non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity, with the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence...

Gods do not exist. People created their gods. Therefore , their gods are no more intelligent than they are. People creating AI are simply people. We have already invented computers that play chess better than the best human players. But to embellish that accomplishment by bestowing godlike status to the programmers is a comic book super hero fantasy.

You have blatantly ignored a particular factum; there exists not any opinionated sequence of mine.


Simply, mankind shall likely satisfy a particular predominantly-theistic-bound God property; namely the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence [ie artificial general intelligence]. (Where separate theist-hypothesized properties, [omniscience, omnipotence...]  are non-evident on scientifically observed statistics)

Thusly, I need not BESTOW any quantity.

[I_am_not_mafia]

This is the trouble with the field of AI, it suffers the same problem as Quantum Mechanics today, or nuclear physics 80 years ago. Because there are currently way more questions than answers it allows any crackpot to come in and insert their god into the gap. It gives them the means to give scientific sounding names to the magic they need for their fantasy beliefs. When scientists start making some form of progress and the theory gets too complicated for the average person to even contemplate pretending they understand, the fantasists move onto something. This thread is a perfect example of it.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Thereafter, there exists no contradiction amidst my prior stipulation, for one need not BELIEF, such that one OBSERVES PROBABILITIES.

Probabilistic models can't be made on an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You don't know what you're talking about, you can't know because it's not possible to know.

Even if it turns out you're 100% right about everything, you were only ever right by coincidence, not because you had good reason to believe it.

Nonsense.
NOTE: I have not any belief.



ALBEIT:

Robust-Statistic/Basis [0]

It is observed that brain based models already exceed/equal human performance via cognitive tasks/task groups. (and likelythe task entirety at 2020's horizon on Moore's Law, as said brain based models' hardware shall likely [Moore's Law] approximate the human neuronal cycle 10^15 flops.)
[Ergo, no such unfalsifiable hypothesis persists]






Robust-Statistic/Basis [1]


Therein, Moore's Law has been observable for 50 years.
 [Ergo, no such unfalsifiable hypothesis persists]







Albeit, keenly observe the usage of the word likely, amidst stipulations of mine.

[chimp3]

Bestow or don' t ! My statement stands. All you are doing is embellishing human activities with comic book jargon and begging people to find your words amazing.