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: 323

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There are some interesting ideas around about Moore's Law vs.The Flynn Effect. Does human IQ increase over time due to our ability to consider abstract thoughts? Does that add new neural pathways that in turn improve our logical and rational thought processes?

Where did you get your "God" definition from? I would agree up to a point to the first part of your definition but I don't necessarily agree with the second part. The words "may and probably" are too vague. It is a fast moving "industry", both with AI via computers/robots and Synthetic life via CRISPR and people like Craig Venter. Maybe if we humans artificially evolve using a bio-engineering technologies of both those fields I will give a different answer.   

 

(A)

I had invented such a definition of God, on the boundary of science (as seen in another invention of mine, entitled "non-beliefism" ..)

Here is a summary, using crude set notation:

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}

There is a potential overlap above, whence omniscience, omnipotence, omni… is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY Founded.

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.



.
.
.
.
.
.

(B)
It is empirically observed that we wire our brains as we grow from childhood.
No we are not Gods but some people think they are lol

@Bella Rose, see the scientific definition of God in original post.
Don't be theistic/shallow minded.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! So now I am closed minded for suggesting that we are not gods? Lol Good one.

This is the problem with atheism.

I am an atheist, but I try not to bound myself as typical atheists do.

Unlike Richard Dawkins, or Hitchens, I minimized my emotions so that i could fulfill the exercise in the original post.

Science has reduced nonsense amidst sensible sequences for centuries. (ie demonic possession are now typically scientifically explainable neurodegenerative diseases)

So, God is perhaps yet another property properly definable by science.(See reply 2 for crude set notation)

Bad overgeneralising atheists.

False overgeneralising atheism.

Dawkins and Hitchens do not equal atheism.

They do not even equal Anglo-Saxon atheism.

They and their admirers represent a small portion of Anglo-Saxon atheists and some non-Anglo-saxons.

The majority of atheists have never heard of them nor dedicate their time to criticising religion.

Its frustrating when religious people make rediculous generalisations about non-believers..not a bad idea that we do not do it either.

Atheists typically despise the concept of Gods.....

So this isn't a "bad generalization".

As an atheist myself, I tend not to bound my expression cycles in emotional bias....

"Don't be theistic/shallow minded."

Beep! Sequence does not compute.

Would upgrading our own minds make us less human or more godlike?

We already upgrade our brains constantly.

It is empirically observed that brains rewire or strengthen synapses to learn new tasks, or get better at old tasks. (although this may slow down as age comes)

The future instances of ourselves are more powerful than the older versions.

So, based on the original definition in post we are already Gods.

We are Gods creating more powerful Gods, artificial intelligence.

I disagree with the definition, but I see the parallel.

All god definitions share the same fundamental truth; God is ever expanding.
The term God is thus interchangeable with Existence as it will continue expanding until it no longer expands. We humans can do this too, but we must contract to expand. God never contracts.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service