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 abovesuper artificial intelligence would update itself (creating smarter versions of itself, probably similar to how today's artificial neural nets update themselves), are humans Gods?

Views: 215

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Andrew Brown

(A)
You are probably theistic/religious.

The definition in original post utilizes science.

So, the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence is shared between humans, and claimed Gods, BUT other properties, such as omniscience, omni....etc are SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED.

.
.
.
..
.

(B)
So, in my scientific definition, Gods may have colds, may be mortal, have memory lapses, etc. If they are no longer able to learn, (ie death, extensive brain damage) such that better instances are not generated (can't get smarter) then humans are no longer Gods (otherwise regular functioning humans that may learn are Gods).....



Anyway, theists typically bound Gods to be omniscient, omnipotent etc, but scientific data says these properties are unfounded....

Hi ProgrammingGodJordan,

A) Please tell me why you assume I am theistic/religious.

I said nothing about omni... Please do not assume you understand me on one comment.

B) So God's are about the same as people, but never die. Is that accurate?

@ Andrew Brown

(A)

Typical theists tend to bound God to "never contract". (Never contract = your words)

Never contract could be identified in the set of properties that construe omniscience etc. (So perhaps you indirectly referred to omni properties)

Thusly, I detected the probability that you were perhaps theistic.

.

.

.

..

.

.

(B)

Simply, humans share a particular property with God, the ability to engender non-trivial intelligence. (Other properties, such as omniscience, or omnipotence etc are scientifically unfounded)

See response 2 on page 1.

God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the everything, the entirety, all. That definition of yours  is something totally other than what a singular God is. If we could pull off some super duper realistic sim city...we wouldn't be God. We'd  be a mini universe simulation programmer. Not God.

No matter how fantabulously sophistimicated you tecnoscience may be...we will never be God. At best, a lousy approximation. And why would anyone want to be the Abrahamic kind of God. Yuck.

@ Davis Goodman

(1)

Whether you like it or not, humans have the ability to produce more intelligent instances of themselves (ie we can learn tasks etc). This ability is in common with a claimed theistic property; the ability to engender non-trivial intelligence.

Other properties such as omniscience, are not scientifically founded.

Science is the thing that was used to build the devices you used to type your messages.

Without a framework like science, you and your theist companions would return to caveman living.

.

.

.

.

.

(B)

We have already created sophisticated cognitive artificial intelligence that exceeds mankind.

Here are a sequence cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED mankind:

1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go')

Will artificial intelligence take your job?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-wn8ghcoY

Humans need not apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo

.

.

.

.

You divided your reply into two sections, but neither of your responses dealt with my critique of your claim. 

1. I am not a theist. I am dismayed that you would think I were.

2.  I never said we aren't capable of creating something that approaches a conscious agent and maybe even a sim-city where conscious agents with complex matrices interact with one another in a world you've defined and landscaped, or where computer players play the game Go at such an advanced level that no human can understand the moves they make. That is incredible, awesome, amazing. But that doesn't make us God. You are a creation yourself...you cannot be God. You will only be a poor approximation to God.

3. God doesn't exist. His existence is a monstrous fiction, an absurd near impossibility. It's silly to speculate that humans will one day become this monstrous fiction...or absurd near-impossibility.

4. Why would we strive to be God? God is the nastiest most vicious cruel mental-nutcase in the entire history of human fiction. What sane rational being would want to be like that? Gross.

@Davis Goodman

(A)

Merely theists (and apparently shallow minded atheists) bound God to not be 'creatable', but only creator.

Separately, you have a theistic mentality, ignoring evidence as it persists.

.

.

.

.

(B)

This is simple math.

(1) Claimed Theistic God Properties (omniscience, omnipotence, ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence)

(2) Properties of Mankind (ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence)

There is an overlap above, based on the ability mentioned.

The other claimed God properties are scientifically unfounded.

The viable sequence of the concept of God is maintained (that is the scientifically observable sequence), and discard the other properties, hence the re-definition.

This persist, whether you like it or not.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(C)

Albeit, in the scientific definition of God, (any probably non-omniscient entity with the ability to construe non-trivial intelligence) God probably has not the need to be violent....

1. No. You are redefining a term so it suits your argunent. This is a major error in inductive reasoning.  You have to be very careful and precise with your terms or you arguments fall apart. If no accepted terms apply...define your own. Dont steal some other term and then claim it means something else...just so you can make a claim that sounds more incredible than it really is.

2. No. You are giving speculative arguments...not evidence. A computer program beating the best Go player is evidence we can pull off artificial intelligence that surpasses ours in one context...that is not evidence that it is enevitable that we will pull off full out consciousness in a electric mechanical platform. You are mistaking optimism with fact. Another major error.

3. Have you read the page on fallacies I linked? I highly recommend memorising them 

I wish you could understand what evidence is. Please brush up on your critical thinking skills. Until then...there's no point discussing this anymore.

@Davis Goodman

Davis Goodman quote: I wish you could understand what evidence is. Please brush up on your critical thinking skills. Until then...there's no point discussing this anymore.

(A) ///____fallacies_do_not_apply

As an atheist, I was already aware of the fallacies you linked.

No fallacy item disregards the re-definition of God via nonbeliefism.

I am yet to stipulate any invalid data.

Your issue is that you have an emotional bias betwixt the word 'God'.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(B) ///____no_emotion

Absent emotion, The quality of the typical theistic claimed God ('the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence') obtains.

Let the ven diagram from my prior answer sink in.

As defined, humans sub-consciously and consciously engineer their own intelligence, such that they may be enhanced.

.

.

.

.

.

(C) ///____shallow_mindedness
Your arguments against the re-definition, have been shown to be nonsense.
Thereafter, you are yet another shallow minded atheist.

@Davis Goodman


Davis Goodman quote: 1. No. You are redefining a term so it suits your argunent. This is a major error in inductive reasoning. You have to be very careful and precise with your terms or you arguments fall apart. If no accepted terms apply...define your own. Dont steal some other term and then claim it means something else...just so you can make a claim that sounds more incredible than it really is.

2. No. You are giving speculative arguments...not evidence. A computer program beating the best Go player is evidence we can pull off artificial intelligence that surpasses ours in one context...that is not evidence that it is enevitable that we will pull off full out consciousness in a electric mechanical platform. You are mistaking optimism with fact. Another major error.

3. Have you read the page on fallacies I linked? I highly recommend memorising them



(1).
Did physics abandon gravity because Newton blundered? No. The concept was kept, and unfounded properties discarded.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(2).
The human brain does roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second. There are artificial models that do 10^14+ synaptic operations per second.
*******As TIME passed AND ARTIFICIAL SYNAPTIC OPERATIONS INCREASED, these artificial models did more and more cognitive tasks.

IT DOES NOT TAKE A GENIUS TO SEE THAT HUMAN LEVEL ARTIFICIAL HARDWARE/CAPABILITY IS probable by 2020 (Moore's Law)


.

.

.

.

.

.

(3).
These artificial models (eg AlphaGo) are COGNITIVE MODELS. The game of go generates more possibilities than the number of atoms in known universe, more so than chess. (This is why chess was brute force)

***To BEAT the game of Go you probably need:
(a) HUMAN LIKE INTELLIGENCE (sample/reduce possibility space by 'intuition')
(b) COMPUTER AT THE SIZE OF UNIVERSE (brute force check large possibility space)

Obviously, alpha go is not size of universe, ie no brute force took place. Instead alpha go appears to posses human 'intuition', whatever human intuition is, or whatever allows Lee Sedol to reduce large sample space in go.

.

.

.

.

.

.



(4).
It appears you understand nothing about alpha go. Alpha Go's framework is the first approximation of general intelligence.
See atari q. Atari Q can solve many tasks using one model. (Alpha Go's predecessor)
Your ignorance shines there.

.

.

.

.

.

.



(5).
Whether or not you like it, mankind shares the ability to engender non-trivial intelligence with claimed theistic God. (Other properties such as omniscience, omni... are scientifically unfounded)

It is empirically observed that humans generate smarter instances of themselves, by learning tasks. This aligns with scientific definition of God, as introduced via nonbeliefism

God, there are universes to create. What are you waiting for? Get back to us when you are done.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service