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

[Crossless2.0]

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!

Soylent Yellow.

Welcome to the new world. Be brave.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I haven't any description.
It is rather that, on observation of statistics, God is describable as

snipped, because LOL.

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.......

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.

Simply, the description, though scribed by myself, is not mine, or rather, such a definition is not opinionated.

---

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.

Quite the longueur.
Albeit, such a profound pasage of yours , changes not the fact, that exponential technological change occurs, and therein, kurzweil's graphs entail such a transition.

---

What the fuck is a "probable non-omniscient god"?

Non-omniscent, therefore not 'God', and the most probable not-a-god is no god.

Tradition is often wrong. (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Thusly, on statistical observation, God/Creator is likely properly, naturally statistically definable as stipulated in the original post.

---

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.

Are you theistic?

for theists tend to reference silly anecdotes.

---

PGJ, do you have some infirmities that you would like to discuss? Your behavior here is somewhat amiss.

It is ironic, that I have solely utilized globally observable, non nonsense statistics.

I have expressed not any faith, opinion nor belief amidst my posts.

Therein, the folly is but not of my accord.

[The Grand Nudger]

Simply, the description, though scribed by myself, is not mine, or rather, such a definition is not opinionated.

Strange, because it certainly seems like your opinion........

This was your response to a remark about how you;d contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next with the last response? That's.....impressive.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

You are blatantly ignoring the neurosynaptic regime.

IBM has already constructed neurosynaptic chips, that better approximate the human neuronal calculation cycle (10^ 15 flops).

The entirety of your commentary occurs amidst the Von Neumannian paradigm, of central processing unit bound constructs. (Whence CPU systems induce larger space-time complex calculations, than those of non CPU aligned systems - neurosynaptic chips. [See IBM synapse])

[ApeNotKillApe]

---

Non-omniscent, therefore not 'God', and the most probable not-a-god is no god.

Tradition is often wrong. (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Thusly, on statistical observation, God/Creator is likely properly, naturally statistically definable as stipulated in the original post.

---

Great. Then define it. But I'm not reading your original post because it looks like dogshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

You are blatantly ignoring the neurosynaptic regime.

IBM has already constructed neurosynaptic chips, that better approximate the human neuronal calculation cycle (10^ 15 flops).

The entirety of your commentary occurs amidst the Von Neumannian paradigm, of central processing unit bound constructs. (Whence CPU systems induce larger space-time complex calculations, than those of non CPU aligned systems - neurosynaptic chips. [See IBM synapse])

Really, you think so, in a couple of paragraphs in which I spoke of the brain, and the brain, and the brain, and the brain./..you somehow think I;m thinking of a vn architecture when the only mention of computational architecture I make is to say that they -aren't- equivalent.  

Please, stop using my posts as an excuse to post the inanities you're going to post anyway.  It's a courtesy, and you don't need me to talk to yourself.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You are blatantly ignoring the neurosynaptic regime.

IBM has already constructed neurosynaptic chips, that better approximate the human neuronal calculation cycle (10^ 15 flops).

The entirety of your commentary occurs amidst the Von Neumannian paradigm, of central processing unit bound constructs. (Whence CPU systems induce larger space-time complex calculations, than those of non CPU aligned systems - neurosynaptic chips. [See IBM synapse])

"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. "

...

Really, you think so, in a couple of paragraphs in which I spoke of the brain, and the brain, and the brain, and the brain./..you somehow think I;m thinking of a vn architecture when the only mention of computational architecture I make is to say that they -aren't- equivalent.  

Please, stop using my posts as an excuse to post the inanities you're going to post anyway.  It's a courtesy, and you don't need me to talk to yourself.

The limitations you stipulated, are but unavoidably entailed in the Von Neumannian paradigm.
Such limitations are thereafter, softened amidst the nuerosynaptic regime.
Such floating values' descriptions are enhancing amidst neurosynaptic chips, and thereafter are not unfounded, as you prior mentioned. (See the highlighted text sequence that represents your inaccurate opinion)

---

---

Tradition is often wrong. (Only the theistic mind adheres to the concept of omniscient, omnipotent deities)

Thusly, on statistical observation, God/Creator is likely properly, naturally statistically definable as stipulated in the original post.

---

Great. Then define it. But I'm not reading your original post because it looks like dogshit.

In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound. (likely non omniscient, non-omnipotent)

---

Simply, the description, though scribed by myself, is not mine, or rather, such a definition is not opinionated.

Strange, because it certainly seems like your opinion........

This was your response to a remark about how you;d contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next with the last response?  That's.....impressive.

[*A*]

Sensible Non Anecdotal Example:
The observable laws of physics (ie: a falling apple) are not any physicist's. (The laws persist absent the notation of such laws via said physicists)

[*B*]
In the like, the definition stipulated (amidst the original post), is not mine. (Such a definition, persists whether I select to stipulate said definition; it reduces traditional deity-bound properties, abound scientifically observable probabilities/statistics, such that a particular property is evident - thusly the ability to forge non-trivial intelligence, and thereafter, said intelligence shall likely exceed the net intelligence of the creator's(s') species...whilst separately theorized properties [omniscience, omnipotence etc] likely shan't obtain, particularly on the horizon of aforesaid observable probabilities/statistics.)

[ApeNotKillApe]

Great. Then define it. But I'm not reading your original post because it looks like dogshit.

In SUMMARY, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, AND OR compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), IS THAT WHICH classifies said species as God-bound. (likely non omniscient, non-omnipotent)

So not a god, just 'god-like' in relation to you.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Wonderful argument; this is the same thing:

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

Are you theistic?

..for theists tend to reference silly anecdotes. 

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Are you theistic?

 for theists tend to reference silly anecdotes.

Actually I was making an analogy. You're redefining things. Cato addressed it more concisely if you prefer.

And no I'm not a theist. I've never been a theist. I've never been illogical enough to ever be a theist.