new "Cult of 'Non-Beliefism' " aka (the state of being "unlocked")

[ApeNotKillApe]

You put a lot of effort into making sure I don't want to read anything you have to say.

[Ravenshire]

---

Below are statements made by you which are statements of belief:

You believe that you have no beliefs and you believe that beliefs are for idiots and theists. You have no scientific foundation for either of those beliefs. You fail at your own cult. Congratulations!

On another note... Please lose your thesaurus. Long words improperly used do not make you look intelligent. Quite the opposite actually.

(1.a)

Incorrect.

Perhaps it is pertinent that you observe:

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

.
.
.


(1.b)

NOTE: Highly frequent belief definition: To accept as TRUE, especially absent evidence.

There are many slices of time/space.
At any given point, we can only act in a distinct slice of time.
So inherently, we never make any TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE actions - we don't occupy all slices of time. 

[Thusly, we don't believe.]

Herein, any action we take is inherently from a sequence of OPTIMAL PROBABILITIES (where reality naturally contains many optimal ACTION-PROBABILITY mappings), rather than COMPLETE ACTIONS.

(1.c)

I have not any beliefs.

Recall:

Belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

.
.
.

(2)

Perhaps it is pertinent that you demonstrate that of my supposedly erroneous word usage.


.
.
.

(3)

The initial post is layman bound, and separate from my default language cycle: [Sample: http://www.academia.edu/25733790/Causal_...hypothesis]


Thusly, the aforesaid layman sequence has been observed to be rather absorbable. 


.
.
.

(4)

---

Have you not any thought cycles, beyond nonsense?

Denial - It's not just a river in Egypt.

You know what? You go ahead and keep cherry picking definitions and playing semantics games. No skin off my ass. Just don't be surprised when people just point and laugh. Your little cult is just a laughable as any religion.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

---

(1.a)

Incorrect.

Perhaps it is pertinent that you observe:

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

.
.
.


(1.b)


(1.c)


.
.
.

(2)

Perhaps it is pertinent that you demonstrate that of my supposedly erroneous word usage.


.
.
.

(3)

The initial post is layman bound, and separate from my default language cycle: [Sample: http://www.academia.edu/25733790/Causal_...hypothesis]


Thusly, the aforesaid layman sequence has been observed to be rather absorbable. 


.
.
.

(4)

---

Have you not any thought cycles, beyond nonsense?

Denial - It's not just a river in Egypt.

You know what? You go ahead and keep cherry picking definitions and playing semantics games. No skin off my ass. Just don't be surprised when people just point and laugh. Your little cult is just a laughable as any religion.

.
.
.
.

(1)

Observe:

I had but utilized initial google bound, definition sequences.

By extension, descriptions abound 38 separate definition websites were utilized.

Intersecting properties were thereafter compounded.

.
.
.

(2)

Separately, belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan't encode non-science.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

.
.
.


(3)

NOTE: This CULT is NOT A RELIGION, wherein IT REMOVES ALL BELIEFS.

By extension, this cult emboldens that of the relevance qua development of ARTIFICIAL SUPER INTELLIGENCE.

Here are a sequence cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED mankind:

---

1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go')

Will artificial intelligence take your job?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-wn8ghcoY

Humans need not apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU 

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo 

---

The creation of artificial super-intelligence, is thus far, mankind's largest problem.
Do you despise that of the advancement of your species?

[purplepurpose]

ProgrammingGodJordan, so basically you think, that not only beliefs are for idiots/theists, but all emotions are as useless as having faith?

Again, do you think, that compassion, anger, fear, lust, greed is completely useless to you?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

ProgrammingGodJordan, so basically you think, that not only beliefs are for idiots/theists, but all emotions are as useless as having faith?

Again, do you think, that compassion, anger, fear, lust, greed is completely useless to you?

(1)

There is data that demonstrates that the faithful are typically less intelligent. 
Sample: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

(2)

There is in the like, data that demonstrates that neutral-bound individuals, exceed non-neutral-aligned beings amid logical tasks:
Sample: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050437/

[purplepurpose]

ProgrammingGodJordan, so basically you think, that not only beliefs are for idiots/theists, but all emotions are as useless as having faith?

Again, do you think, that compassion, anger, fear, lust, greed is completely useless to you?

(1)

There is data that demonstrates that the faithful are typically less intelligent. 
Sample: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

(2)

There is in the like, data that demonstrates that neutral-bound individuals, exceed non-neutral-aligned beings amid logical tasks:
Sample: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050437/

How do tackle the problem of science regarding God? Science with all its evidence which supports materialistic worldview can give at max a 99.99% probability that there is indeed only matter and no God/souls.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

(1)

There is data that demonstrates that the faithful are typically less intelligent. 
Sample: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

(2)

There is in the like, data that demonstrates that neutral-bound individuals, exceed non-neutral-aligned beings amid logical tasks:
Sample: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050437/

How do tackle the problem of science regarding God? Science with all its evidence which supports materialistic worldview can give at max a 99.99% probability that there is indeed only matter and no God/souls.

(1)

Where did you derive such a probability?

.
.
.

(2)


I am atheistic. 

However, without belief/faith or certainty, I consider/observe the FACING probabilities/scientific sequences:

---

Note: The facing details are written in layman language.

(A) We are creating more and more advanced simulations of our own cosmos:

Sample: http://www.illustris-project.org/

As time passes, our own simulations of our cosmos gets better and better. I have not encountered (upon searching) any law of physics which stipulates that the creation of universes with life is impossible.

One shan't be frightened by the word 'SIMULATION'. The planet's likely strongest artificial intelligence, 'ALPHA GO', uses simulations of 'go games'.

Albeit, using simulations had not prevented it from EXCEEDING world champion Lee Sedol.



It is then likely that a universe like ours is perhaps 'CREATABLE', particularly by intelligence (us).

.
.
.
.
.
.

(2) We are creating more and more advanced artificial intelligence:

As time passes, our brain based artificial intelligence (neural nets etc) EXCEED humans in more and more cognitive tasks.

Our brain runs at roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.

NOW, there are models that run 10^14 synaptic operations per second, that are small (approaching human-brain size) and efficient.

By 2020  (Moore's Law), it is likely that we will successfully make models that achieve brain capacity and efficiency.




It is then likely that intelligence like ours is perhaps 'CREATABLE', particularly by intelligence (us) .

---

[purplepurpose]

@ProgrammingGodJordan, 99.99% was just a random example. I meant that there is a tiny chance that souls and some kind of God exists.

[chimp3]

I just read Jordans paper here : http://www.academia.edu/25733790/Causal_...hypothesis

No amount of Blue Cheese Dressing could fix this word salad. It reads like a Professor Irwin Corey Lecture. Only not funny.

---

Now this is funny :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw

Here is the base code betwixt the aforesaid paper: https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God/

.
.
.
.
.
.

---

My thoughts curve!

[Angrboda]