RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
November 4, 2016 at 7:57 am
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2016 at 8:07 am by The Grand Nudger.)
In fairness, we have to acknowledge that it's unlikely that the brains architecture is, in any way, optimized for intelligence as an intentional computational architecture would be...and also that we're not really sure how much of a brain it takes to produce intelligence - it's interesting to note that with a fraction of the standard model, people have been known to survive and function (and while we might consider their function reduced, it doesn't seem to necessitate a disability even by a standard scale of IQ) with 10% of the normal nueron count. So, best case scenario (as in making it easier to achieve the task at hand) we're talking about some unknown portion of an unoptimized 10%, as being able to produce the effect.
While acknowledging the above might bring the sum total down by orders of magnitude (assuming that's the obstacle in the first place, it may not be), it would still be an impressively large number of hypothetical "x" even at a 1-1 exchange..which we know it isn't. I, personally, doubt we'll see a superhuman intelligence by 2040...but I wouldn't rule out CletusBot. I certainly wouldn't rule out cleverly designed mimics...and that opens a huge can of philosophical worms.
Until those floating variables above are better defined, I'd say any position on either of the far ends of the plausibility spectrum are unfounded. Confident extraplations that we either will or won't see "x" by "y" are based, equally, on a lack of knowledge. Just fun with math, really. So the singularity folks..they like to imagine that they'll live to see ai. The skeptics like to imagine that the task at hand is almost unfathomably grand. Both pick numbers to suit.
While acknowledging the above might bring the sum total down by orders of magnitude (assuming that's the obstacle in the first place, it may not be), it would still be an impressively large number of hypothetical "x" even at a 1-1 exchange..which we know it isn't. I, personally, doubt we'll see a superhuman intelligence by 2040...but I wouldn't rule out CletusBot. I certainly wouldn't rule out cleverly designed mimics...and that opens a huge can of philosophical worms.
Until those floating variables above are better defined, I'd say any position on either of the far ends of the plausibility spectrum are unfounded. Confident extraplations that we either will or won't see "x" by "y" are based, equally, on a lack of knowledge. Just fun with math, really. So the singularity folks..they like to imagine that they'll live to see ai. The skeptics like to imagine that the task at hand is almost unfathomably grand. Both pick numbers to suit.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!