Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[Silmarien]

You didn't even see that the question is a self contradiction, you instead treated it like a coherent post, 'It would exist' you even said. How could a program Be Programmed to self report? It wouldn't be self reporting than lol.

I think an android could be programmed to self-report. In the video at the top of the last page, Sophia is doing a lot of self-reporting, even talking about feeling curiosity, about concepts that she wants to understand, and so forth and so on.

I'm pretty sure we haven't hit Bladerunner territory yet (if such a thing is even possible), but if an android can say that it's curious, it could be made to say it's conscious too. Do we really think Sophia is genuinely curious because she says so? I don't.

 

[Dirk1540]

I think an android could be programmed to self-report. In the video at the top of the last page, Sophia is doing a lot of self-reporting, even talking about feeling curiosity, about concepts that she wants to understand, and so forth and so on.

I'm pretty sure we haven't hit Bladerunner territory yet (if such a thing is even possible), but if an android can say that it's curious, it could be made to say it's conscious too. Do we really think Sophia is genuinely curious because she says so? I don't.

She was programmed with a ton of If/Else statements.

IF Larry asks me a question about my thoughts and a combination of the words 'X, Y, and Z' are used I will respond this way "..."

ELSE i will drop down to 2nd level of programmed If/Else code...

IF my bazillion lines of speech recognition code that senses different mechanical vibrations gets a match for speech patterns of sadness, combined with the presence of the words 'J, B, or L, but not the words A or C...i will say this "..."

ELSE if condition is met WITH the inclusion of the word A or C or both i will say this "..."
ELSE (programmed 'Randomness') if this is the 3rd, 4th, or 5th time this has been asked of me within 5 hours I will answer by saying this "..."
ELSE if it has been over 5 hours (more randomness code) I will alternate between 27 slightly different replies based on a computational algorithm that switches every 3rd time the algorithm is used...

And on & on & on...combination after combination of code trying to mimic a real random personality. Imagine encoding 100 billion If/Else statements trying to mimic personality. Let's program 10 million 'Out of character curveball' quirks to the A.I.'s 'Personality' as well!

An electronics technician deals in the realm of THIS WILL HAPPEN GIVEN THIS, period. A semiconductor taking too much heat and causing intermittent problems of non-conductiveness might puzzle an electronics tech. Tiny specs of corrosion on tiny contact points might cause issues that puzzle a tech. Electronic components rebelling against physics hasn't happened yet.

 

[Silmarien]

She was programmed with a ton of If/Else statements.

Is the confusion over the term "self-reporting"? I just mean that she's verbally conveying information, the same way any of us would. I don't mean that she's independently coming up with it, though I'm not sure how much more complicated the situation becomes once Deep Learning gets factored in.

 

[Dirk1540]

Is the confusion over the term "self-reporting"? I just mean that she's verbally conveying information, the same way any of us would. I don't mean that she's independently coming up with it, though I'm not sure how much more complicated the situation becomes once Deep Learning gets factored in.

Wow I called the robot She, stop, now you got me doing it lol. What do you mean by deep learning? In a nutshell, a 4 position switch with auto run functionality for the mechanical operation of your central air conditioner at home, is no more conscious than 100,000 trillion switches with way more elaborate auto run functions that's connected to robotic mechanical operations, that's named Sophia.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is the confusion over the term "self-reporting"? I just mean that she's verbally conveying information, the same way any of us would. I don't mean that she's independently coming up with it, though I'm not sure how much more complicated the situation becomes once Deep Learning gets factored in.

Of course, we could take the argument and turn it on its head in Darwinian style and insinuate that we might wonder, despite all of our existential, spiritual and unexplainable notions of metaphysics, of causation and effect, and of thought and process, if we each are simply a collection of cells that together think they are "something." Hence, we might be tempted to say the robot is nothing but a collection of circuits that senses and reacts to an environment; we ourselves are nothing but individuated collections of bio-mass that also sense and react to an environment. "No, No...turn the Nihilism Machine off! Somebody please, turn it off!"

 

[Silmarien]

Wow I called the robot She, stop, now you got me doing it lol. What do you mean by deep learning? In a nutshell, a 4 position switch with auto run functionality for the mechanical operation of your central air conditioner at home, is no more conscious than 100,000 trillion switches with way more elaborate auto run functions that's connected to robotic mechanical operations, that's named Sophia.

Deep learning appears to be the future of AI: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ai-revolution-science

The wonderful part is that nobody really understands how it works.

Of course, we could take the argument and turn it on its head in Darwinian style and insinuate that we might wonder, despite all of our existential, spiritual and unexplainable notions of metaphysics, of causation and effect, and of thought and process, if we each are simply a collection of cells that together think they are "something." Hence, we might be tempted to say the robot is nothing but a collection of circuits that senses and reacts to an environment; we ourselves are nothing but individuated collections of bio-mass that also sense and react to an environment. "No, No...turn the Nihilism Machine off! Somebody please, turn it off!"

Well, my whole problem with materialism is that you can't have a collection of cells that thinks it's something, or at least that isn't an answer to anything, since thinking presupposes consciousness, whether it's us doing it or the cells. I'm fine with versions of emergentism, but even there, people keep on evading the question of how objective existence suddenly produces subjective experience. Attempts to call it an illusion are just confused, since the possibility of illusions presupposes consciousness as well.

It's really ex nihilo nihil fit all over again.

 

[Dirk1540]

Of course, we could take the argument and turn it on its head in Darwinian style and insinuate that we might wonder, despite all of our existential, spiritual and unexplainable notions of metaphysics, of causation and effect, and of thought and process, if we each are simply a collection of cells that together think they are "something." Hence, we might be tempted to say the robot is nothing but a collection of circuits that senses and reacts to an environment; we ourselves are nothing but individuated collections of bio-mass that also sense and react to an environment. "No, No...turn the Nihilism Machine off! Somebody please, turn it off!"

This is why in the beginning of post 194 I pointed out that in the end rational judgment calls of 'Logic' really boils down to what we can call logical from our vantage point of observation, and that we humans literally live our entire lives inside of consciousness, we have feelings, experience physical pain, mood swings, etc. And from our vantage points we see that manipulation of electrical current is nothing like this thing called consciousness. The problem is the destruction of basement level axioms. I worked with a guy once, if anyone argued the meaning of life he would say "Who's to say we're alive??" How do I carry on with him? If we can't agree that we're alive is there anything solid for us to both stand on?

The problem is the atheist forgetting where they started from. They usually start from the position of "I am going to use logical reasoning to expose your ridiculous theories." Logical reasoning from the vantage point of being a thinking human being. All the sudden...if they are arguing that human consciousness is an illusion, or that their computer is conscious, I can't help but to just bow out because what on Earth are our common ground of axioms then? Like I said every human lives their entire life inside of consciousness.

They are switching mid argument into the position of arguing the irrational in order to expose our rationality! It's like if an atheist says their whole life "I will never believe in miracles unless I see one with my own 2 eyes!" One day it actually happens, they experience something undeniable. But their reaction is "Timeout! What exactly are eyes??" "Who's to say that 'Seeing something' is to actually see something at all?" "Maybe my mind just made me think I saw something!" They are free to do that but they totally abandoned their starting point. From the observational vantage point of being a human they just bailed out on arguing for the rational, and replaced it with arguing for the irrational.

 

[Dirk1540]

Deep learning appears to be the future of AI: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ai-revolution-science

The wonderful part is that nobody really understands how it works.

Ok I'll have to check it out. I'll have to see what they mean by 'Nobody understandins how it works.' If they mean that within the confines of predictability that would be a lot different than not understanding how something will react. We technically don't understand how magnetism works, or electricity. But we know how it acts. There are even people who theorize that it's not true that electricity is the electrons moving.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Deep learning appears to be the future of AI: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ai-revolution-science

The wonderful part is that nobody really understands how it works.



Well, my whole problem with materialism is that you can't have a collection of cells that thinks it's something, or at least that isn't an answer to anything, since thinking presupposes consciousness, whether it's us doing it or the cells. I'm fine with versions of emergentism, but even there, people keep on evading the question of how objective existence suddenly produces subjective experience. Attempts to call it an illusion are just confused, since the possibility of illusions presupposes consciousness as well.

It's really ex nihilo nihil fit all over again.

True, but the retort would be that one's consciousness 'is' the illusion, since both consciousness and the capacity to cogitate, even in illusory or delusional ways, are forms of thinking (or brain activity). Skeptics and other thoroughgoing Reductionists could just say that all thinking is one, big felt illusion due as brain activity of various kinds. ...right? Aren't we all just a bunch of Pinocchios running around, wishing we could be 'real'?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is why in the beginning of post 194 I pointed out that in the end rational judgment calls of 'Logic' really boils down to what we can call logical from our vantage point of observation, and that we humans literally live our entire lives inside of consciousness, we have feelings, experience physical pain, mood swings, etc. And from our vantage points we see that manipulation of electrical current is nothing like this thing called consciousness. The problem is the destruction of basement level axioms. I worked with a guy once, if anyone argued the meaning of life he would say "Who's to say we're alive??" How do I carry on with him? If we can't agree that we're alive is there anything solid for us to both stand on?

The problem is the atheist forgetting where they started from. They usually start from the position of "I am going to use logical reasoning to expose your ridiculous theories." Logical reasoning from the vantage point of being a thinking human being. All the sudden...if they are arguing that human consciousness is an illusion, or that their computer is conscious, I can't help but to just bow out because what on Earth are our common ground of axioms then? Like I said every human lives their entire life inside of consciousness.

They are switching mid argument into the position of arguing the irrational in order to expose our rationality! It's like if an atheist says their whole life "I will never believe in miracles unless I see one with my own 2 eyes!" One day it actually happens, they experience something undeniable. But their reaction is "Timeout! What exactly are eyes??" "Who's to say that 'Seeing something' is to actually see something at all?" "Maybe my mind just made me think I saw something!" They are free to do that but they totally abandoned their starting point. From the observational vantage point of being a human they just bailed out on arguing for the rational, and replaced it with arguing for the irrational.

Basement? There's something in the basement?

 

[Silmarien]

True, but the retort would be that one's consciousness 'is' the illusion, since both consciousness and the capacity to cogitate, even in illusory or delusional ways, are forms of thinking (or brain activity). Skeptics and other thoroughgoing Reductionists could just say that all thinking is one, big felt illusion due as brain activity of various kinds. ...right? Aren't we all just a bunch of Pinocchios running around, wishing we could be 'real'?

I don't think it works even in principle. You need to get from objectively existing chemical reactions to subjectivity before you can try to handwave consciousness away as an illusion, so you're lost before you've even begun. (Lost your mind, most likely, but I shouldn't speak, being a fan of the sort of Vedic philosophy that takes the opposite approach and wishes away the material world instead. But at least there, we're not denying the only thing we have access to at all.)

I don't really think reductionists deserve to be called skeptics, though. John Searle is a skeptic. Thomas Nagel is a skeptic. Reductionists are dogmatists of the worst kind, since their reasoning seems to amount to, "It has to work that way to fit in with our metaphysical commitments." Heaven forbid our geocentric model of the universe isn't correct.

 

[Dirk1540]

Deep learning appears to be the future of AI: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ai-revolution-science

The wonderful part is that nobody really understands how it works.

It's interesting that it says the main reasoning for these deep learning programs is to handle amounts of information that are so large that humans can not sort it all into coherent results, just too much data. Lol petabytes! It's insane how much computing power there is now. If you program sample sizes of patterns that would yield both satisfactory and unsatisfactory results, and then have the program use the rules of those sample sizes to accept or reject previously unknown data that is in a way larger & greater sample size, is the Black Box of computational confusion expected? Since the original problem was that humans can't wrap their heads around the larger computations to begin with?

Sounds like it would take some intense training to get a better handle of what's going on under the hood. I remember many years ago reading that a computer may be able to beat the best chess players in the world, but it will never be able to beat the best poker players in the world! I think it can now. The human factor of switching gears in erratic ways in poker used to be too much for any computer. This is a fun Armageddon subject actually lol, imagine a spirit being fusing it's consciousness into an A.I. whose code simply became much too great to comprehend anymore.

Attempts to call it an illusion are just confused, since the possibility of illusions presupposes consciousness as well.

Lol good point

 

[ToddNotTodd]

They are switching mid argument into the position of arguing the irrational in order to expose our rationality! It's like if an atheist says their whole life "I will never believe in miracles unless I see one with my own 2 eyes!" One day it actually happens, they experience something undeniable.

Almost everything is deniable... And almost everything is undeniable if you're gullible enough...

So what again constitutes a miracle?

But their reaction is "Timeout! What exactly are eyes??" "Who's to say that 'Seeing something' is to actually see something at all?" "Maybe my mind just made me think I saw something!"

Minds make people think they see things every day. For example, it seems as though I'm seeing a straw man...

 

[Dirk1540]

Minds make people think they see things every day. For example, it seems as though I'm seeing a straw man...

I was saying IF an atheist were to do this then they would be guilty of switching into arguing the irrational. Funny thing is that I almost mentioned you in a post tonight, I felt this conversation spiraling into that deep level of over philosophizing that you warned me about, how going TOO deep can destroy logical argumentation altogether. I don't think I have it in me to go too deep because I was getting the knee jerk reaction that we were too far out into left field.

Or did I mention you? I forget, I'm getting old lol

 

[KCfromNC]

An android gives the appearance of being conscious, therefore it must be conscious.

What would you conclude if a human did the same thing?

If you're insistent upon equating appearance with reality, you have no rational basis for rejecting design based arguments for the existence of God.

Except for the pesky fact that living things don't appear to be designed by an intelligence.

 

[KCfromNC]

You didn't even see that the question is a self contradiction, you instead treated it like a coherent post, 'It would exist' you even said. How could a computer Be Programmed to self report? It wouldn't be self reporting than lol.

Sure it would. What else would be doing the reporting?

Do you think that the 2 electrical switches that manipulate the electrical current that goes to your living room light is consciousness? Do you think that the trillions of microswitches manipulating current inside of your Android is consciousness? If you answer no to the 1st question and yes to the 2nd, then how many switches of electrical current manipulation do we have to reach before we have consciousness?

Depends on how you plan to define and measure consciousness. But in any case, we typically don't do it by extracting and weighing the brain of people who claim to be self aware so I'm not sure your line of investigation is a practical one.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do we really think Sophia is genuinely curious because she says so?

Looks like you're defining "genuinely curious" as something which machines can't do and then pretending that the "fact" that machines can't be genuinely curious means anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

Deep learning appears to be the future of AI: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ai-revolution-science

The wonderful part is that nobody really understands how it works.

That's overstating it a bit. There's always a conflict in computer science between the "if you can't provide a deductive proof on paper it never happened" side and the "hey we know which knobs to turn to get it to do different things" side. Deep learning tends towards the latter even though there's bits and pieces of the former. But saying nobody really understands it is kinda like saying no one knows how loading a web page works because you can't prove that the program will halt using pure math. Maybe true, but also somewhat irrelevant to real-world implementations.

Well, my whole problem with materialism is that you can't have a collection of cells that thinks it's something

Sure you can. We call them brains.

 

[KCfromNC]

what on Earth are our common ground of axioms then?

Most people believe lots of things about reality - the earth exists, we need oxygen and water to live, playing in traffic is bad, etc. Perhaps look at the axioms and processes which lead to these shared beliefs (i.e. induction/abduction from evidence) and compare it to the axioms and processes that lead to religious beliefs (i.e. being born in a certain place and time, requiring faith, and so on).

 

[Petros2015]

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

Interesting. I guess it depends on what the definition on Deity is. I don't feel the need to assert that countless other deities (lower case) do not exist. I think though that there is only one who has the right to the upper case D, only one which was self-creating, or pre-existed, was in no way created.

Even Zeus has his origin story. I don't particularly believe the origin. But there could be something which calls itself Zeus and has powers we might consider God-like, and considers itself a God, and would like to be worshipped as a God. I wouldn't feel obligated to refute the existence of 'Zeus' by Creed, only the worship of Zeus and the titling of Zeus as God or as Creator-God. From the below though, it sounds like the closest thing the Greeks have to the Christian God is actually what they called Nyx.

Interesting too that the first thing Nyx does is bring forth Love.

Creation Myths -- Greek Creation Myth

In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.