Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Harte]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Lets see.. if i give this computer an insturction to paint me eifel's tower blended like a picture of a Salvador Dali to make a double image with a woman which has a mystic smile in light shade and a mixture of pterodactil and xenobear are floating over everything, will this computer be able to do this, or will he paint me a few lines which look like trees?

Sure, but this program was not given any instruction like that.

If you paint a landscape from your imagination, you would use typical landscape forms you had seen before. This program does nothing different from that.

Harte

[Illyrius]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

Sure, but this program was not given any instruction like that.

If you paint a landscape from your imagination, you would use typical landscape forms you had seen before. This program does nothing different from that.

Harte

In that case i have a better painter than that. And it is called digital camera.

[Will Due]

8 minutes ago, Harte said:

Most of what I say isn't very serious, but that one was.

Harte

 

And they make fun of people who believe in God, but go on to believe that a machine can imagine.

By golly, imagine that. Lol

 

 

[Illyrius]

To have imagination means to create things which come out of thoughts . Computers don't have thoughts just programs with set of instructions which can be randomized. It is funny to compare it to imagination. If computers have thoughts they would do something of their own, perhaps shut down internet or something, but no they just follow instructions, randomized or not.

[SHaYap]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

To have imagination means to create things which come out of thoughts . Computers don't have thoughts just programs with set of instructions which can be randomized. It is funny to compare it to imagination. If computers have thoughts they would do something of their own, perhaps shut down internet or something, but no they just follow instructions, randomized or not.

You are confusing 'Creativity' with Imagination
 

Quote

 

~

First, people use the word to refer to creativity in general-- saying that someone has a great imagination, or no imagination at all. 

Second, people use the word to refer to mental imagery of some kind — either picturing something in your head, like how your childhood bedroom looked, or hearing a song in your head to try to recall lyrics. 

 

~

 

• Psychology Today link

~

[Illyrius]

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

You are confusing 'Creativity' with Imagination
 

• Psychology Today link

~

Splitting hairs and ignoring general point of the post?

[SHaYap]

Just now, Illyrius said:

Splitting hairs and ignoring general point of the post?

Oh dear ... its that same predicament with someone Propositioning unverifiable Speculations as Science and what is Verifiable Speculations as Science

That is what escapes you because you rescinded intelligence from general beliefs ...

~

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Oh dear ... its that same predicament with someone Propositioning unverifiable Speculations as Science and what is Verifiable Speculations as Science

That is what escapes you because you rescinded intelligence from general beliefs ...

~

Fine.. good luck with creative or imaginative thoughtful computers. Whatever.

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Fine.. good luck with creative or imaginative thoughtful computers. Whatever.

I went through 6 Years of Art College in Fine Arts and Art History ... East and West ... its a tiresome debate for myself ...

~

[MauriOra]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Ya know, instead of having the operator's mind feel who's calling, from where, and what the problem is.

 

Atamarie Eight bits..

It won't work like that ..

Once all Minds are Interlinked, there will be no  specific" Operator" .. 

We will all be "Operators"..

And " Mind" doesn't "feel".. Heart Doe's ..

It will be The Directive of the Heart " Feel" that will tell Mind, Who and What to Connect to .. And the "Problem" will be known to Those Who Help in that Specific area .. 

Mind Connection, which is happening already ..

Mo..xx

[Guyver]

10 hours ago, Harte said:

You'd rather believe that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

Your worldview is... somewhat lacking.

Harte

I just don’t understand why people talk like this.  Who in the hell are you to tell another man his worldview is lacking?  Lacking in what?  How you see the world?  So, if someone doesn’t have the same world view as yours they’re less?  I mean, it’s a negative opinion.  A persons worldview is not as important as their actions in this world.

[Guyver]

And besides, people opinions and beliefs change all the time anyway.

[Guyver]

16 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Sounds like cognitive bias? 

I mean, cognitive bias is one thing, don’t understand how that relates to this cartoon, or the part of the post you bolded.  It doesn’t even apply.  There’s no proof or evidence against my beliefs.  Because I believe in God you consider that unscientific? That’s none sense.  There’s no proof God doesn’t exist or that he didn’t create this and every universe.

Do you believe a causal chain can be of infinite length?  If not, you need a cause for this and every universe.

[Guyver]

17 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Who’s God? Yours? Mine? The Mormon’s? Someone elses? And how do you know with any verifiable specificity in order to speak for this god and everyone else too? 

Precision according to whom? And how have you taken pulsars, quasars, magnetars, planck stars, black holes, wormholes, neutron stars and other celestially destructive bodies into account in order to claim such precision? Also, how can you tell with any specificity how the rest of the universe looks when we can’t even see the rest of our universe?

cormac

In my mind, the universe I know is remarkably stable.  Every part you mention is part of that whole.  I say precise because of research I’ve done on the topic.  As far as God goes.....I don’t have the answers for you.  Since I don’t believe in any religions, it doesn’t matter to me what they think of God or what they call him.  I’m just interested in living my life and allowing my own faith, beliefs, knowledge and understanding develop as they will, hopefully in Gods way.

i don’t wish to be religious but I would like to be spiritual.

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Because I believe in God you consider that unscientific?

Here's the thing and I haven't seen you do this, but. Some people will disregard anything that doesn't fit their personal narrative. Even facts. They become so saturated by a belief than anything contradictory to it is adamantly fought against. You see it in this thread. 

[Guyver]

Just now, XenoFish said:

Here's the thing and I haven't seen you do this, but. Some people will disregard anything that doesn't fit their personal narrative. Even facts. They become so saturated by a belief than anything contradictory to it is adamantly fought against. You see it in this thread. 

I get it.  It’s a little stereotypical.....but whatever.  It’s hard for me to think that the majority of believers are uneducated, unintelligent, and illogical.  I mean the church itself has a long history of brilliant thinkers....Thomas Aquinus being one that comes to mind.

[Illyrius]

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I get it.  It’s a little stereotypical.....but whatever.

Nope it is not stereotypical at all i think he was refering to people that believe in computers, he was talking about them, and said everything correct.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Illyrius

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

In my mind, the universe I know is remarkably stable.  Every part you mention is part of that whole.  I say precise because of research I’ve done on the topic.  As far as God goes.....I don’t have the answers for you.  Since I don’t believe in any religions, it doesn’t matter to me what they think of God or what they call him.  I’m just interested in living my life and allowing my own faith, beliefs, knowledge and understanding develop as they will, hopefully in Gods way.

i don’t wish to be religious but I would like to be spiritual.

And yet every part I mentioned destroys or greatly alters their surroundings indiscriminately. There’s no evidence of precision, nor even a need for such, in any of those celestial objects contrary to your claim of such precision existing. Interesting quandry you’re in. 

cormac

 

[MauriOra]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I get it.  It’s a little stereotypical.....but whatever.  It’s hard for me to think that the majority of believers are uneducated, unintelligent, and illogical.  I mean the church itself has a long history of brilliant thinkers....Thomas Aquinus being one that comes to mind.

Yes, and Each to their own..

I Am not religious, nor does it bother me, if People are good, this is what matters more than "Labels" and Sides ..

I Am Spiritual, I have Seen and Done Many Many Many Amazing things and Frightening things also, which is very real because of this Yin yang, Dark/Light Mind Over Matter situation we have at Present ..

There Are Brilliant and Good Honest Ppl in Every Field ..

When you go against Status Quo, expect Resistance .. Change is not Easy ... But hold fast to You .. Your Inner You , Knows ..what your Desire is and I say Awesome .. Go for it . and this is True for Everyone .. Trust in Self Again ..

Mo..xx

[MauriOra]

8 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Nope it is not stereotypical at all i think he was refering to people that believe in computers, he was talking about them, and said everything correct.

Mo.xx

[Will Due]

12 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And yet every part I mentioned destroys or greatly alters their surroundings indiscriminately. There’s no evidence of precision, nor even a need for such, in any of those celestial objects contrary to your claim of such precision existing. Interesting quandry you’re in. 

cormac

 

 

Magnificent. 

 

 

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Magnificent. 

 

 

[eight bits]

Kia ora, Mo.

I meant "operator" in the sense of a person who takes telephone calls and dispatches resources. The linkage of "mind" and "feel" was taken and continued from the post to which I responded.

Sorry if any of that was unclear.

Guyver

Quote

So, if someone doesn’t have the same world view as yours they’re less?

I didn't get that from the post in the context of the exchange of which it was a part. It may be a fine line between criticizing the world view and criticizing the person, but it looked to me like Harte stayed in fair territory.

Speaking of world views, I think I understand that you believe in God, and that you believe that God sometimes intervenes in the world. I am not at all clear about what you think about God in relation to evolution by natural selection, nor your thinking on whether real science does or can include any form of "supernaturally directed" evolution.

 

[XenoFish]

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I get it.  It’s a little stereotypical.....but whatever.  It’s hard for me to think that the majority of believers are uneducated, unintelligent, and illogical.  I mean the church itself has a long history of brilliant thinkers....Thomas Aquinus being one that comes to mind.

While this is true. There are those who only want belief over knowledge. This is nothing wrong with having faith in a higher power, it's a personal belief.  However, I can not help but think that those who want to connect dots that don't exist do not actually believe, they need something to validate their spirituality that's concrete. This is one of the reasons I've put spirituality in the psychology (soft science) bin. It deals with thoughts, feelings, and emotions. And how beliefs affect you. 

[Guyver]

23 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And yet every part I mentioned destroys or greatly alters their surroundings indiscriminately. There’s no evidence of precision, nor even a need for such, in any of those celestial objects contrary to your claim of such precision existing. Interesting quandry you’re in. 

cormac

 

I accept the modern scientific understanding of the universe, I'm guessing that you do also?  If so, the precision of the universe is especially evident at it's beginning as I understand it.  We assume that the universe is not infinite as that's a difficult concept anyway, and that it is a closed system.  As such, all the universe in its entirety; it's matter and energy were present in a single point in space and time at it's beginning.  Considering the enormous nature of the universe and the expression of that energy......I like to use the term nearly infinite.  I know some people will object to that.....and it's OK.....but that's alot of energy.  So much, that it does rival infinite in my mind......or close to it anyway.  Point being that it is the beginning of the universe in it's precise expansion and cooling that allowed matter to exist as we understand it now.  There are scientific materials available for study on this topic.

That said, the universe is a machine in one sense of the world.  All the stars that are born and die, only to live again are all part of the system you describe.  So in that sense, it's a thing in it's entirety, a sum of it's parts and it's in motion.  The motion is expressed and continues in the things you mention, and from the initial "explosion" if you will - the enormous release of energy in it's beginning.  I guess I just don't understand how this puts me in a quandry.