Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

God from the Investigation of Existence


oslove

Recommended Posts

On 21/03/2018 at 2:45 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

These scientists approach the question from a metaphysical perspective, based on the evidence of science.

But again, you fail to make the distinction.

Nah, you fail in all levels, you said they show ID as best fit to the data and then said science doesn't weigh in, but if attempting to distort findings as best fit to the data, then that's weighing in. You should pray for greater understanding, Lord knows your not getting there on  your pile of dust jackets. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid Gardens, I liked your post up there and I’d like to respond to it.  I just want to let you know that I am also one of those “sciencey” types because I have studied science, do study it, and do accept the scientific method as the best method for studying the physical world that exists.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

you said they show ID as best fit to the data and then said science doesn't weigh in

Intelligent Design is not an appeal to the supernatural, nor is it trying to "prove" the existence of God. The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. ID tells us nothing about the nature of the designer, and cannot determine if the designer was natural or supernatural.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Intelligent Design is not an appeal to the supernatural, nor is it trying to "prove" the existence of God.

Yes it is. By definition. 

intelligent design
noun
noun: intelligent design
  1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
    "proponents of intelligent design say that theories other than evolution must be considered"
39 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.

Oh nonsense. Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olson created the movement claiming DNA was too complex to have originated without intelligent design. 

How many times have your quoted Stephen Meyer of the discovery institute. He's just a Preacher trying to shoehorn science terms into his god argument. 

39 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

ID tells us nothing about the nature of the designer, and cannot determine if the designer was natural or supernatural.

If somthing created the universe, its not natural is it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Guyver said:

I understand your point, and the obvious illustration.  I don’t believe or disbelieve Ostmans story.  I know that he swears to it, so I accept that as a fact.  Is it real?  It seems extremely unlikely.

And so there you have it...you accept as fact things that have no proof and are highly unlikely.  I don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joc said:

And so there you have it...you accept as fact things that have no proof and are highly unlikely.  I don't.

 

And do you accept as fact that artificial intelligence is equal to human intelligence when no proof of this as a fact exists?

Just curious joc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

And do you accept as fact that artificial intelligence is equal to human intelligence when no proof of this as a fact exists?

Just curious joc.

 

 

No I do not.  There is no proof frankly that it ever will be either.  Consider driverless cars.  As I am driving along...I am taking into consideration not just the road and the cars in front of me...but the cars behind me, beside me, and cars that are not even on the road yet.   AI cannot even begin to match the information that I am processing....see that car coming up behind me at 90 mph?  See that car beside, she is texting and clueless about the car coming at 90mph...probably about to change lanes....

No freaking way.  Curious why you would ask.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joc said:

No I do not.  There is no proof frankly that it ever will be either.  Consider driverless cars.  As I am driving along...I am taking into consideration not just the road and the cars in front of me...but the cars behind me, beside me, and cars that are not even on the road yet.   AI cannot even begin to match the information that I am processing....see that car coming up behind me at 90 mph?  See that car beside, she is texting and clueless about the car coming at 90mph...probably about to change lanes....

No freaking way.  Curious why you would ask.

 

Just curious because many in this forum work hard to imply scientists will create artificial life equal to human life some day. 

I agree with you, in fact I'm certain that AI, as it is forecasted, will never be achieved. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

And do you accept as fact that artificial intelligence is equal to human intelligence when no proof of this as a fact exists?

Just curious joc.

How do you equate artificial intelligence to human intelligence? I'm curious. From my observations, I see them do remarkable things, but on the same level as humans and their intelligence, I don't think I have seen any of them get up to that level. I don't know if this is being compared to science fiction characters, like Hal from "A Space Odyssey" or Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation. Because they are fictional characters. *Shrugs* ( Just throwing that out there. ) 

And when you get into things like self-driving cars, I don't think you can depend on them on that level, I think far from it. I consider the uber self-driving car that hit the Arizona woman  (and yes a back up driver was inside,((and to my observation, not paying attention)) ) One would think it should have avoided the woman. I would like to know, how you post that artificial intelligence is equal to human intelligence? Where are you getting this? 

12 minutes ago, Will Due said:
22 minutes ago, joc said:

No I do not.  There is no proof frankly that it ever will be either.  Consider driverless cars.  As I am driving along...I am taking into consideration not just the road and the cars in front of me...but the cars behind me, beside me, and cars that are not even on the road yet.   AI cannot even begin to match the information that I am processing....see that car coming up behind me at 90 mph?  See that car beside, she is texting and clueless about the car coming at 90mph...probably about to change lanes....

No freaking way.  Curious why you would ask.

 

Just curious because many in this forum work hard to imply scientists will create artificial life equal to human life some day. 

I agree with you, in fact I'm certain that AI, as it is forecasted, will never be achieved. 

And I hope, you see that, because of situations like in Arizona. (Well, that's my outlook, plus I made my original post about the accident, before I noticed you said the last line here. )  Though I am still curious where you see that human intelligence is equal to artificial intelligence. 

And the first line of your post here, who is working hard to imply scientists will create artificial life equal to human life someday?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How do you equate artificial intelligence to human intelligence? I'm curious. From my observations, I see them do remarkable things, but on the same level as humans and their intelligence, I don't think I have seen any of them get up to that level. I don't know if this is being compared to science fiction characters, like Hal from "A Space Odyssey" or Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation. Because they are fictional characters. *Shrugs* ( Just throwing that out there. ) 

And when you get into things like self-driving cars, I don't think you can depend on them on that level, I think far from it. I consider the uber self-driving car that hit the Arizona woman  (and yes a back up driver was inside,((and to my observation, not paying attention)) ) One would think it should have avoided the woman. I would like to know, how you post that artificial intelligence is equal to human intelligence? Where are you getting this? 

And I hope, you see that, because of situations like in Arizona. (Well, that's my outlook, plus I made my original post about the accident, before I noticed you said the last line here. )  Though I am still curious where you see that human intelligence is equal to artificial intelligence. 

And the first line of your post here, who is working hard to imply scientists will create artificial life equal to human life someday?

 

Stubbly,

There are many who post in this forum that AI is going to eventually achieve a level of capability of being conscious, of being able to feel emotion, of being able to think, if not surpass, these abilities of humans eventually.

I'm certain that will never happen.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joc said:

And so there you have it...you accept as fact things that have no proof and are highly unlikely.  I don't.

What?  I said I accept as fact that the guy swears to his experience, not that it’s a fact he was abducted by a Sasquatch.  You misread that one completely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

I don't think they disbelieved you because they didn't think it could be done, I think they disbelieved you because you claimed to free climb a large steep and dangerous mountain, I kinda doubt they'd have disbelieved you if you said you went and sat in the hot tub.  But just to tie it in to the topic I think, your subjective claim here is quite a bit different than spiritual claims since the evidence for it only partially relies on your specific claim; we already know mountains exist and that people free climb them.

Right.  Well, I think the prominent point here is that their skepticism or doubt cause them to be mistaken regarding the facts of the matter.  In this case I testified to an unlikely event, they disbelieved it, and they were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Right.  Well, I think the prominent point here is that their skepticism or doubt cause them to be mistaken regarding the facts of the matter.  In this case I testified to an unlikely event, they disbelieved it, and they were wrong.

Sure, and agreed that as you've noted not believing subjective experience can lead you to incorrect conclusions also.  But for that matter you and I may both be wrong about Ostman being kidnapped by Sasquatches, but I don't think we're wrong in disbelieving, or in your case finding it 'extremely unlikely', given what we have to go on.  It's not that subjective experience can be accurate sometimes, it's more what the impact should be based on the fact that subjective experience can be wrong so often, that's the part that goes to its reliability and its limited value, absent anything else objective as is the case of spiritual/supernatural claims.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Sure, and agreed that as you've noted not believing subjective experience can lead you to incorrect conclusions also.  But for that matter you and I may both be wrong about Ostman being kidnapped by Sasquatches, but I don't think we're wrong in disbelieving, or in your case finding it 'extremely unlikely', given what we have to go on.  It's not that subjective experience can be accurate sometimes, it's more what the impact should be based on the fact that subjective experience can be wrong so often, that's the part that goes to its reliability and its limited value, absent anything else objective as is the case of spiritual/supernatural claims.

Yes, I agree with you.  Maybe I was not defining my terms well when I said that everything is subjective because our existence is experiential.  When I say subjective, I mean that everything is subjective; including objectively verifiable things because all our input passes through our own brains, which makes all experience subject to the individual; therefore subjective by nature.  

Having said all that.......I do understand how it is necessary to distinguish events or information based upon its trustworthiness.  So, in the case of the sasquatch abduction.....I would not consider that as credible an experience as a sighting of the animal by an experienced field and game biologist, or any other professional observer.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Will Due said:
8 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How do you equate artificial intelligence to human intelligence? I'm curious. From my observations, I see them do remarkable things, but on the same level as humans and their intelligence, I don't think I have seen any of them get up to that level. I don't know if this is being compared to science fiction characters, like Hal from "A Space Odyssey" or Data from "Star Trek: The Next Generation. Because they are fictional characters. *Shrugs* ( Just throwing that out there. ) 

And when you get into things like self-driving cars, I don't think you can depend on them on that level, I think far from it. I consider the uber self-driving car that hit the Arizona woman  (and yes a back up driver was inside,((and to my observation, not paying attention)) ) One would think it should have avoided the woman. I would like to know, how you post that artificial intelligence is equal to human intelligence? Where are you getting this? 

And I hope, you see that, because of situations like in Arizona. (Well, that's my outlook, plus I made my original post about the accident, before I noticed you said the last line here. )  Though I am still curious where you see that human intelligence is equal to artificial intelligence. 

And the first line of your post here, who is working hard to imply scientists will create artificial life equal to human life someday?

 

Stubbly,

There are many who post in this forum that AI is going to eventually achieve a level of capability of being conscious, of being able to feel emotion, of being able to think, if not surpass, these abilities of humans eventually.

I'm certain that will never happen.

I'm just wondering who. I know, I don't post and check out as much as others, but from my observations, I haven't come across that. That's why I'm asking. 

I feel the same way. I think there's something to be said about human interaction, intuition, and all that. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Stubbly,

There are many who post in this forum that AI is going to eventually achieve a level of capability of being conscious, of being able to feel emotion, of being able to think, if not surpass, these abilities of humans eventually.

I'm certain that will never happen.

 

 

You have not ever shown why it is not possible. Consciousness is an evolved set of responses. If they can be programed into the human brain over millions of years in order to best understand our surroundings and what is in it, why can't that be replicated into artificial intelligence? You claim 'extensive' programming knowledge, here's your chance to share the facts. 

Are you aware of our attempts to map neural and synaptic connections? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Are you aware of our attempts to map neural and synaptic connections? 

 

Yes I'm aware.

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Consciousness is an evolved set of responses. If they can be programed into the human brain over millions of years in order to best understand our surroundings and what is in it, why can't that be replicated into artificial intelligence? 

 

Perhaps it can.

And if it does, then the question becomes, will a man made machine be a moral self-conscious and self realizing being that has the potential survival value same as that of human experience.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

Yes I'm aware.

So you understand that Consiusness is a series of connections? 

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

Perhaps it can.

And if it does, then the question becomes, will a man made machine be a moral self-conscious and self realizing being that has the potential survival value same as that of human experience.

Won't that depend on the programmers? It would not be an evolved consciousness, it would be artificial. It never had to outrun a predator or climb a tree, our development will always have individual characteristics 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Will Due said:

And if it does, then the question becomes, will a man made machine be a moral self-conscious and self realizing being that has the potential survival value same as that of human experience.

That's a scary thought. The most basic human survival drive is reproduction and elimination of competition.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

So you understand that Consiusness is a series of connections? 

Won't that depend on the programmers? It would not be an evolved consciousness, it would be artificial. It never had to outrun a predator or climb a tree, our development will always have individual characteristics 

 

So then if a machine is programmed to be self-conscious and self-realizing, it will develop individual characteristics the same way we do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

So you understand that Consiusness is a series of connections? 

 

Yes I do.

But when it comes to programming a machine to be self-conscious and self realizing like humans are, how do you program self-hood (personality) into it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Yes I do.

But when it comes to programming a machine to be self-conscious and self realizing like humans are, how do you program self-hood (personality) into it?

 

 

If it is a true AI it will learn on it's own....The way a child's personality develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Piney said:

If it is a true AI it will learn on it's own....The way a child's personality develops.

 

Personality, that thing that is you, develops, that's true. This development or personal evolution happens because of the experience of living. 

But before a person has any experience, perhaps at some point in the womb, or at least beginning at the moment of birth, a person is already a distinct and unique personality before it ever experiences anything.

Personality is not the result of experience. A personality will not change. You will always be you. But the experiences of life affect how we as a person, evolve and grow.

Self-consciousness or self-awareness of personality occurs because of the associations made within the bio-mechanism of the human mind. But human personality is something other than that. Personality, for lack of a better way of putting it, is super-material and non-mechanical.

So the question remains. How can you program personality into a machine?

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

So the question remains. How can you program personality into a machine?

Good question, and I don't have a answer.  :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If somthing created the universe, its not natural is it. 

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory about life's origins. If the intelligent agent is an advanced extraterrestrial civilization or some kind of cosmic intelligence as the Universe or within (''Pantheism'') for exemple, than is it entirely natural. If it is a creator ''outside'' the Universe, than it is supernatural. While it's true that most ID prononents believe in the christians faith, the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.