Skepticism!

[+joc]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Depends on what you consider "intelligent design". Can processes outside our 4th dimensional existance (3 dimensions and time) be considered intelligent design? I really don't know and don't think anyone in the human race is qualified to answer that question, at least not currently. 

cormac

I consider 'intelligent design' to infer intelligence.  And...since we can assess intelligence as being the action of a living brain...I see no reason to believe intelligence occurs otherwise.  

Quote

Can processes outside our 4th dimensional existance (3 dimensions and time) be considered intelligent design?

I think the question is...Is there anything outside our multidimensional existence.   You seem to be inferring that there is...and that you are questioning is intelligent design part of it. 

Honestly, I am so skeptical of the entire multi-dimensional thing!  As far as I am concerned...it is a very Wooful Theory.   Is it possible that the entire Universe is just one of trillions of universes?  No...it's not even up for discussion.  Not in this thread anyway. At least...not by me.

[+joc]

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not really joc since God, as the Creator of the Universe, must necessarily pre-exist same the Laws of Physics that exist WITHIN our universe are not applicable to him/her/it. 

Another way of putting it is that science WITHIN our universe cannot be used to negate something from BEFORE its existance.

cormac 

I've already commented on what you said.

But what I just noticed was this:

 

Quote

Will Due and third_eye reacted to this   2

Now there exists an ironic logical reason to be skeptical of your concept. 

[Guyver]

37 minutes ago, joc said:

I consider 'intelligent design' to infer intelligence.  And...since we can assess intelligence as being the action of a living brain...I see no reason to believe intelligence occurs otherwise.  

I think you’re right that intelligent design infers intelligence, but I don’t understand why you think it doesn’t occur without a brain.  People have made computers that are intelligent, as well as robots, and if the future is anything like the past, this trend will continue and even increase.

 

[cormac mac airt]

34 minutes ago, joc said:

I consider 'intelligent design' to infer intelligence.  And...since we can assess intelligence as being the action of a living brain...I see no reason to believe intelligence occurs otherwise.  

I think the question is...Is there anything outside our multidimensional existence.   You seem to be inferring that there is...and that you are questioning is intelligent design part of it. 

Honestly, I am so skeptical of the entire multi-dimensional thing!  As far as I am concerned...it is a very Wooful Theory.   Is it possible that the entire Universe is just one of trillions of universes?  No...it's not even up for discussion.  Not in this thread anyway. At least...not by me.

According to who? According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary one of the definitions of Intelligence is this: 

Quote

Definition of intelligence 

1a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASONalso : the skilled use of reason

(2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

And as seen in the following even a single-celled organism has been shown to qualify under that definition:

Quote

For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that an organism devoid of a nervous system is capable of learning. Biologists have succeeded in showing that a single-celled organism, the protist, is capable of a type of learning called habituation. This discovery throws light on the origins of learning ability during evolution, even before the appearance of a nervous system and brain. It may also raise questions as to the learning capacities of other extremely simple organisms such as viruses and bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm

No, I'm not questioning if intelligent design is part of a multi-dimensional existance, particularly as I've already agreed with Jodie.Lynne on what she thought I meant, she said: 

Quote

So, this 'creator' could simply be a natural event consistent with multi-dimensional physics?

My answer was yes. I've ascribed no intelligence to it that is your interpretation of what I've said and yours alone. 

That's convenient for you that you don't want to discuss a possible multi-verse, but that in no way invalidates the idea. 

cormac

[SHaYap]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yes. 

However "natural" can be defined by 11th dimensional space-time.

cormac

Over the years I've learned to avoid definitions like 'god' 'deity' or 'creator' when trying to lay out a logic expanse across the beliefs. Lately I feel the term 'source' works better, it somewhat annuls the implications of some creator character and renders 'god' or 'deity' as a qualitative factor rather than an It or He or Her

~

Quote

 

~

The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.

Lao Tzu: "Tao Te Ching" (170+ translations of Chapter 1)

 

www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm

 

~

 

Not perfect by any means but it does clean up some of the messiness brought on by the garbage commonly associated with Organized Religion

~

43 minutes ago, joc said:

Now there exists an ironic logical reason to be skeptical of your concept. 

 

Somewhat similar to a ladle but tasting from different bowls ...

~

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Over the years I've learned to avoid definitions like 'god' 'deity' or 'creator' when trying to lay out a logic expanse across the beliefs. Lately I feel the term 'source' works better, it somewhat annuls the implications of some creator character and renders 'god' or 'deity' as a qualitative factor rather than an It or He or Her

And I can appreciate that as a valid point of view third_eye. That's why, for me, I never used the term "Deity" in my definition of what a creator may be. I thought that was generic enough but evidently not, for some. 

cormac

[c.s.lewis]

1 hour ago, joc said:

I consider 'intelligent design' to infer intelligence.  And...since we can assess intelligence as being the action of a living brain...I see no reason to believe intelligence occurs otherwise.  

in direct response to the just above...

Quote

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-1-universal-father

URANTIA: 1:5.12 In the contemplation of Deity, the concept of personality must be divested of the idea of corporeality. A material body is not indispensable to personality in either man or God. The corporeality error is shown in both extremes of human philosophy. In materialism, since man loses his body at death, he ceases to exist as a personality; in pantheism, since God has no body, he is not, therefore, a person. The superhuman type of progressing personality functions in a union of mind and spirit.

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Luis Marco
deleted extra space.

[SHaYap]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

And I can appreciate that as a valid point of view third_eye. That's why, for me, I never used the term "Deity" in my definition of what a creator may be. I thought that was generic enough but evidently not, for some. 

cormac

Clearly not for some, I can't say much more than what every one of the major religions always stresses on,

In the beginning, god 'created .... '

if there's one thing they all agree on, that would be the one, They just can't agree on who is 'god' , not what did do in the 'beginning'

~

[+joc]

26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I think you’re right that intelligent design infers intelligence, but I don’t understand why you think it doesn’t occur without a brain.  People have made computers that are intelligent, as well as robots, and if the future is anything like the past, this trend will continue and even increase.

 

The only 'intelligence' of a computer is in the programming genius of a living 'brain'.  Artificial intelligence is not really intelligence.  A computer, no matter how sophisticated cannot think for itself of its own cognizance.   It requires a living 'brain' to pull it's strings if you will.  Computers cannot work without electricity...and electricity is supplied by machines that are conceived, constructed and implemented by living 'brains'.  

Rocks are not intelligent.  Celery is not 'intelligent'.  It takes a brain to have intelligence.  Dead things are not intelligent.  Living brains, functioning...that is intelligence.

[+joc]

27 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

My answer was yes. I've ascribed no intelligence to it that is your interpretation of what I've said and yours alone. 

That's convenient for you that you don't want to discuss a possible multi-verse, but that in no way invalidates the idea. 

cormac

Then what you are calling  God...I am ascribing the term...Catalyst.  There was obviously a catalyst involved in the forming of the Universe.

I'm skeptical of multiverses...because they are a concept...created by man...just like God is a concept created by man.  But even so...let's just go ahead and say there are other dimensions...and other universes.  The catalyst for one would most likely be the catalyst for all...and if the end result of the catalyst is even one universe that subscribes to the laws of physics...then I would consider that proof enough...logically speaking...that ALL universes and dimensions also subscribe to the laws of physics.  

I am skeptical of any attempt to skirt around the FACTS of the laws of physics which exist everywhere in this 'infinite' universe.

[+joc]

21 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Clearly not for some, I can't say much more than what every one of the major religions always stresses on,

In the beginning, god 'created .... '

if there's one thing they all agree on, that would be the one, They just can't agree on who is 'god' , not what did do in the 'beginning'

~

Hey...I plead guilty!  To me...God...Deity...Creator...they all refer to the One...An Entity Greater Than Us All.   I think, rather than even ...source....catalyst...might be a better use of a term for what cormac and you seem to be talking about.   Labels that infer religious overtones just seem to create a semantical misunderstanding.  

I doubt either of you would argue that the laws of physics rule out the possibility of say, The God of the Old Testament Bible.  

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

Then what you are calling  God...I am ascribing the term...Catalyst.  There was obviously a catalyst involved in the forming of the Universe.

I'm skeptical of multiverses...because they are a concept...created by man...just like God is a concept created by man.  But even so...let's just go ahead and say there are other dimensions...and other universes.  The catalyst for one would most likely be the catalyst for all...and if the end result of the catalyst is even one universe that subscribes to the laws of physics...then I would consider that proof enough...logically speaking...that ALL universes and dimensions also subscribe to the laws of physics.  

I am skeptical of any attempt to skirt around the FACTS of the laws of physics which exist everywhere in this 'infinite' universe.

As I don't attempt to anthropomorphize it you can call it whatever you want. However something "involved in the forming" as you put it must, of necessity, have existed BEFORE the universe which means BEFORE the Laws of Physics that apply to our 4 dimensional (3 dimensions and time) existance. There's no way around that. 

Except that you are implying that ALL universes must subscribe TO THE SAME Laws of Physics whereas what physicists who delve in the areas of Quantum Mechanics and M-Theory/Brane Theory suggest is that different universes may subscribe to vastly different Laws of Physics ranging from those closest to that of our own universe to those vastly different. Your "one size fits all" mindset doesn't agree with current ideas. 

cormac

[Tiggs]

12 minutes ago, joc said:

The only 'intelligence' of a computer is in the programming genius of a living 'brain'.  Artificial intelligence is not really intelligence.  A computer, no matter how sophisticated cannot think for itself of its own cognizance.   It requires a living 'brain' to pull it's strings if you will.  Computers cannot work without electricity...and electricity is supplied by machines that are conceived, constructed and implemented by living 'brains'.  

Rocks are not intelligent.  Celery is not 'intelligent'.  It takes a brain to have intelligence.  Dead things are not intelligent.  Living brains, functioning...that is intelligence.

Programming isn't always required.

Here's a lego simulation of a roundworm. It has 304 neurons, and no programming -- and yet -- it behaves in a similar way to a real roundworm.

I suspect that given enough neural connections -- intelligence emerges by itself.
 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

Hey...I plead guilty!  To me...God...Deity...Creator...they all refer to the One...An Entity Greater Than Us All.   I think, rather than even ...source....catalyst...might be a better use of a term for what cormac and you seem to be talking about.   Labels that infer religious overtones just seem to create a semantical misunderstanding.  

I doubt either of you would argue that the laws of physics rule out the possibility of say, The God of the Old Testament Bible.  

The merging of Canaanite and Midianite deities to eventually be presented as "God/the Creator"  by the Jews pretty much does that without even applying the Laws of Physics. Particularly when Yahweh was never a Creator deity to begin with. 

cormac

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

As I don't attempt to anthropomorphize it you can call it whatever you want. However something "involved in the forming" as you put it must, of necessity, have existed BEFORE the universe which means BEFORE the Laws of Physics that apply to our 4 dimensional (3 dimensions and time) existance. There's no way around that. 

Except that you are implying that ALL universes must subscribe TO THE SAME Laws of Physics whereas what physicists who delve in the areas of Quantum Mechanics and M-Theory/Brane Theory suggest is that different universes may subscribe to vastly different Laws of Physics ranging from those closest to that of our own universe to those vastly different. Your "one size fits all" mindset doesn't agree with current ideas. 

cormac

 

 

9 hours ago, joc said:

  11 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not really joc since God, as the Creator of the Universe, must necessarily pre-exist same the Laws of Physics that exist WITHIN our universe are not applicable to him/her/it. 

Another way of putting it is that science WITHIN our universe cannot be used to negate something from BEFORE its existance.

cormac 

As I don't attempt to anthropomorphize it  

 

since God, as the Creator of the Universe

 

Then please....stop referring to what ever it is you are talking about as God, The Creator of the Universe.   Sounds a lot like anthropomorphizing to me.  

Perhaps there is also a law of physics regarding catalysts that create universes.   I will give you that .... The Catalyst for the formation of the universe...could also be responsible for not just this but practically an infinite number of other universes.  But...we know how stars are formed...we know how planets are formed...all of them are formed along the same lines.  The Catalyst therefore must be a Catalyst of what we call the laws of physics.  

I think when we talk about Something from Nothing...it just fries my little brains to the point of no return.  Please explain to me how anyone could possibly have any idea of such a thing.  Or rather...just please explain to me how/what you think along those lines.   All we really have as evidence of anything is the actual universe we live in and I am somewhat skeptical that there is anything else.  That there was anything else.

But then again...I don't buy that either because it is totally illogical.

[+joc]

13 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Programming isn't always required.

Here's a lego simulation of a roundworm. It has 304 neurons, and no programming -- and yet -- it behaves in a similar way to a real roundworm.

I suspect that given enough neural connections -- intelligence emerges by itself.
 

 

 

There is one huge difference Tiggs.   A real roundworm consumes other life forms.  A lego simulation consumes nothing other than electricity which is supplied by....ahem...a brain.

EDIT:  Jesus man!  I didn't even click onto the website until after I posted that...

Is this where Walker gets the stupendous idea of uploading consciousness and becoming immortal?  smh

Edited December 10, 2018 by joc

[+joc]

15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The merging of Canaanite and Midianite deities to eventually be presented as "God/the Creator"  by the Jews pretty much does that without even applying the Laws of Physics. Particularly when Yahweh was never a Creator deity to begin with. 

cormac

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am not referring to  the Canannites and the Midianites....  The Bible is what the majority of Christians and Jews on planet Earth believe.  It tells a story of God...who created everything that is...and it lays out how...in much detail...the universe and all that was in it was created.   That is a 'factual' part of the Biblical God.  The Belief of that is completely and totally negated by the Laws of Physics.   Any discussion of God....in realistic terms therefore has to be a discussion of Judaic Christian Islamic type beliefs.  Whatever yahweh was is totally irrelevant.

[SHaYap]

12 minutes ago, joc said:

A lego simulation consumes nothing other than electricity which is supplied by....ahem...a brain.

... and the ... ahem ... brain ... is functional only with electrical pulses that does not supplant a pattern of simulation that is regarded as purely dictated by some reality ?

~

 

[Tiggs]

11 minutes ago, joc said:

There is one huge difference Tiggs.   A real roundworm consumes other life forms.  A lego simulation consumes nothing other than electricity which is supplied by....ahem...a brain.

Brains also run on electricity, so not really seeing your objection.

[+joc]

Just now, Tiggs said:

Brains also run on electricity, so not really seeing your objection.

yes...but they are fueled by the consumption of other life forms.   A lego has no intelligence.  It is a piece of plastic...if you implant neurons from roundworms...the neurons still are implementing the dna functions of the roundworm are they not?

[Tiggs]

5 minutes ago, joc said:

yes...but they are fueled by the consumption of other life forms.   A lego has no intelligence.  It is a piece of plastic...if you implant neurons from roundworms...the neurons still are implementing the dna functions of the roundworm are they not?

The neurons in this particular case are electronic. Just wired together in the same pattern as a roundworm's.

[cormac mac airt]

14 minutes ago, joc said:

As I don't attempt to anthropomorphize it  

 

since God, as the Creator of the Universe

 

Then please....stop referring to what ever it is you are talking about as God, The Creator of the Universe.   Sounds a lot like anthropomorphizing to me.  

Perhaps there is also a law of physics regarding catalysts that create universes.   I will give you that .... The Catalyst for the formation of the universe...could also be responsible for not just this but practically an infinite number of other universes.  But...we know how stars are formed...we know how planets are formed...all of them are formed along the same lines.  The Catalyst therefore must be a Catalyst of what we call the laws of physics.  

I think when we talk about Something from Nothing...it just fries my little brains to the point of no return.  Please explain to me how anyone could possibly have any idea of such a thing.  Or rather...just please explain to me how/what you think along those lines.   All we really have as evidence of anything is the actual universe we live in and I am somewhat skeptical that there is anything else.  That there was anything else.

But then again...I don't buy that either because it is totally illogical.

I find it convenient that you take exception to my use of the word God, or Creator, when I have specifically said, in part, in Post #934 the following:

Quote

I actually do believe in a Creator (for lack of a more accurate/appropriate designation) that I believe was responsible for putting in place the conditions necessary for the creation of our universe via Brane/M-Theory and the resultant Big Bang it produced.

and 

Quote

Understand that I do not presume to know what exactly the Creator I believe in is. I consider it a creator only to the extent that it preceded our universes existance and set in motion events that culminated in our said existance.

So because I didn't use the word "Catalyst" or some such it's not good enough for you? Sorry to hear that. 

And a catalyst for something doesn't make it that thing, just a precursor of sorts to it. Which is not in disagreement with what I previously said. 

Who says 'something from nothing'? A multi-verse is certainly not considered 'nothing', but simply something that may exist outside our normal frame of reference. 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

24 minutes ago, joc said:

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am not referring to  the Canannites and the Midianites....  The Bible is what the majority of Christians and Jews on planet Earth believe.  It tells a story of God...who created everything that is...and it lays out how...in much detail...the universe and all that was in it was created.   That is a 'factual' part of the Biblical God.  The Belief of that is completely and totally negated by the Laws of Physics.   Any discussion of God....in realistic terms therefore has to be a discussion of Judaic Christian Islamic type beliefs.  Whatever yahweh was is totally irrelevant.

Indirectly you are as you are referencing the Bible which uses the Canaanite name El as well as the Midianite name Yahweh for the same creator deity when in actuality both El and Yahweh were originally completely separate deities with different functions within their respective pantheons. If you don't know the origins of the god Yahweh that's not my fault. 

Actually no as any discussion of God/a god, as a creator deity, greatly predates the Judeo-Christian concept of such a deity by millenia. That you wish to limit such a discussion to Judeo-Christian beliefs so you can rail against same is not my problem nor does it address the subject of the origin of the Creator deity concept. Even the Egyptians and the Sumerians couldn't adequately address the idea of a Creator deity in anything but the most basic thoughts. 

cormac

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, joc said:

I see no reason to believe intelligence occurs otherwise.  

Meh, I can see a few. I don't know whether or not the Church-Turing thesis is true, but the respectably energetic search for a counterexample has yielded slim pickings so far.

7 hours ago, joc said:

Artificial intelligence is not really intelligence. 

Well, so far, the Arnheim Objection has held up. I just made up the name, in honor of Rudolf Arnheim, a frackin' genius gestalt psychologist of the last century, mainly of art and especially of film. In short form, his objection was: all artificial intelligence is glorified cut-and-try search. (To which he would add that historically, "brute force" search was held up as the very opposite of intelligent problem-solving.)

The counter objection would be that the "Church" part of Church-Turing thesis leads us to believe that "search-boundedness" inheres to the concrete expressibility of a thought, any thought, including the thought of thought itself. So not just the "Turing" part (wherein an intentional generalization of "a machine" defines cognition), but constraints on the possible relationships between things and their representations define cognition.

It is a theorem, not a conjecture, that the two potential definitions are isomorphic (that is, formally and exactly interchangeable). The open question, then, is whether there is any cognitive performance for which a Turing machine cannot be built (respectively, a performance which transcends the constraints of functional description, and yet whose correctness can nevertheless be verified).

Ironically (and thinking about thinking is a black hole of irony, lol), if there were any such counterexample, then one of them would be whatever made Arnheim tick. (Think of Richard Feynman, but with a healthier attitude toward women and who got interested in literature, art and film rather than physics and mathematics).

7 hours ago, joc said:

Rocks are not intelligent. 

We'll see.

Edited December 10, 2018 by eight bits
what I saw wasn't what I got, lol

[SHaYap]

14 minutes ago, eight bits said:

It is a theorem, not a conjecture, that the two potential

definitions are isomorphic (that is, formally and exactly interchangeable). The open question, then, is whether there is any cognitive performance for which a Turing machine cannot be built (respectively, a performance which transcends the constraints of functional description, and yet whose correctness can nevertheless be verified).

~

HOw does such an intelligent definition extracts its intellectual form from such states of intelligence without negating all human dictated forms of communication then becomes the principle hurdle when associating or disassociating thoughts from the instinctive processes of thinking though ?

~