I recently encountered a 'scientific' definition of God:
God is any probably non omniscient entity with the ability to engineer artificial intelligence, that may probably exceed the intellect of its creators.
Question:
We engineer our own brains constantly, in a way that smarter versions of ourselves may emerge.
In the similar way to how a hypothetical God-like (as per 'scientific' definition above) super artificial intelligence would update itself (creating smarter versions of itself, probably similar to how today's artificial neural nets update themselves), are humans Gods?
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Hi PGJ,
Before attempting to answer your question, one would have to test the validity of the "scientific" definition. I remain unconvinced of the definition.
Here is an excerpt from article, using basic set notation:
.
.
.
.
In this way, I reduce the typical theistic God definition, amidst empirical scientific sequences:
1. {Supposed_Properties_TypicalTheisticGods | omniscience, omnipotence, omni…., ability_to_engineer_non-trivial_intelligence}
2. {Properties_Mankind | gaining_the_ability_to_engineer_non-trivial_intelligence}
Albeit, science reduces nonsense/blather amidst sensible sequences. [ie ‘demonic possessions’ are instead, perhaps scientifically explainable neurodegnerative disorders]
Thusly, ‘God’ is yet another quantity, that is perhaps properly definable by science.
There is modern science for causes of the cosmos.
The old concept/god need be updated.
garbage in, garbage out
I am curious, what segment do you disagree with in particular?
.
.
.
I recall our last debate when you specified that my calculus trig equation inventions were nonsense.
I was recently told by an american math prof, that those equations were contained in leibniz' texts. (Though I am yet to check)
They are nonsense, pure madness in fact.
-----------------
Well we already knew you were delusional (or a liar, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), so nothing new there.
If it is valid that leibniz texts contain my equations, then this invalidates your arguments against my calculus trig equations.
Anyway,
I also recall myself discussing here on these forums that the human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.
You also mentioned that the brain data above was a lie, until I directed you to viable sources, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers) .
I noticed then that you became silent, never appearing to own up to your large errors.
So the delusions continue. Here is what you said that I took issue with:
----------------------
More delusions: I addressed your sneaky change of units already, and you responded to that post! What you said was also nonsense just on dimensional grounds alone. You know how you can tell you are talking to a crazy person; when they can't get their dimensions right. If someone told you their race car's top speed was 17 calories/day; you would know they are crazy for dimensional reasons alone.
(A)
So, you ignore the sources I posted. (Also, be careful what I said was 10^15, not 1015, see original post here, in reply 2 )
No sneaky change took place, as observed in the original post linked, last edited in 2016. (The brain operates at roughly 10^16 to 10^18 sops)
Anyone here can probably observe that your criticism is nonsense.
.
.
.
.
(B)
What of the data expressed here:
10^15 or more:
"Biology – approximately 10^15 synapses in the human brain"
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(numbers)
10^18 or less
"for it is believed to be the order of processing power of the human brain at neural level (functional might be lower)."
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing
More delusional behavior. My criticism was in response to your original post (which you have since edited to remove the part I was criticizing!). In fact it was the first reply in the thread. Reply 2 is where you restarted an altered version of your claim, replacing 1015 with 10^15 and replacing floating point operations with "synapses in the human brain".
(A)
Here is a simple reason why your '1015' claim above is nonsense:
The following google drive zip file shows me stating 10^15 in an article I wrote roughly MONTHS BEFORE YOUR COMMENT:
_text_OLD.zip \_text\EVIDENCE ARTICLES\a[1-extrapolation]\index.html
section "SCIENTIFIC-STATISTICS PAR PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT" "INTRODUCTION[A-B]" "[A]" shows ****me stating 10^15 etc.****
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
SEE THE DETAILS SECTION on google drive and look at 'date created', before downloading. ('modified' will say today, because I accessed it today to share link with you, but the contents are last modified on 'date created')
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
OTHERWISE, AFTER DOWNLOADING the zip, see the "date modified" section on the index.html file. (last 'date modified' is Sep 27, 2016. Date created on windows will say today, becaue the file is created when you download, unlike online details.)
/////////////////////////////////////////////
The zip file above is dated at Sep 27, 2016.
Your comment occurred on November 20, 2016.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(B)
Your other claim that my math invention is nonsense is also sticky.
You invested several passages in discussing how my calculus inventions were nonsense.
Upon discussions with an actual math professor, I am told that my inventions are actually contained in leibniz' old texts.
If the math professor is valid, this invalidates your silly claims.
It is ironic that you showed particular samples to be valid, but still denied its validity.
How odd?
Theists dismiss science at every turn it opposes their views so I, in turn, must deduce that they validate only as fact the workings of imagination not otherwise described in nature.
Yes, humans are gods unto themselves and if not directly tangible, as the pre-WWII emperor god of Japan walked and talked the role, early civilizations, such as the ancient Egyptian period, were heavily deified by Pharaohs. It's not much of a question to ponder. Man models his gods upon himself and, furthermore, ascribes to them features and mannerisms aligned with their respective cultures. It's all very much in evidence and silly. He is, then, the god he subscribes to because that god is safely lodged in his psyche where only his imagination can hope to model such a profile.
Furthermore, there are as many versions of the one god as there are people who profess a belief in it. Everyone imagines a different god because everyone's psyches are unique blueprints that cannot be revealed. As such, we can deduce that the one god is disenfranchised, in the singular sense, and can only dwell in the individual psyche. This gives credence to polytheism as the only plausible reality, and can be extended to say that every man is his own god.
This does not apply to me, as I have no beliefs whatsoever, especially as the inventor/founder of a phenomenon called 'non-beliefism' .
What is observed is raw science.
In High School I was the inventor of a belief system called "Provoloneism" ! So what?
Probably redundant. (unless you were in high school before science began on the planet)
Proving things probably already existed before your birth.
On the other hand, it took the planet billions of years of evolution for 'non-beliefism' to emerge.
My compliments to Pitar for this quote:
"Man models his gods upon himself and, furthermore, ascribes to them features and mannerisms aligned with their respective cultures. It's all very much in evidence and silly. He is, then, the god he subscribes to because that god is safely lodged in his psyche where only his imagination can hope to model such a profile."
(1)
There is modern science regarding gravity.
NOTE: There is modern science that describes probable causes of the universe.
(2)
Like other archaic science, gravity was old, and didn't originally mean attractive force, and dealt with mythical aether.
NOTE: There was archaic science that guessed that the universe perhaps began (i.e a had cause) (the root of which is 'god').
(3)
The word/concept gravity was updated from mythical construct, to modern science.
The word/concept god is updatable from mythical construct to modern science.
Still not buying your god bullshit Jordan. All programmers are humans regardless of your neurotic desire to elevate your mundane status. Your human like the rest of us....deal with it!
Humans created the gods to explain the supernatural. Humans created religion to control other humans.
Since it's a religious question the Bible says that at least some people are gods if not all of us. Some things that people can do that God couldn't do is to defeat iron chariots and to engrave two stone tablets in less than forty days and forty nights.
Psalm 82:6 (CEV) = “I, the Most High God, say that all of you are gods and also my own children."
John 10:34 (CEV) = Jesus replied: In your Scriptures doesn’t God say, “You are gods”?