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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Skype - translates 40+ languages  using neural models

Translating more languages =/= translating any of them better.

Watson - exceeded two best jeopardy players,

In ability; not in intelligence. Just like chess.

diagnoses diseases better than human doctors

Considering you think translating more languages equates to translating better when it doesn't, and considering how irrational you have been thus far, I strongly suspect you're wrong here too. I mean, I'm basically certain. The best diagnosticians are humans, not A.I.s. If an A.I. can diagnose more diseases it doesn't make it a better diagnostician. Just as Skype being able to translate so many languages doesn't mean it translates any of them better than a human.

I think you need to get better at logic. Programming ability doesn't make you logical. You've been very fallacious since you joined.

('A ')
Logic is but not required, amidst the observation of said trivially reducible statistics.

('B')
Skype predominantly equals humans in language translation. However, skype exceeds  said human  interpreters' performance, whence said interpreters typically merely interpret at most, FEW languages.

(''C')
Example:
Watson simply exceeds human performance, in the regime of cancer diagnosis. 

By extension, a quite robust intelligence description, via Marcus Hutter/Shane Legg, specifies such, as the ABILITY to solve tasks in multifarious environments, via K(x) := min (p{l(p) : U(p) = x}.

('D')
Albeit, it is unlikely that you have written any neural models (on obsevation of your ignorance). 

I garner therein, that it is pertinent/logical, that you keenly observe Hutter's  mathematical, definition for intelligence, rather than reference your limited scope/knowledge.

---

[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. 

{{{ I am unable to reduce said stipulation, amidst any simpler degree. Of what nature is your profession? }}}

[1]

Nonsense. See [0].

Bullshit.  It is too the figurative sense.

adjective
adjective: figurative

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

{{{ Mankind exists, and thereafter such is non figurative }}}

[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.

{{{ Of what nature is your profession? It is unlikely, that you may express an example of neural model of your compaction, and or physical models of yours. You appear to be quite, ignorant }}}

[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.

{{{ You ignore alpha go's impact, referring to such as a mere toy. See Geoffrey Hinton's stipulations regarding alpha Go's impact. Geoffrey Hinton is a crucial figure in the generation of deep neural networks }}}

[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.

{{{ It is ironic that Moore's Law allowed the exponential enhancement of computers; the very device that you used to scribe your silly commataries }}}

[4]

Nonsense. See [3].

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

{{{ Such is unavoidably internationally observable, regardless of your emotion on said matter }}}

[5]

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

Bullshit.  Garbage In, Garbage Out.

{{{ It is ironic that Moore's Law allowed the exponential enhancement of computers; the very device that you used to scribe your silly commataries }}}

[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.

{{{ You fail to observe, that ai has thus far, been generatable amidst  detailed simulations, -[ii] , and or isolated scenarios - ['i'] }}}

[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.

{{{ See Geoffrey Hinton's stipulations, regarding alphaGo, betwixt the relevance of compute resources, as a function for enhanced generalization. Such is observable, regardless of your likes/dislikes on said matter.

By extension, it is ironic that Moore's Law allowed the exponential enhancement of computers; the very device that you used to scribe your silly commataries.
}}}

[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.



{{{ General intelligence already persists this day, in non trivial approximations. See google deepmind. See Geoffrey Hinton's stipulations regarding such.


By extension, it is ironic that Moore's Law allowed the exponential enhancement of computers; the very device that you used to scribe your silly commataries.

}}

[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.



{{{ Albeit, it has generated his prediction of an internet like structure, that has ironically enabled your silly responses}}}

[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

{{{ Dwave is synonymously encoding thousands of qubits, rather than hundreds. FURTHERMORE, such caculations are but unachievable on THOUSANDS of non quatum machines, in comparison to a SINGLE Dwave chip..}}}

[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.


{{{ Such is observable, regardless of your likes/dislikes on said matter }}}

[12]

Nonsense. See [5].

Bullshit.  Already covered.



{{{ Such is observable, regardless of your likes/dislikes on said matter }}}

[12]

Nonsense. See [2].

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


{{{ See the simulation hypothesis, See dissipative adaptation, See Nick Bostrom's super intelligence }}}

[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?



{{{ The factum presides; brain based models already exceed humans in non trivial cogmitive tasks. Such is observable, regardless of your likes/dislikes on said matter }}}

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

[/i]

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.


{{{ Such complexity unavoidably classifies as non trivial components, vis a vis cosmos replication. (Said non trivial properties are observably insurgent amidst our universe)

It is unlikely, that you have constructed any papers regarding describing the universe, formally mathematically, on observation of your ignorance.

Such is thereafter observable, regardless of your likes/dislikes on said matter }}}

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."
[/quote]


{{{ All statistics stipulations of mine, are globally observed/observable, regardless of your ignorance, dislike/like of said matter.


Any being may observe aforesaid statistics of mine, likely, ABSENT emotional bias. 


Is this the mental bound of AF's members?

Solution:
(0) Purge emotional bias.
(1) Observe said unavoidably INTERNATIONALLY available statistics.
}}}