Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

reply to post by ALLis0NE
Look, I'm not really interested in disproving your theory. To me, that's one of life's great joys; figuring out a meaning and purpose for it all. You have your theory, that's great. I'm glad you have come up with something that has at least some original elements. I have my theory, you have yours, I'd be glad to debate both and hopefully we could both come away with some interesting thoughts. Maybe we'd incorporate some of each others ideas into our theories, maybe not, at the very least we'd have a stimulating conversation.

The problem is, you seem more interested in shouting down everyone elses ideas, and passing off yours as fact. You'll notice that the majority of our debate has revolved around how your theory is right and mine is wrong. That's because as soon as I put a small portion of mine out there, you went on the offensive. And I do mean offensive. You have insulted me, belittled me, misquoted me, tried to bait me, and just been plain rude.True, I didn't exactly turn the other cheek, but that's just my nature.

When it comes to spirituality, nobody has the right answer, except those who admit they dont have the right answer. Leaving your mind open to new ideas and concepts will get you closer to the truth(if there really is a "truth") than clinging to your own ignorant ideology ever will. And we are all ignorant, we don't have all the information, it's that simple. It's all speculation and conjecture and theories and myths and legends.

The more you think you're right, the more wrong you are. I know I'm not right, the only fact I know is that I know no facts. The sooner you can accept this universal truth, the sooner you can start moving towards true knowledge.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
So you admit asking a baited question, glad youre honest.

I admit to asking a question that highlights your flawed logic.

If you recall, we are inside of a thread topic that tried to do the same for me, and horribly failed.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Yep you asked a yes or no question because thats how its baited.

Do you think I am fishing or something? I'm trying to have a normal conversation, a normal debate.

If I ask you a question that you can't answer because it highlights your flawed logic, it's not called "baiting", it's called "proving you have flawed logic".

Originally posted by Gigatronix
You obviosly deal in absolutes which is your fatal flaw.

Since when is dealing with absolutes a fatal flaw? Am I going to die or something because of it?

I think you watched too many Star Wars movies....

Doesn't evolution and science deal with absolutes? I'm sure they try...

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Good job leaving the definition in that supports my definition! Thanks!You do know that the first definition appearing in a dictionary si the more commonly used usage than the following right?

You do understand that even if something is created, again, and again, and again, it isn't the same right? It evolves on its own... it will never be the same object, it will always be different. Two things can not occupy the same place at the same time, so it will always have a different location, different birth date, etc...... It evolved into something "new".

Please tell me why on Earth you think "again, and again, and again" some how implies that every time is the same? It doesn't. "Again" is just and adverb describing frequency of occurrence, nothing more.

You are grasping at straws.... I left that first definition in there because I knew you were going to pull that straw, and here I am showing you how wrong you are, and that you are pulling straws...

When two humans mate and have offspring, that offspring is slightly evolved. When that offspring has their own offspring, it evolved AGAIN. If the offspring keeps going, again, and again, and again... well... how does that imply all the offspring are the same? It doesn't....

Originally posted by Gigatronix
yes I'm aware that it was analogy, obviously you are not aware that I was being facetious.

No I wasn't aware of that, because, why would someone try to be facetious in a non-facetious conversation?

There is only one reason....

Originally posted by Gigatronix
And according to how you explained your analogy, I'm possessed. So you were apparently being figurative and literal at the same time. Like I said, you're all over the place.

You just don't understand..... it's ok... Some day it will hit you like a pile of rocks (maybe), and you will want to run around and tell everyone, because it is like putting on glasses and seeing better, and you want to share the feeling.

dictionary.reference.com...

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I agree what you say implies this, I'm not agreeing with you.

Now YOU are all over the place. If you agree with what I imply, that means you agree with what I imply. All I was implying was absolute truth, that is why you agreed.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
how do you know it?

Because I can prove it. If I have consciousness, and I am a part of this universe, then the universe does have a consciousness, and I am part of it.

The simple fact that we have consciousness proves the universe has consciousness...

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Bunk logic if I ever heard it.

How is that bunk logic?

Are you not a part of the universe??

If you ARE a part of the universe (which you are) then the universe does have consciousness....

Simple common sense....

Originally posted by Gigatronix
And you'd be a fool to go around saying this as if it were fact. think it, believe it all you want. Doesn't make it true. Sorry. It might be true but you dont know, you just THINK it really hard.

I just proved it....

Seriously answer this question, I assure you I am not fishing;

Are you a part of the universe?

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by badmedia

Only if reality is linear.

Why would it not be? How could it not be? Everything we understand about reality we can understand because it follows causality, like a game of quantum billiards. A causes b which causes c. Being living individuals we are complex interwoven microcosm of biological systems. One that evolved from infinitely smaller and simpler microcosms. Change and complexity is driven by errors, caused by detrimental circumstances.

All that we think, all our emotions and urges and drives are reactions of our circumstance and internal factors like predispositions. We have a meal because we are hungry, we were hungry because our systems were empty, our systems were empty because it had been some time since we ate. Etc. It goes on forever. Those moments when someone says something that reminds us that we need to call a specific person and a specific time and we do because we react to an experience where we were reminded.

Even if we did have free will and we could make free acts not based on external or internal ques, where would you draw the line? Chimps seem fairly self aware, would they have freewill? Elephants fear death, do they have it? Rats have small brains but they can work out a maze, do they have some freewill? Insects? Plants? At what point would we become more than the sum of a collection of autonomous linear systems and inherit an ability that violates causality?

[edit on 25/2/2009 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


I take it you are not up to date on quantum physics? Tell me. If you had a computer and you were able to create what you wanted on it. What would the limits be?

What are the limits of your imagination? Is your imagination stuck on only things you have experienced?

The universe works off cause and effect. However, where choice comes in is that you can choose a cause and effect to get the results desired. And that is the difference.

I guess I sometimes forget some people aren't up to date on such things. I guess if you are on dial up, you don't get to see many of the videos that explain these things. And I'm am talking about actual scientists. Einstein knew it, theory of special relativity. Carl Sagan and many others.

It is only your perspective that is linear. Your own time line that is linear.

There is a reason Jesus talked about a path. Because your choices determine the path you take. It will appear linear, but it truly isn't.

Originally posted by Good Wolf



We have choice as part of our ability to function, once again, a logical process which is deterministic.

For a will to be considered "free", we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without being caused to do so. But the idea of lawless free will, that is, a will acting without any causal structure, is incomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself.



[edit on 25/2/2009 by Good Wolf]

GW, you need to be intellectually honest and explain that your description is taken purely from IMMANUEL KANT' philosophy on CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES relating to his writings on Ethics and Morals, the central keystone being this....

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

that will itself is central to this necessary action without referencing a source or cause for that will other than all acts will be willed as being law and universal by that very act with its will. This is your belief. Your acceptance of KANT , taken from KANT' philosophy. No one else has to accept that WE ALL must understand free will as only being that as prescribed by KANT in his writings in The Groundwork's for the Metaphysics of Morals. The above statement which I highlight in bold really should have linked as a source( i am betting you have quote mined this to suit your beliefs without really understanding it or its relation to subjective decisions and choices relating to morals).
If you in-fact cared to read further into KANTS system, he actually notes that decisions can be made without any reference to actual experience but purely by reason, and reason itself is the source for the system by which we make these moral decisions and choices, thus in conjuction with the will they become laws and universal by there very action. But surely our reason must be a construct that is reliant on experience itself, to develop or refine and experience reason as itself? How can any part of it be autonomous or separate?

KANT believed that the laws themselves governing our choices and decision where manifested themselves, by ourselves. He singles humans out as being significant and "special" due to this autonomous reasoning that has itself created our system, yet he does not reference a source or cause? Magic. And that it is this ultimate rule by which moral choices and decisions are made.

Kant leaves no room for immoral acts that should be permitted, that this would be universal given reason is setting the rules. As we know some acts that would be deemed immoral can be seen as being right given subjectivity.
Kant makes no exceptions. At all. Ever.
Conflict can arise within moral decisions that are incompatible under Kants maxim. But in reality we see these choices being reasonable and acceptable, whilst also not being the rule, or law of reason.
This philosophy is reliant only on REASON. Yet we can see that if reason is the predominant rule and source by which Kants system generates decisions, we see that future out comes do not match the reasoning. This observation is universal and a proof that KANT's philosophy and his argument, the one you quote almost word for word without a link or source, fails.
These are just some basic arguments against the Philosophy. There are just as easily found as arguments for KANT.
These are not truths, they are philosophies.
These are not facts, they are thoughts.
They are not pure, but flawed and incomplete.
They are not the rule, but beliefs.
They do not disprove Free will, as religious doctrine, or any other describe it.
You are arguing religion with your own.
This is a battle of faith.
Own up and be a man.

Are you trying to drag this in to heated argument, just because you don't like me?

I know this is directed at Badmedia, but I'll tell you this, I don't like people who aren't honest enough to show where there beliefs come from, to scared to have their own sources of belief tested and criticised whilst at the same time only too eager to attack the source of another belief by preaching the word and doctrine of another abstract or subjective philosophy with just as many flaws, illogical propositions and assumptions.

Bow Down before the One you Serve.
At least we who believe in, a god, GOD have the balls to be put to the test.

For a will to be considered "free", we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without being caused to do so. But the idea of lawless free will, that is, a will acting without any causal structure, is incomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself.

post by Good Wolf

LOL. He actually argues that free will can not be autonomous yet allows reason to be as the originator and only cause of the laws it sets itself(autonomously) and it can do this outside of empirical experiences.

Here is your source that you should have linked. Look familiar. Its word for word.

For a will to be considered "free", we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without being caused to do so. But the idea of lawless free will, that is, a will acting without any causal structure, is incomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself.

en.wikipedia.org...

All Kant does is say that free will is not autonomous because it must have laws. He then describes reason as autonomously generating the law itself to form it and with will acting it creates the code by which our decisions are made, and that that act makes them universal laws. GW, you seem like a good kid, read these philosophies carefully. Whilst they may support a belief you have relating to religion or GOD, they are similar if not the same. Here we have Kant saying that we are a law unto ourselves because we simply and autonomously did so. He just says that reason is responsible and that to achieve this, these universal moral laws were reached by a reason autonomous from ALL external influences as well as internal influences inspired by external events.
How is that deterministic. Its not, that is why he attributes Humans as being "special". How convenient. Where there is no evidence, it is special, where there is no cause, it is autonomously generated! WTF.

Your application of Kants philosophy as an argument against Badmedia is Flawed.
Badmedia's program makes decision based on the rationale of the programmer, Badmedia sees the future outcome of the rational decisions made by the programme as expected, as this is the intent of the rationale of the program. This shows that it is true. The system works. The rationale is sound, the decision making then become the universal law. The philosophy you quote to support your argument does not come even close to this outcome. As it is evident that reasoning alone in choice and decision making does not provide the outcome of that to match the reasoning and so it is flawed, not only the reasoning, but the system that describes it and its laws and rules. Failed.








[edit on 25-2-2009 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by badmedia

 

Only if reality is linear.

Why would it not be? How could it not be? Everything we understand about reality we can understand because it follows causality, like a game of quantum billiards. A causes b which causes c.

But there is a big flaw in your assumptions above. In aspects of quantum events, informtion on cause and location can be lossed.
In quantum possibilities the observer effects the outcome by observing, say a particle, we observe it and so we learn its location without truely knowing from what potential direction it came from. Cause is lost. By firing particles in a direction and observing the potential outcomes(quantum tunneling) we lose information of on the nature of the particle in its location. Incredible. We don't know how everything in our nature actually became matter. We only have an Idea. CERN needs the LHC to prove it. Higgs anyone. We don't know what causes energy to be matter.
We don't. If we know that causality is the rule, something had to cause all the rules and laws to be in place, that fabricated the intent of the laws, the rules, the parameters that are set to define the nature of the universe, non of which evolve, change or grow more complex. What Cause did provide energy to this system of laws and rules and parameters that have governed and guided the evolution of the material aspects of our reality that are really just that energy.

Being living individuals we are complex interwoven microcosm of biological systems. One that evolved from infinitely smaller and simpler microcosms. Change and complexity is driven by errors, caused by detrimental circumstances.

Yes and know. Complexity is not driven by error. In fact we have an inbuilt systym that repairs error in our DNA for example. Look at redundancy in language, its the same for DNA. But you leave out the incredibly complex set of laws and rules, the fine parameters that had to be in place that have not evolved, that needed to exist in the first place for all the evolution we see, biological, chemical, cosmic, planetary and stellar, as well as abiogenesis.
Amazing isn't it. If every thing else evolved, how come the laws of nature and the universe are constant. Why are all the parameters that are necessary for lif to exist constant. These laws, rules and parameters could not be inspired by Error, other wise we would not be here.

All that we think, all our emotions and urges and drives are reactions of our circumstance and internal factors like predispositions. We have a meal because we are hungry, we were hungry because our systems were empty, our systems were empty because it had been some time since we ate. Etc. It goes on forever. Those moments when someone says something that reminds us that we need to call a specific person and a specific time and we do because we react to an experience where we were reminded.

This is casual causality.

Even if we did have free will and we could make free acts not based on external or internal ques, where would you draw the line? Chimps seem fairly self aware, would they have freewill? Elephants fear death, do they have it? Rats have small brains but they can work out a maze, do they have some freewill? Insects? Plants? At what point would we become more than the sum of a collection of autonomous linear systems and inherit an ability that violates causality?

When you believe in God. Really.
You don't. So your belief relegates you to a collection of autonomous systems detrmined by the material it is and the long progrssion of cause,reaction, cause reaction etc etc you believe has resulted in your present state, sitting here reading this.
Kant gets around this by saying we are "special", he draws the line there. So does religion by saying we are gods design. Special. LOL.
Causality is outdated amongst quantum physics and philosophers like Russell.

The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm. (Russell, 1913, p. 1).

On the Notion of Cause.

reply to post by ALLis0NE
I'm done with you. At first it was fun to expose your ignorance, now it just grows tedious. I could start my own thread just to highlight your arrogance, hypocrisy, contradictions, and absurd logic. I even attempted to extend an olive branch to you to end this debate in a somewhat amicable way, and you are still lunging at my jugular, unfortunately you're getting nothing but air. You are just another militant ideologist, no different than an Atheist or Bible Thumper.

Like I said it was amusing for a while, now I'm bored with it. I really don't have the patience the explain how you are so far up your own arse on the simplest concepts. Save your self-congratulating response because it will not be responded to by me.

Originally posted by badmedia
When you ask for proof, then you are asking for someone to prove something to you. Even if you ask god for proof, you are still asking god to prove it to you. You can say whatever you want, but I know the truth because I don't look at your claims.

Actually, asking for proof in regards to Christianity isn't literally asking for proof.
It's making a point. That point being that there is no proof.

Originally posted by badmedia
And yet, I am smart enough to realize that it was my consciousness that designed and created that logic. The AI is unable to create logic on it's own, because it has NO understanding of anything. It has no idea what is going on. It is completely unaware. It works in the same manner as your car. Sure, it adjusts. This is the difference between creator - that which creates logic, and creation - that which follows the logic.

We have a much more intricate and complicated system then your program.
You think the ability to observe and understand somehow magically gives you the ability to make a choice which is independent of everything that's effected you thus far?

Make two separate programs.
One will imitate the subconscious mind, the other conscious.
The subconscious will constantly be thinking of something...
Of course nothing is truly random, so such a system would draw from the external world and the experiences around it - just as we do.
Now, the conscious program will be able to look at the first layer of 'thought' from the subconscious program, but nothing deeper than that unless in a state of sleep or meditation (the less you use of one side of your brain, the more the other side will become apparent).
The conscious program will perceive the external world and weigh outcomes (just as we do).
Here's the twist - the conscious programs will have numerous other variables that decide the ultimate choices which are made. These variables will include ego (the ability to choose something you know is wrong for the purpose of appearing right or 'good'), comfortability level (based on temperature, internal problems, external problems, etc), stress (cpu processing %), past experiences, short memory (lessons, feelings, or anything else in the short memory), etc.
It will also sometimes make choices based on the subconscious program or "gut feeling". Sometimes the subconscious program will know something but will not be able to communicate it to the conscious program in anything other than a gut feeling or signal.


If this system was made, it would still be nothing compared to the intricacy of the human brain. However, it would work very much like our brain does - giving the illusion of free-will.

Originally posted by badmedia
Consciousness creates logic. Logic can not create consciousness. Deal with it. Ignore this, hide from it or do whatever you want.

lol... this is your opinion.
First you have to understand what consciousness truly is.
At that point, you'll understand that consciousness can be created.

Originally posted by badmedia
Does AI create itself? No, so if you truly believed you were like AI, then you are admitting you have a creator.

"create itself"?
What?
You can't compare evolution to something which DOES have a creator, and then say - see, something which has a creator has a creator, and you say you're like it so you must therefor have a creator!
My 'creator' is evolution.
Of course I didn't create myself. But I highly doubt that an invisible being did either...

Originally posted by badmedia
If you acted like AI, then you have a creator.

You sure love assumptions don't you?

Originally posted by badmedia
Understanding is a function of consciousness. Programs and things that follow logic have no understanding.

Because they were not made through evolution to understand certain situations in order to survive .
They do not have two hemispheres of their mind.
They are not nearly as intricate.
You continue to use a logical fallacy.
What will you say when AI DOES possess consciousness?
What will you say when they begin acting just as humans do?

Originally posted by badmedia
Rather than making a bunch of claims about things you have no idea about on some forums, how about you go do some research on this stuff? Because you just stepped into the wrong person about this stuff. I actually know and understand this stuff.

You understand programs, but you haven't the slightest understanding of the human brain.
You have no idea how our actions are formed.
You think that we can make choices which are completely independent of the universe - ask anyone who knows anything about the brain and you will be laughed at.
You think we can just pull a thought out of thin air - those who have the slightest understanding of how the brain works would again laugh at this.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Tell me if you believe this is possible or not;

One day, a huge hurricane plows right through a junk yard. After the dust settled, a huge working jet aircraft is sitting right there. Some how, the hurricane had created this aircraft out of all the junk, with all systems intact. The flight controls, navigation controls, all the software needed to run all those electronic systems... everything working perfectly!

You think that is possible?

Abiogenesis does not have that flaw, because abiogenesis has trillions of chances to occur - so saying "the odds of abiogenesis is one in a trillion" is actually acceptable, as it only had to occur once.
After that, evolution takes control.
When talking about evolution, chance is irrelevant as it works on cause/reaction over millions of years.
So talking about the chances of evolution would be similar to talking about the chances of a diamond forming from coal...
Each second that coal exists, the probability of it magically turning into a diamond is next to impossible.
But given the right circumstances and enough time, it will happen.

However, by believing in God, you must believe that a being which is infinitely more complex than us simply exists with no prior cause...
So what would be the odds of that?

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Actually, asking for proof in regards to Christianity isn't literally asking for proof.
It's making a point. That point being that there is no proof.

No proof within your realm of perception, no proof in a way that someone can prove it to another. This goes to show you look to other men for what is true, and that you only trust other men, other people. Such is shortsighted, such is to say anything beyond my realm of perception is false. It is also to say anything beyond my realm of perception and experiences is not possible for other peoples as well, and if it was they would be able to prove it.

Originally posted by badmedia
We have a much more intricate and complicated system then your program.
You think the ability to observe and understand somehow magically gives you the ability to make a choice which is independent of everything that's effected you thus far?

Such is to confuse the program with the computer. The computer is pretty dang complicated. And that is needed to run the programs on to begin with. The program itself is only the function of the logic the "mind" of the computer follows.

Make two separate programs.
One will imitate the subconscious mind, the other conscious.
The subconscious will constantly be thinking of something...

thinking of something? Thinking of what? How do you program it to think? Does this mean you just keep running random patterns of data into some variable, then dump the variable for some new pattern after it? And do I have it find the next pattern based on a search of the current pattern, or do I have it just find some other random bit of data?

You use words like think and such without realizing what they really mean. Having it think is the entire problem to begin with. It's not thinking in the above, it's just running the patterns I gave to it.

For it to "think" is the entire problem to being with. You can't make it think. To make it think is the goal, and yet you are throwing it in like it's just some known equation. You just simply do not realize what you are talking about here.

Look, the problem is not making a program which appears to be conscious. The problem is not making something that appears to be intelligent. None of these things are the problem. This can all be done. A program can be written that can drive your car with the proper senses. It can read the road, see the lines, adjust for things and so on. But it is all just following the logic given to it. It is unable to create it's own logic.

That is the reason it is called artificial intelligence. Because it is not real or actual intelligence. It's intelligence 1 person has created and put into a program as laws. Then it is only following out those laws. It is unaware, it is not conscious, it does not think. It is no different than a complicated machine.

Look, I have no problems putting the logic I come up with into laws and equations to get results. The problem is trying to create something which can create it's own logic. That is what can not be done. I even write programs that write their own programs. I write programs that update the programs they have created. I do all these things, it's not hard. But I have to write the original program containing the logic from the one it creates. I just use variables where the changes are needed.

These forums do this. The page you see before you is printed out in html. It's 1 language. But html doesn't make these forums work. It takes another language to do all that. PHP. So, the PHP program that makes these forums actually generates HTML which are in another language. And it does it over and over again. Only the variables in each page change.

You don't see to get or understand the actual problem. You don't seem to understand why being able to do such things as understand and create logic is special. But it is.

lol... this is your opinion.
First you have to understand what consciousness truly is.
At that point, you'll understand that consciousness can be created.

No, you need to understand what these things are. As you have demonstrated already, you do not. And look, science doesn't even have a real definition or agree with what consciousness is. Creating things which appear to be aware is one thing. Creating something that is aware that is aware is another.

"create itself"?
What?
You can't compare evolution to something which DOES have a creator, and then say - see, something which has a creator has a creator, and you say you're like it so you must therefor have a creator!
My 'creator' is evolution.
Of course I didn't create myself. But I highly doubt that an invisible being did either...

Actually, yes I can. Because my programs evolve. In fact, what I see in life is exactly what I see in my programs. EXACTLY. I even carry junk code(DNA) among my programs from libraries I create. DNA is just programming code, or a .config file to be more exact. Which operates based on a library of life in another "dimension", think of it like a .dll file in another folder of a pc file system. When I mentioned AI before, and how I decided to try and work on it. Evolution and these things I came to understand. I could probably write a book about this, as that is about how much it would take to explain the things I did and came to understand in my search for creating intelligence - not artificial intelligence, I wanted to create actual intelligence.

I of course came to the startling conclusion that for it to be actually intelligent, I would have to put my consciousness into it. At which point, I realized I would be doing what had already been done.

Originally posted by badmedia
You sure love assumptions don't you?

You imply as much, realize it or not.

Because they were not made through evolution to understand certain situations in order to survive

.
They do not have two hemispheres of their mind.
They are not nearly as intricate.
You continue to use a logical fallacy.
What will you say when AI DOES possess consciousness?
What will you say when they begin acting just as humans do?

If AI became conscious, it would be an act of god. No doubt about that. I would ask for the logic that created it, and of course there would be none. The more likely scenario is that they would figure out how to take your consciousness and put it into such a thing. And that is actually what they are working to do these days, because anyone who has worked on AI in the way I have comes to the same conclusions I do. These things I mention are unavoidable.

You assume that one day their will be, which is silly on your part. You are basing all your opinions on this based on what you believe will be, not what actually is. You assume that I am just not smart enough to get beyond it, but you believe one day someone will. But I know, you will either see programs so complex they appear to be conscious, but aren't(soul-less beings). Or you will see people putting their own consciousness into the machines. Of course, if they do that with a brain then it's for nothing as the brain will just be a bottleneck, so I don't know how they expect to do it.

Originally posted by badmedia
You understand programs, but you haven't the slightest understanding of the human brain.
You have no idea how our actions are formed.
You think that we can make choices which are completely independent of the universe - ask anyone who knows anything about the brain and you will be laughed at.
You think we can just pull a thought out of thin air - those who have the slightest understanding of how the brain works would again laugh at this.

And the funny thing is, I pretty much mapped out the functions of the brain when trying to create AI. Found reasons for parts of the brain in everything I did. Again, I realized I was recreating that which is already created. I realized that in the end, I would have to put my consciousness into the AI/Brain before it would be real and intelligent. I realize that my consciousness could expand in ways not limited by the laws of physics here and so forth.

But in the end, I realized what I thought of doing already exists. It is the reality NOW. I've already put my consciousness into it. I'm already in a computer/creation where all things are possible. This is what I call the father and son relationship.

If you have all possiblities, at some point you will start trying out logic and laws to follow that take away the free will. Just like a poker game where you follow the logic and laws for the experience.




[edit on 25-2-2009 by badmedia]

Here, I'll give you a little taste on trying to create intelligence. Just ponder a bit on it.

How does the program decide what is true and what is not false. What is the logic behind doing that. Do we put weight into the value of sources? Do we put weight into that which can only be proven as true? Do we rate experiences(and how do we rate their value?). And so forth.

If a falsehood gets accepted as truth, how is purged away?

And in doing so, I came to understand the need for parents, the need for mulitples lives/sources of intelligence. I came to realize the need for death to purge away falsehoods overtime. I came to realize that in order for variety of things, so that all these individual intelligences didn't repeat the same thing, I needed to give them characterisitics. I can do this at the birth of a new intelligence. I can define certain variables based off the parents, and a few random configurations(DNA) to give them a uniqueness about them.

Oh it was gonig to be great. No limitiations, they would be free to try out other realities, other laws of physics, and so forth. Completely unlimited in what it could do.

The further I got, the more I realized it was just like nature now. It was already what we have now. This reality was just the trying out of many possibilities. But in the end, I would have to actually put my consciousness into the program before it became "real". It still lacked a consciousness. There was no observer. And it also lacked many other things as well, like choice, trying to come with logics to do these things and so forth which is what the consciousness was needed for. It really made me examine my own reality ALOT.

Such is already done, and again if I had entered my consciousness into such a creation I would be merely repeating that which is already done. And the funny thing is, if I was successful in creating it, I would have been god to those, I would have been the father, and I would have also been the son and all consciousness. Of course, this would not exactly be true, as there is a father that is greater than I am. And in the end, there is only 1 father.

So really, you can talk about such things all you want, you can theorize and imagine possibilities and so forth. But until you actually try to do it, then you don't know.

Sometimes I sit and wonder how many times it's been done. I choose not to, but in a universe where anything is possible, who knows how many layers deep we are in. Who knows which reality we are currently experiencing and what is to come.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
My logic: If I am 'judged' and sent to Hell, then the only real difference between me and a believer (as I consider myself a person with morals) is that I require evidence for my beliefs.
Am I really worthy of being tortured for eternity just because I have a higher standard for beliefs than you? That's essentially what it comes down to.
Seriously... think about it.

Actually, it doesn't matter if you consider yourself an individual with morals or not. There are a lot of people in the world with moral standards, who do good, and contribute to the betterment of people, as well as society.

Hell is probably filled with many good people, who held to a moral standard of life, yet due to self-pride, refused to believe, or, lower themselves to the requirement of faith, simply because, as you have said, they required evidence to believe.

reply to post by Gigatronix


You can't even answer simple questions like;

Are you a part of the universe?

Do you have consciousness?

..because you know what ever answer you give is going to highlight the flaw in all of your non-existent logic. The reason you attacked me just now, is because I talked you into a corner, and you don't understand how to get out with words.

I am debating about the Supreme Being... GOD.. Just like this thread was designed. It says nothing about Christian God only, it says nothing about Islamic God only, or all the God's from each religion.... I'm proving the GOD from the dictionary, which is the basis of almost all religions.

God
  –noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

No matter what, you will never ever be able to prove that all life is a big accident, because it isn't.

Originally posted by jdposey
Actually, it doesn't matter if you consider yourself an individual with morals or not. There are a lot of people in the world with moral standards, who do good, and contribute to the betterment of people, as well as society.

Hell is probably filled with many good people, who held to a moral standard of life, yet due to self-pride, refused to believe, or, lower themselves to the requirement of faith, simply because, as you have said, they required evidence to believe.

Disagree. The least one can do is to believe for the very works sake. And this is not hard. All you have to do is understand and believe that the way Jesus lived is the correct way to live. And then you of course must follow and walk that path. Many can do this, and you don't need the bible or religion to tell you this, nor does it generally.

John 14:11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions because of hypocrisy. People believe they are being good and doing the morale thing, but they fail to see their own hypocrisy in their actions. For example, take the Iraq war. some people believe they are doing the morale and right thing by going to such a war. But in reality, their actions and path while paved with good intentions is a path of death and destruction. And so they walk a path that was not the correct path.

Thus, matthew 7

www.biblegateway.com...

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Whole chapter is good of course, but going to focus on this. See, these people have good intentions and believe they are doing morale things, but in reality they are working in sin, and they will be denied.

This chapter starts out talking about not judging people, and then talks about hypocrites just as I did.

He will be judged based on what he judges others on, and based on the actions/path he takes.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by badmedia
No proof within your realm of perception, no proof in a way that someone can prove it to another. This goes to show you look to other men for what is true, and that you only trust other men, other people.

Nope, not at all.
There is no proof, period.
I've been down that road.
The only 'proof' is a feeling or personal experience.
Such a thing is flawed because it can not be verified.
You claim to have had a vision? Great. I'll find you a thousand people who say the same but each with different end results.

If a thousand people have NDEs and they each report completely different 'truths', then what does that tell me?
Either 1 of them is right or they are all wrong.

No one can find 'their own truth' and claim it as fact...
If I went searching for my own truth as you did, I'm sure I would find it, but it would be a different result.
That's not what I want. I don't want my truth, I want the truth.
I don't want to claim to know things through visions or through an internal source, because it's just as flawed as every other crack-pot 'personal experience' you've heard out there.

Originally posted by badmedia
Such is shortsighted, such is to say anything beyond my realm of perception is false.

But that is what you are doing, not me!
You're own experience you take as fact.
You ignore other possibilities which are outside of your perception.

Originally posted by badmedia
thinking of something? Thinking of what? How do you program it to think?

By 'thinking' I mean what is currently being processed.

Originally posted by badmedia
You use words like think and such without realizing what they really mean. Having it think is the entire problem to begin with. It's not thinking in the above, it's just running the patterns I gave to it.

We think based on external sources.
A cpu could be programmed to do the same - perceive reality and piece it together in different ways.

Originally posted by badmedia
For it to "think" is the entire problem to being with. You can't make it think. To make it think is the goal, and yet you are throwing it in like it's just some known equation. You just simply do not realize what you are talking about here.

No, lol... The problem is that you don't understand where our thoughts come from.
This is not some mystical occurance.
Our thoughts have a source.
If you start thinking "I'm hungry", where did that thought come from?
It didn't just pop out of thin air as you seem to think...
The source is external. Your stomach is empty and so a signal is sent from the brain which says you are hungry.
That is what is currently being processed by your cpu, therefor that is what you think about.
A similar system could be programed into a computer.

A computer can not create a completely random or independent number.
Humans also can not create a completely random or independent number.

There is always a factor that plays a role in our thoughts.
You have to understand that.
Once you do, then you will know that those invisible equations and patterns inside our brain can be duplicated in a computer.

Originally posted by badmedia
But it is all just following the logic given to it. It is unable to create it's own logic.

The 'logic' is simply the equations being played out in your head right now.

Originally posted by badmedia
You assume that one day their will be, which is silly on your part. You are basing all your opinions on this based on what you believe will be, not what actually is.

It all comes down to this:
Do our thoughts and actions have sources?
Could they be predicted by a 'higher' being who had enough knowledge of the variables that play a role in our decisions?

I say yes to both questions, because nothing comes from thin air.
Because nothing comes from thin air, those sources must be predictable through cause/reaction.

Cause/reaction IS our universe.
It's just how things work...

We have a reaction (our thoughts and actions), so there MUST be a cause.
That cause can be taken apart and recreated.
Recreate the cause, and you WILL recreate the reaction.

reply to post by jdposey


That says it all...
The main reason I left the 'faith'.


reply to post by badmedia



Just curios... What do you believe Hell is?
I'm guessing from your previous posts that you don't buy into the fire and pitchforks...

[edit on 25-2-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Just curios... What do you believe Hell is?
I'm guessing from your previous posts that you don't buy into the fire and pitchforks...

T.P.

You show your ignorance of the scriptures every time you reply.... did you even read ANY scripture?

Fire and pitchforks? You have been watching to much T.V., to many cartoons, your imagination is taking over your logic.

This may help you a bit...

www.bible.org...

When you read the above link, think about it all as an analogy.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by TruthParadox


You have no idea what you are talking about. The things I found everyone finds.


en.wikipedia.org...

The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[10] General intelligence (or "strong AI") is still a long term goal of (some) research.[11]

I've given you the truth, and you've gotten it from someone who works in the field and has dealt with the problems. 1 of us is actually educated in this subject.

So really, I'm not going to sit around and debate it any longer. You can take or leave what I have told and given to you, your choice.

reply to post by badmedia


So you don't believe those things will ever be solved?
Seriously?

Look, I don't know exactly how the human brain works or exactly how to program AI (we're still learning many things about the brain).
But, I do know that our universe works on cause/reaction.

You believe that intelligence can never be duplicated.
That means that you believe that we have reactions which do NOT have a cause.
Seriously man, think about that...

Everything we do has a source.
And because it has a source, that source can be duplicated.

If you seriously want to argue against that, then tell me how a person can form a thought which is independent of the Universe.

You can't.
Thoughts don't come out of thin air... they just don't.
There is an equation behind it all - no matter how strong the illusion appears.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Just curios... What do you believe Hell is?
I'm guessing from your previous posts that you don't buy into the fire and pitchforks...

T.P.

You show your ignorance of the scriptures every time you reply.... did you even read ANY scripture?

In what way did I show ignorance of scripture?
I'm portraying a commonly held belief in Christianity.
The truth is, the Bible never talks about Hell in detail, and much of what is translated into 'Hell' is actually a word meaning "grave" or "final resting place".

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Fire and pitchforks? You have been watching to much T.V., to many cartoons, your imagination is taking over your logic.

No, more like I've seen too many Christians who think sinners will literally burn in a lake of fire.

I'm arguing against beliefs, not 'fact' from a book of fiction.