{{{THIS IS READABLE IN FOUR MINUTES}}}
{{{CLICK image to automatically ENLARGE it}}}

.

.

.

.

.

.

Alternatively, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasizIMHKOI

Original article:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a46...

Author:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan
http://folioverse.appspot.com/

[Source Code] Naive Approximation/Basis of God:
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God

.

.

.

.

.

.

**INTRIGUING NOTE**

('A')

I had tweeted to Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist), notifying him of my ATHEISTIC nature, WHILST stipulating of his closed mindedness (I had used expletives) - in NOT recognizing the likely hood of non-omniscient Gods, (on scientific observation).

A few weeks after said tweet, Sam conceded of the serious possibility, that mankind shall likely compose a type of 'God' in this video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&nohtml5=False

SEE video section "14:08".

('B')

I have not any certainty, whether I had influenced his video, but I had tweeted him the article stipulated in the original post.
Here is the article once more:
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a46...

('C')

Albeit, not all beings are as reasonable as Sam Harris, or other scientists, which is quite disappointing.

('D')

Albeit, it is quite likely, that Gods are on the horizon: http://god-is-coming.appspot.com/

Views: 449

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

a cell phone would have appeared to be supernatural to Moses and his tribe, yet it is not. if this illusion occurs within a person's lifetime, it is still just an illusion.

(A)

It appears you have failed to reduce the passage.

(B)

A simplification faces [..THAT EXPRESSES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MANKIND (1 of 4 likely god tiers) SHALL BECOME GOD]:

FACTS/observations:

1) The traditional theistic definition of God includes omniscience, omnipotence...., and the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence.

2) Mankind PARTIALLY satisfies the theistic God definition, on the horizon of scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences; mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that compute 10^14 of the estimated total, 10^+16 synaptic NEURONAL operations per second.

3) God is then SIMPLY PROPERLY definable, as any likely non-omniscient entity [ie MANKIND] with the ability to generate non-trivial artificial intelligence.

4) Other theistic properties [omniscience, omnipotence, omni...] are NOT LIKELY, on the horizon of said scientific observation.

The traditional theistic key definition of God as creator IS the supernatural bit. The other aspects are just appeals to his greatness.

(A)
The traditional theistic definition, is predominantly of supernatural description. However the ability to generate universes and or non-trivial intelligence, is LIKELY NON-SUPERNATURAL. (SEE 'B')

(B)

FACTS:

1) Mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that compute 10^14 of the estimated total, 10^+16 synaptic NEURONAL operations per second.


2) Mankind has ALREADY created non-trivial simulations of the cosmos. [See Illustris]



(C)
The aforesaid simplification is but priorly encoded amidst the original article.
I observe thereafter, that my language is perhaps abstrusely absorbed...

Of course most rational thinkers will tend to agree with likely suppositions... why bother invoking or redefining the god word at all? it just aggravates the religious; their holy books all pre-warn of human arrogance or of challenging god, it's kinda their big thing, lol

For God is properly accurately defined on the horizon of scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences, regardless of my notation of said re-definition.

Simply, tradition is often in-accurate.

(A)

It appears you have failed to reduce the passage.

(B)

Such is non-opinionated, and thusly I have not any 'say'. Such is scientifically observed/observable.

(C)

PROBABLE NON-OMNISCIENT GODS

**(1)** Man-made ‘General artificial intelligence’ (The brain based software we invent [that shall likely exceed humans in all tasks, not merely individual cognitive tasks/cognitive task groups as they do now]).

[PERHAPS FORGED BY MANKIND, CLASS 4]





**(2)** Intelligence that EVOLVES in our own simulations to become God-like (ie they create universes, or ‘general artificial intelligence’-like programs).

[PERHAPS FORGED BY MANKIND, CLASS 4]





**(3)** The non-omnipotent, non-infinite Gods (human like?) that created our universe stemming from a similar way, where we simulate more and more detailed universes via **(4)** — constrained paths. (eg illustris)
[THE 13 YEAR OLD CHILD? PERHAPS FALLS IN THIS CLASS]







**(4)** Mankind; for mankind shall perhaps promptly possess God bound capabilities, via **(1)** and **(2)**.


[PERHAPS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCHERS/PROGRAMMERS, MICROSOFT, GOOGLE ETC]

Jordan, ya gotta most peculiur way of communicating. It would be funny to see how others react to you in person speaking in that manner.

False suppositions, therefore, garbage in/garbage out.

:D

Right off the bat, you essentially made the same error as Aquinas et al.

You claim to be an atheist, but, presuppose that, for example, our creator must have been more intelligent than we are.

If you used valid suppositions, and removed the incorrect interpretations of data, your same arguments, parsed to the parts that are valid, simply shows that there is no evidence for gods, as opposed to simply whittling them down to smaller and smaller remaining powers and capabilities.

IE: If you continued properly, you would simply conclude that there is no evidence for gods, not that they exist but are not supernatural.

:D


(A)

It seems you have failed to reduce the passage.

.

.

.

(B)

I make no such presuppositions. See C and D.

.

.

.

(C)

Simply, simplification of FACTS/observations (AS OBSERVED IN THE ORIGINAL PASSAGE):

1) The traditional definition of God includes omniscience, omnipotence...., and the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence.

2) Mankind PARTIALLY satisfies the traditional God definition, on the horizon of scientifically OBSERVED/OBSERVABLE sequences; mankind has ALREADY created brain based models that compute 10^14 of the estimated total, 10^+16 synaptic NEURONAL operations per second. [ie non trivial intelligence].

3) God is then SIMPLY PROPERLY definable, as any likely non-omniscient entity [ie MANKIND] with the ability to generate non-trivial artificial intelligence.

4) Other traditional properties [omniscience, omnipotence, omni...] are NOT LIKELY, on the horizon of said scientific observation.

.

.

.

(D)

Two of 4 classes of Gods specified amidst the original passage faces:

1) General artificial intelligence. (likely possesses the ability to generate non trivial intelligence. Thusly (1) persists as self improving algorithmic sequences)

2) Mankind. (likely possesses the ability to generate non trivial intelligence, that exceeds the net intelligence of it's mankind. SEE ORIGINAL PASSAGE)

As such, in stark contrast to my supposed presupposition (as you had erroneously indicated), mankind, a class of God, shall likely be entirely computational less capable that man's creation (another class of God).

SEPARATE INDICATION OF MAN AS GOD of non-omnipotence, betwixt man's creation:

Brain based models already exceed/equal human performance on individual cognitive tasks.

.

.

.

(E)

The aforesaid sequence is postulated (though apparently abstrusely so) amidst the ORIGINAL PASSAGE.

You simply repeating yourself now...again.

:D

Make a compelling argument...or, admit you have none.

:D

I shall reduce my expression cycles, such that simpler stipulations persist:

QUOTE OF YOURS:

"You claim to be an atheist, but, presuppose that, for example, our creator must have been more intelligent than we are."

SIMPLIFIED RESPONSE OF MINE:

I had not made any such presupposition.

In contrast, 2 of 4 classes of Gods specified amidst the original passage of mine are observed as likely LARGER IN CAPACITY, whence mankind, a class of God, shall likely be entirely computationally LESS CAPABLE than that of man's creation.

[You need observe the ORIGINAL PASSAGE, absent emotional bias]

.

.

.

ALBEIT, I have detected your error; you appear as an expresser of theistic stipulation/belief; for theists tend to blatantly ignore data.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service