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

[Angrboda]

Oh ye of little faith......


Reading this in an explosion of fonts and colors only makes reading it more tiresome.


You're simply redefining the word god here.

[0]
I need not redefine God, for on observable statistics, a particular theistic bound-property is evident; the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. Mankind thereafter satisfies such a property.

This is meaningless word salad.

Perhaps, or perhaps we will need to fully understand animal intelligence in order to create human level intelligence and we never actually reach that point.  We could also fail to achieve such goals do to currently unknown technological limitations or political failures of the will.  Unknowns are unknown.

Unhandled exception is unhandled.

We become gods only in the figurative sense of the word, not the literal.

[1]

Nonsense. See [0].

Bullshit.  It is too the figurative sense.

adjective
adjective: figurative

   1.
   departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical.

This is pure speculation.  What's that you said about your post containing no opinion?

[2]

See Jeremy England's work via 'Dissipative Adaptation'. 
[2.a] Such work shows that matter shall likely attribute life-like properties.
[2.b] See James Gates' Adinkra Postulation [and by extension digital phyiscs]
[and or 2.c] See Simulation hypothesis.

Bullshit.  England's work is largely handwaving when directed at the problem.  And Gates can kiss my ass.

Neither of Deepmind's projects can be said to approach general intelligence in any meaningful sense.  Saying that it's likely we will create superhuman intelligence based upon such examples is just pie in the sky speculation.  We don't know what obstacles, human or intellectual, might face the creation of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).  It's possible that intelligence doesn't scale linearly and so novel intelligence architectures are required to advance beyond the human level.  You don't know.  This is more speculation.

[3]

Nonsense. 
[3.a] Alpha Go is quite significant, as such approximates a regime, that garners profound neuronal sample space reduction capability; beyond human scope. (where Go's possibilities exceed the number of atoms in the known universe.)
It appears you are quite ignorant regarding alpha go's impact.

Bullshit.  It appears you are quite ignorant about what it takes to prove a point. Moreover you appear quite ignorant about what AlphaGo did accomplish.

[3.b] On Moore's Law, at 2020's horizon, brain based hardware shall likely approximate the HUMAN NEURONAL COMPUTATION CYCLE, 10^15 FLOPS. By Extension, see [7] and [8].

Meaningless assertion is meaningless.

This assumes we can program a self evolving simulation with the right end results.  That's far from a given.  We don't remotely understand how to create general intelligence, much less evolve it.

[4]

Nonsense. See [3].

That's all you've got to say?  Pathetic.

illustrus is a toy compared to the amounts of data that a real simulation of even a trivial universe would require.  The failures along this path may take the form of political and financial obstacles, but they are none the less real for their being so.

[5]

Nonsense. 
Indeed. Keenly observe Moore's Law. Such models are but only ENHANCING.

Bullshit.  Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Are you simply repeating yourself here?

[6]

Nonsense. 
['i']Isolated-Ai-models, [ii] Simulation-bound-Ai, [iii] This universe's creator(s) [iv] Mankind.

I guess you are just repeating yourself after all.

If you mean this figuratively, well then, so what?  And as noted, there may be difficulties that you simply haven't accounted for in your 'probabilities'.  I notice a lot of talk of probability, but no actual numbers.  Why do you think that is?

[7]

Nonsense. See [0] and [3]. Such difficulties are entailed in the Von Neumannian regime. There are already non-von neumanian paradigms, that begin to reduce such problems. See IBM synapse, and or IBM Phase change device.

Bullshit.  Irrelevant objection is irrelevant.

Human like intelligence consists of more than raw processing speed.  You can't predict the achievement of Artificial General Intelligence solely on the basis of information processing power.

[8]

Nonsense. Deep Neural Modelings, enhance as parallelism enhances.

Irrelevant.  Since they don't achieve AGI currently, thinking they will 'enhance' into AGI is blind faith.

Kurzweil's so-called law is nothing but speculation.  And predicting that Moore's law will continue to hold is nothing but a groundless assertion.  You don't know that either of these principles are valid for the long haul.  And forecasting that it will occur by 2030 is just crazy stupid.  I've been in the business long enough to know that computer business cycles will likely dictate a longer horizon.

[9]

Nonsense. One shall trivially observe [unless brain damaged] that there has occurred, technological exponential transition, for 50 years. Kurzweil's graphs unavoidably entail such a complexity.

Kurzweil's graphs could fit several different curves, including one that plateaus.  This proves absolutely squat.

Dwave is a toy at best, and according to experts, far from being a practical solution.  Exponential in the abstract, MAYBE, but not in the concrete.  And illustris is not "quite detailed" in the relevant sense; in that sense, it's a toy as well.

[10]

Nonsense. 
[10.a] Dwave machine has reduced quite profound problems. [ie protein folding]
[10.b] Such problems require the accumulation of all non-quantum computing machines, whence [8.a] is perhaps reducible.

It worked, but not particularly well. According to the researchers, 10,000 measurements using an 81-qubit version of the experiment gave the correct answer just 13 times. This was owing, in part, to the limitations of the machine itself, and in part to thermal noise that disrupted the computation. It’s also worth pointing that conventional computers could already solve these particular protein folding problems.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/d-w...oblem.html

Naive prediction is naive.  As noted, Kurzweil is mere opinion, not well supported by the facts.

[11]

Nonsense. It is rather ironic; Kurzweil predicted the internet, the very construct you have utilized to scribe your silly commentaries. See [9].

Non sequitur is non sequitur.

We don't yet know if its possible (see scaling problem), much less "probable."

[12]

Nonsense. See [5].

Bullshit.  Already covered.

The jury is still out on the simulation hypothesis, and likely to remain so for some time.  Again, you're engaged in groundless speculation.

[12]

Nonsense. See [2].

Bullshit.  There is no consensus on the simulation hypothesis.  Simply saying 'nonsense' to everything I say isn't particularly effective.

This depends on superhuman AGI being achievable, which, while possible, is hardly a foregone conclusion.

[13]

Nonsense. The human intellect (that consists of non-special matter) is proof of general intelligence. Furthermore, See [3.b] and [7].

The fact that the brain is material does nothing to further your point.  Do you know what the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is?




CONCLUSION:
You have but failed to express a single valid response. Such a profound failure exists on the boundary of IGNORANCE.


[/quote]

By extension, illustris is quite the non-trivial, detailed sequence:

1. (Illustris) Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation
   Mark Vogelsberger, Shy Genel, Volker Springel, Paul Torrey, Debora Sijacki, Dandan Xu, Gregory F. Snyder, Simeon Bird, Dylan Nelson, Lars Hernquist
   NATURE (2014) [ads] [arXiv:1405.1418] (May 6, 2014) [nature]
   
   
2. Introducing the Illustris Project: Simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe
   Mark Vogelsberger, Shy Genel, Volker Springel, Paul Torrey, Debora Sijacki, Dandan Xu, Gregory F. Snyder, Dylan Nelson, Lars Hernquist
   MNRAS (2014) [ads] [arXiv:1405.2921] (May 12, 2014)
   
   
3. Introducing the Illustris Project: the evolution of galaxy populations across cosmic time
   Shy Genel, Mark Vogelsberger, Volker Springel, Debora Sijacki, Dylan Nelson, Greg Snyder, Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez, Paul Torrey, Lars Hernquist
   MNRAS (2014) [ads] [arXiv:1405.3749] (May 15, 2014)
   
   
4. The Illustris simulation: Evolving population of black holes across cosmic time
   

Your saying so and quoting a bunch of papers does not make it so. It has to be relevant complexity and the illustris project's complexity is not relevant to simulating the emergence of life on a world.

Jormungandr, are you of theistic nature?
[...for theists tend to ignore scientifically observed statistics, and therein, ignore the existence of said trivially accessible evidence, on the horizon of EMOTIONAL BIAS]

You appear to have been dropped on your head as a small child.  Do you realize that simply repeating the word 'nonsense' doesn't thereby make your argument valid? You are incredibly naive.

Now, unless Programming "God" Jordan can learn to post and quote like a normal person, I'm pretty much through with your "nonsense."