★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)

[Cyberman]

I could, yes.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The only question left is Poe or no.

If no, this is one of the strangest individuals I've ever come across. He has managed to convince himself that a word should mean what he thinks it should mean, even though I've never met anyone else ever who uses that definition. Not one person. So as far as I'm concerned, he's talking to an audience of himself. He could easily test this by going and asking 100 people whether they consider belief to be concerned with certainty or confidence. I would wager almost all, if not all, would say confidence.

Words such as "belief" are not precisely well-defined, so you can fiddle with language to alter the meaning in several directions. That is fine, as long as everyone in a particular discussion agrees on what the word means. But when one person insists they are making a point by using a definition that hasn't been agreed, it's just a simple equivocation fallacy. All this should be very clear to someone who appears to value logic so highly.

What's up with this guy? His huge inflexibility and weird posting style makes me think (assuming he's not a Poe) this is some extreme case of OCD. He can think only in black and white terms. You have certainty, or you have nothing. Things don't work that way. We don't have certainty, no. But we don't need it to function. So stating it over and over is redundant.

(1)
However, as prior mentioned, when belief concerns deities, it is observed that such a degree concerns absoluteness.
In that paradigm, the human race is atheistic.

.
.
.
.


(2)
By extension, as far as science prescribes, there is uncertainty, that is, we are not omniscient of any event. (See uncertainty principle)

Non beliefism had but originated on the aforesaid uncertainty.

See unchanged non-beliefism premise 1, via nonbeliefism.com.


.
.
.
.
.
(3)

As we are not omniscient, we can't validate/believe (absolutely) whether God's existence is true/absolute.
Thusly, the human race is atheistic.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The only question left is Poe or no.

If no, this is one of the strangest individuals I've ever come across. He has managed to convince himself that a word should mean what he thinks it should mean, even though I've never met anyone else ever who uses that definition. Not one person. So as far as I'm concerned, he's talking to an audience of himself. He could easily test this by going and asking 100 people whether they consider belief to be concerned with certainty or confidence. I would wager almost all, if not all, would say confidence. Or he could just look online at the usage of the word, by people in varying academic positions. I'd bet he'd struggle to find a handful of people who use his definition.

Words such as "belief" are not precisely well-defined, so you can fiddle with language to alter the meaning in several directions. That is fine, as long as everyone in a particular discussion agrees on what the word means. But when one person insists they are making a point by using a definition that hasn't been agreed, it's just a simple equivocation fallacy. All this should be very clear to someone who appears to value logic so highly. We have another word which fits his definition much better: know. Again, it's a word with some leeway, but it's clearly more appropriate for this rambling of his.

What's up with this guy? His huge inflexibility and weird posting style makes me think (assuming he's not a Poe) this is some extreme case of OCD. He can think only in black and white terms. You have certainty, or you have nothing. Things don't work that way. We don't have certainty, no. But we don't need it to function. So stating it over and over is redundant.

I've come across a few people like him on undergrad computer science courses (they don't make it to postgrad generally). They lay on the Autistic spectrum (Aspergers is far more common for example) and it's why they are attracted to engineering and Maths. It means that they can follow rules and life is black and white and simpler for them. There can also be massive egos with some computer science students who are proud of coding in some difficult language or know some arcane knowledge that few others do or care about. They often look down on others who don't know what they do and don't value stuff that they don't personally know.

Follow the links in Jordan's signature and you'll come across his CV. He's done a few basic neural networks, claims that he can model the brain but has no interest in any other aspect of Intelligence. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. He has absolutely no inkling of his own ignorance in this matter and nor does he want to know.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I've come across a few people like him on undergrad computer science courses (they don't make it to postgrad generally). They lay on the Autistic spectrum (Aspergers is far more common for example) and it's why they are attracted to engineering and Maths. It means that they can follow rules and life is black and white and simpler for them. There can also be massive egos with some computer science students who are proud of coding in some difficult language or know some arcane knowledge that few others do or care about. They often look down on others who don't know what they do and don't value stuff that they don't personally know.

Follow the links in Jordan's signature and you'll come across his CV. He's done a few basic neural networks, claims that he can model the brain but has no interest in any other aspect of  Intelligence. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. He has absolutely no inkling of his own ignorance in this matter and nor does he want to know.

('I')

I have never once claimed I could model the brain.

I had invented http://nonbeliefism.com/, a paradigm based particularly on the instance that we are non-omniscient beings, that observe nature probabilistically.

http://nonbeliefism.com/ by extension, encourages the development artificial intelligence.


.
.
.
.
.
('II')

The facing compositions of mine, approach problems that are synonymously of non-trivial relation, and are thereafter, complex/non trivial:

['i'] "An error-space complex optimal datum sequence inference mutation schematic":  
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/FR...CILLATIONS

['ii'] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine":  
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/MO...AL-NETWORK

['iii'] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION":  
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJ...TION-MODEL

The prior issues [dimensionality...] appear to compact in the universally non-solved (albeit partially-reduced) regime.

[robvalue]

The only question left is Poe or no.

If no, this is one of the strangest individuals I've ever come across. He has managed to convince himself that a word should mean what he thinks it should mean, even though I've never met anyone else ever who uses that definition. Not one person. So as far as I'm concerned, he's talking to an audience of himself. He could easily test this by going and asking 100 people whether they consider belief to be concerned with certainty or confidence. I would wager almost all, if not all, would say confidence. Or he could just look online at the usage of the word, by people in varying academic positions. I'd bet he'd struggle to find a handful of people who use his definition.

Words such as "belief" are not precisely well-defined, so you can fiddle with language to alter the meaning in several directions. That is fine, as long as everyone in a particular discussion agrees on what the word means. But when one person insists they are making a point by using a definition that hasn't been agreed, it's just a simple equivocation fallacy. All this should be very clear to someone who appears to value logic so highly. We have another word which fits his definition much better: know. Again, it's a word with some leeway, but it's clearly more appropriate for this rambling of his.

What's up with this guy? His huge inflexibility and weird posting style makes me think (assuming he's not a Poe) this is some extreme case of OCD. He can think only in black and white terms. You have certainty, or you have nothing. Things don't work that way. We don't have certainty, no. But we don't need it to function. So stating it over and over is redundant.

I've come across a few people like him on undergrad computer science courses (they don't make it to postgrad generally). They lay on the Autistic spectrum (Aspergers is far more common for example) and it's why they are attracted to engineering and Maths. It means that they can follow rules and life is black and white and simpler for them. There can also be massive egos with some computer science students who are proud of coding in some difficult language or know some arcane knowledge that few others do or care about. They often look down on others who don't know what they do and don't value stuff that they don't personally know.

Follow the links in Jordan's signature and you'll come across his CV. He's done a few basic neural networks, claims that he can model the brain but has no interest in any other aspect of  Intelligence. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. He has absolutely no inkling of his own ignorance in this matter and nor does he want to know.

Yeah, I was thinking autism/aspergers as well. You think he's for real?

There have been a few slips in character that make me think he's having us on though. If I had to guess, I'd say this is all a joke. It's a shame it's not funny, or clever. This character is just irritating and on a loop.

But if he's for real, he probably can't help being this way. Neither will he ever listen, as you say, unfortunately.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I've come across a few people like him on undergrad computer science courses (they don't make it to postgrad generally). They lay on the Autistic spectrum (Aspergers is far more common for example) and it's why they are attracted to engineering and Maths. It means that they can follow rules and life is black and white and simpler for them. There can also be massive egos with some computer science students who are proud of coding in some difficult language or know some arcane knowledge that few others do or care about. They often look down on others who don't know what they do and don't value stuff that they don't personally know.

Follow the links in Jordan's signature and you'll come across his CV. He's done a few basic neural networks, claims that he can model the brain but has no interest in any other aspect of  Intelligence. It's the Dunning Kruger effect. He has absolutely no inkling of his own ignorance in this matter and nor does he want to know.

Yeah, I was thinking autism/aspergers as well. You think he's for real?

There have been a few slips in character that make me think he's having us on though. If I had to guess, I'd say this is all a joke. It's a shame it's not funny, or clever. This character is just irritating and on a loop.

But if he's for real, he probably can't help being this way. Neither will he ever listen, as you say, unfortunately.

(1)

I have never once claimed I could model the brain.

I had invented http://nonbeliefism.com/, a paradigm based particularly on the instance that we are non-omniscient beings, that observe nature probabilistically.

http://nonbeliefism.com/ by extension, encourages the development artificial intelligence.


.
.
.
.
.
(2)

My latest work http://mindparadoxlabs.appspot.com/, compounds on:

(i) deep reinforcement learning 
(The planet's prominent artificial intelligence 'deepmind alpha go', utilizes neural-inspired reinforcment)

(ii) causal learning 
(ie learning laws of physics from neural-like processes) 

and 

(iii) perhaps quantum computing lemma: 
https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-c...-Bennett-9

Furthermore, http://mindparadoxlabs.appspot.com/'s expression, maintains that there is an 'intention', to compose some time-space complex optimum fabric.
Rather than any claim of possessing the ability to model the brain, it is clearly expressed that such a construction is but my 'intention'.





.
.
.
.
.

(3)

The facing compositions of mine, approach problems that are synonymously of non-trivial relation, and are thereafter, complex/non trivial:

['i'] "An error-space complex optimal datum sequence inference mutation schematic":  
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/FR...CILLATIONS

['ii'] "A.... n fold orthographic quasicrystal-structured neural network scan behaviour pattern routine":  
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/MO...AL-NETWORK

['iii'] "A deep residual neural network framework par HEART IRREGULARITY DETECTION":  
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJ...TION-MODEL

The prior issues [dimensionality...] appear to compact in the universally non-solved (albeit partially-reduced) regime.

[chimp3]

PGJ : OK! Let's extend your logic ...

White Supremacists believe the white race superior to all other races. Science tells us that race is only a social construct. Therefore it is impossible for a non-existent racial category to be superior to any other. Therefore , White Supremacists are not racist.

Male Chauvinist Pigs believe men superior to women. Science tells us that woman are not inferior to men. Therefore it is impossible for a men to be superior to women. Therefore, Male Chauvinist Pigs are not sexist.

[Edwardo Piet]

I recently discovered an error in non-beliefism premise ii.

The premise has now been repaired.

This error was that I solely expressed that beliefs were illogical.

However, beliefs may be both logical and illogical.

[...]
If you guys spot any other errors, let me know.

start of script

humility check
errors observed
errors admitted
correction made
humility check successful
vicarious pride activated
begin smiling emoticon

[I_am_not_mafia]

I have never once claimed I could model the brain.

You may want to rephrase this in your resume in your research interests then ...

I had but recently composed an artificial neural network framework

that gracefully models the human brain.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BygoJuJ...NNb0k/view

[Edwardo Piet]

@Alasdair Ham

Logic and science itself doesn't contain belief but logical and scientific people can believe in things based on logical and scientific evidence.

Logic is illogical. 

start of script

contradiction check
diversion to equivalency check
word "illogical" equivalent to phrase "not logical"
diversion successful
equivalency check successful
diversion to equivalency check
word "logic" equivalent to reference to all logical things
diversion successful
equivalency check successful
diversions complete
contradiction check resumed
word "logic" contradicts "not logical"
contradiction check successful

discovery made
inability of truth of statement "logic is illogical" to answer=yes
discovery accomplished
discovery made
inability of person programminggodjordan to be correct
discovery accomplished

all discoveries successful
over-inflated pride-in-oneself activated
begin look-at-me-i-think-i-am-so-cool sunglasses emoticon