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

[I_am_not_mafia]

I recently read a book on AI and it said that we have yet to produce anything as intelligent as the insect. I am not very knowledable on this subject but this does not merit god status to me. Nature does a much better job with random mutation and natural selection.

Eric Kandel spent a large part of his career mapping out each of the 18,000 neurons of sea slugs in order to understand memory formation. He won the Nobel prize for it. A fruit fly has about 250,000 neurons. Compare this with the human brain which has about 86 billion neurons. Each neuron is more than a simple integrating unit that most artificial neural networks use. Each neuron has significant computational power compared to an entire artificial neural network. For example, dendritic trees can encode binary logic.

What ProgrammingGodJordan hasn't taken into account is though that any strong AI, any artificial general intelligence needs to be self organising.

To explain this, think of what computers are and what they can do.

They're super fast idiots.

They need explicit instructions in heavily constrained environments without any noise. Absolutely everything has to be made explicit. Animals and humans on the other hand are autonomous and do not need to be micro-managed. The field of AI is about taking this ability of natural intelligence and giving it to computers to make them more autonomous. You could create a program for a robot to build a car. Everything would have to be in the exact place because if something is even slightly off then the robot will fail and won't be able to correct itself. AI would allow it to adapt, like how a human worker does not have to care where the screwdriver is, they see it, pick it up, rotate it and then use it.

But here's the difficulty. How do you encode explicit instructions for noisy environments that you yourself do not know about in advance? The more explicit your instruction, the less robust it is to the noisy real world. Whereas if a system is completely self organising then it is shaped solely by its environment. A wholly self organising system can then adapt to other environments without depending on any instructions explicitly coupled to one specific environment. If all a neural network adapts to is a continuous signal that changes over time for example, then it does not matter what's causing that signal to change.

Take humans and animals for example. No one opens up our heads and directly injects an electrical current into our brains in order to teach us. We learn from our environment. We sense it, we interpret those senses, choose an action, act within an environment and then sense that the changes in that environment. We are part of a sensory / action loop. We are a part of our own environment.

But this opens up another can of worms, how do you engineer self organising systems? To put this in context, a good analogy for electricity and voltage is to think of water and pressure. So using nothing but water pumps, pipes, cisterns and valves, how would you arrange them in a network to naturally adapt to the water that you feed into it? How would you set it up to remember previous water pressures? Or to regulate its water pressure over time to remove spikes and cope with reduced input? Or to select the best source of water? All without any explicit instructions to do so. After all, a simple model of a neuron builds up voltage over time from input signals until it reaches a threshold and fires. This is a glimpse of the challenge that lays ahead in AGI.

Now we're moving away from computational and informational systems but physical systems. In fact most research in the field of self organisation is still performed by physicists. But that's what the brain is. A wholly self organising biophysical system. And if you want an artificial general intelligence that robustly adapts to new environments, you need to remove explicit encoding and instructions.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You postulate quite the theistic behaviour.

No, actually I don't. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion, which is honestly, all you have in this thread.

I have utilized not, any opinion|faith|belief.
By extension, I need not.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing task:
Identify a single opinionated sequence of mine. (Via the original post, or otherwise)

[Joods]

No, actually I don't. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion, which is honestly, all you have in this thread.

I have utilized not, any opinion|faith|belief.
By extension, I need not.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing task:
Identify a single opinionated sequence of mine.

Denial dude. The fact that you boldly assumed I took a theistic view, when in fact, I did no such thing, only proves it was your opinion and NOT a fact.

You can sympathize with others or show empathy, but you cannot tell someone what they are thinking or how they are feeling, for the simple fact that YOU are not THEM. Any attempts to do so are pure opinion and speculation and nothing else.

Next.

[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."

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's interesting that PGJ mentions Jeremy England for some unexplained reason yet England's research is very much related to what I was talking about with regards to self organisation.

[FatAndFaithless]

Just got done reading the first couple pages of this thread and...what the fuck did I just read?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I have utilized not, any opinion|faith|belief.
By extension, I need not.

Perhaps it is exigent that you fulfill the facing task:
Identify a single opinionated sequence of mine.

Denial dude. The fact that you boldly assumed I took a theistic view, when in fact, I did no such thing, only proves it was your opinion and NOT a fact.

You can sympathize with others or show empathy, but you cannot tell someone what they are thinking or how they are feeling, for the simple fact that YOU are not THEM. Any attempts to do so are pure opinion and speculation and nothing else.

Next.

Theists tend to deliberately ignore statistics..

---

It's interesting that PGJ mentions Jeremy England for some unexplained reason yet England's research is very much related to what I was talking about with regards to self organisation.

Dissipative adaptation applies amidst matter (and likely adequate SIMULATION par such) whence said matter attributes life like properties as time diverges.. (AS I EXPRESSED PRIOR)

Albeit, in the attribution of like like properties, self-organization is quintessentially observed...

[Pat Mustard]

<snipping for brevity>

While the post itself isn't the worst, the choice to ape the Time Cube in layout; yeah not so good.

[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.
}}}