Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:45 am

Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
#31
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 4, 2016 at 5:57 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: I haven't any description.
It is rather that, on observation of statistics, God is describable as
snipped, because LOL.


Quote:Where is the contradiction?
Just spitballing here, but it might have something to do with the first sentence being a claim that you do not have a description, while the second sentence immediately launches into the description...you apparently don't have.......
Quote:Thus far, the most intelligent response amidst this crowd, has been a spelling error indication, betwixt a trivial sentence of mine.

Until 9 hours from now...
Something tells me you won't be any better at recognizing intelligence nine hours from now.
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!
Reply
#32
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 4, 2016 at 5:49 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:
(November 4, 2016 at 5:38 am)Mathilda Wrote: My eyes ... my poor eyes ....

Have trouble reading that but I did skim through it and saw something about Kurzweil. Don't listen to anything that man says.

Kurzweil is quite the inventor.
Albeit, unless one is brain damaged, technological exponential transition is observable, as his graphs entail.

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.

Sure there's been an exponential curve with Moore's Law continuing, but it's coming to an end. Exponential curves tend to saturate in reality and become sigmoid functions. The scale of the challenge is far greater by many, many orders of magnitude.

The idea of super human intelligence by 2040 relies on the idea of a neuron being a simple integration device. It's not. A single neuron is extremely complex and has more computational power than a whole artificial neural network. We're talking 100 billion neurons and about 100 trillion synapses in the brain. Each neuron has on average about 7,000 synapses. That's just for a single human brain. Each human is part of a population that has evolved over time. Intelligence requires being embodied in an environment, and that takes time. Mechanical movement is many orders of magnitude slower. Any kind of AI will require parameter searching. In the real world this happened with Darwinian evolution.

Not to mention all the other limitations such as the long emergency halting Moore's Law before it even completes, how long it takes us as humans to understand such complex systems as the brain, our ability to measure the brain, materials research and how to power such processing power. A human brain works on 100 watts. You need many megawatts to power a super computer to even get close to simulating one second of a human brain in action. Fact is we just don't yet know what form of computer will come next to take us to the next step. And the next computers will dictate the kind of solution that is available. A quantum computer that needs to be cooled to a fraction of a degree above Kelvin will lead to very different solutions compared to a DNA or biological computer.

I can assure you, I am not brain damaged. I'm experienced in the field of Artificial Intelligence.
Reply
#33
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
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.
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!
Reply
#34
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 4, 2016 at 6:53 am)chimp3 Wrote: What the fuck is a "probable non-omniscient god"?

Non-omniscent, therefore not 'God', and the most probable not-a-god is no god.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Reply
#35
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Then, (probably when we are a still a mortal species, having not yet solved ageing…) we BECOME GODS, however NOT the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT God specified in religion.

In other words "we become gods" to the same degree that my fully determined motives and choices are "free". And in the same way that if my SoundCloud with my music is still there after my death I "live on" and am "immortal".

Or that divisible objects with smaller parts are "atoms". Or that the universe came from "nothing".

In other words... not really.
Reply
#36
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
PGJ, do you have some infirmities that you would like to discuss? Your behavior here is somewhat amiss.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#37
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
Wonderful argument; this is the same thing:

'Bananas' are now defined as humans; therefore, humans are bananas.
Reply
#38
Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 4, 2016 at 8:02 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:
(November 3, 2016 at 10:45 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: Then, (probably when we are a still a mortal species, having not yet solved ageing…) we BECOME GODS, however NOT the OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT God specified in religion.

In other words "we become gods" to the same degree that my fully determined motives and choices are "free". And in the same way that if my SoundCloud with my music is still there after my death I "live on" and am "immortal".

Or that divisible objects with smaller parts are "atoms". Or that the universe came from "nothing".

In other words... not really.

https://youtu.be/CnYDLHUwRKc
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
Reply
#39
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 4, 2016 at 9:03 am)Cato Wrote: Wonderful argument; this is the same thing:

'Bananas' are now defined as humans; therefore, humans are bananas.

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#40
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 4, 2016 at 9:03 am)Cato Wrote: Wonderful argument; this is the same thing:

'Bananas' are now defined as humans; therefore, humans are bananas.

Shit shit shit! I've been blending them into smoothies and drinking them!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proof and evidence will always equal Science zwanzig 103 6346 December 17, 2021 at 5:31 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Young more likely to pray than over-55s - survey zebo-the-fat 16 1496 September 28, 2021 at 5:44 am
Last Post: GUBU
  Is God weaker than theists imagine, and is mankind stronger? invalid 6 2329 March 5, 2021 at 6:38 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Are miracles evidence of the existence of God? ido 74 3913 July 24, 2020 at 12:59 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Muslim students less likely to be awarded top class degrees. Succubus#2 28 2277 March 22, 2020 at 6:02 am
Last Post: Belacqua
  Religious fundamentalists more likely to believe fake news OakTree500 30 3604 November 10, 2018 at 4:32 pm
Last Post: no one
  If theists understood "evidence" Foxaèr 135 13321 October 10, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Moses parting the sea evidence or just made up Smain 12 2872 June 28, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Are introverts less likely to like organised religion? Der/die AtheistIn 8 1331 March 22, 2018 at 11:13 pm
Last Post: GODZILLA
  Can religion be a type of Stockholm syndrome? ignoramus 5 2729 June 10, 2017 at 9:54 am
Last Post: Cyberman



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)