- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,634
- 52,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nah.There's a world of difference between "pushy" and raising millions of dollars to buy politicians who will legislate Christian beliefs.
Well lets face it, anyone with the where-with-all does it. It is legal. Is it immoral? I don't think so.There's a world of difference between "pushy" and raising millions of dollars to buy politicians who will legislate Christian beliefs.
They won't come after me like that anymore, but their attitude is always hostile.
To fair the followers of any countries majority religion would always like to have laws enacted to favor and encourage that religion. Most Christian nations are ones that believe in separation of state & church (& do a pretty good job most of the time) and most non-Christian nations do not.There's a world of difference between "pushy" and raising millions of dollars to buy politicians who will legislate Christian beliefs.
"Off the top of my head I’m thinking that if a computer was able to beat the greatest chess player in the world then surely it’s output is over the heads of any of the programmers. "I think that choice itself is just one of those non-empirical phenomena that is written into the fabric of reality, which is only available to certain entities of a certain complexity and above (I’m not trying to fall into a materialism debate, but materialism needs to be true to phrase certain questions the way that you are phrasing them). No matter how deep and well thought out a person’s rationale is for what reality is, we all will come to some sort of bottom foundation of “This is just how things are.” We recognize choices all over the place, and we are very good at being able to point it out when we see it, and we’re also great at being able to say when something is just mindless matter in motion, it’s intuitive for us unless we are skating in the middle somewhere between the two, something like an insect maybe. Perhaps this innate ability is why people are extra sensitive to the AI issue.
We are also very skilled with understanding empirical data and causal chains, it’s our gift, but I think that we lack a capacity for other kinds of understandings to reality, so we try to force feed everything into the model of materialistic cause & effect explanations because that is where our skills lie. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail lol.
It’s really a spectacular hammer that we have no doubt about that! But it’s still a hammer. We are not so skilled at describing things like what feelings are, but even worse such question are very difficult to even understand what a coherent answer would even look like. How can I point out “Feeling embarrassed” to you in a science lab? Pointing out the physical brain states that correlate to the experiential feeling of being embarrassed seems like it’s fundamentally off the mark in some critical way. It seems off just like it would seem a bit off to point to a person acting out being embarrassed, and then calling that the official explanation of feeling embarrassing. But we always wanna go there though, to a physical causal chain explanation, it’s like a dog wanting to bite everything instead of picking things up with its paws. I just don’t think we have the capacity to ontologically grasp certain concepts like qualia, yet they just happen to be the most real instances of real that we could ever know, nothing can ever be more real to you than your experiences.
I mostly see these mind body problems starting off with assuming this knowledge anyway, starting off with “Suppose that we reach the point of complete exhaustive knowledge of physical brain states...” If we had two exact cell for cell cloned twins, both telling us that they are experiencing the same exact brain states, states that many previous test subjects have identified to match up with the brain state of feeling embarrassed, the problem with knowing if they are telling the truth or not is that there’s no empirical way to verify if both clones are telling the truth, if one is telling the truth and the other is a qualia zombie, or if they are both qualia zombies. Now it IS an extremely good inference that they are both telling the truth, but it’s out of the hands of physical verification, you are limited to having to take their word for it.
Likewise it’s an extremely good inference that AI is a qualia zombie and emotionally dark inside. But scientifically I can’t prove you wrong (beyond the inference) if you keep insisting that it is feeling emotions, coming to free decisions, etc. Actually, if you could somehow prove to me that AI is alive (short of very complicated biological splicing with human tissue that might make sense in a structural way) I would consider it to be an extreme piece of evidence for the supernatural.
Every single task performed by a computer is complete gibberish and meaningless on a materialism model, and the input & output only means anything at all if a mind first assigns meaning to all of the symbols. Black electronic line segments on a calculator screen that transforms through the aesthetic process of “5” “+” “5” “=“ “10” has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. It only has meaning if logical minds have arbitrarily decided that “5” refers to the concept of 5, and “+” refers to the concept of addition, etc...combined with minds then setting up an algorithm designed to accurately make these symbols match up to our arbitrarily made up math language, and so on. The uselessness of a super computer would follow the same line of reasoning as well, absent a mind that meticulously programmed it, yet to a much more impressive degree than a calculator obviously.
I could be wrong but I thought that we already got there. Off the top of my head I’m thinking that if a computer was able to beat the greatest chess player in the world then surely it’s output is over the heads of any of the programmers. Maybe it’s a different story if we talk about having a team of people slowly unpacking everything that it did after the fact.
Stockfish"Off the top of my head I’m thinking that if a computer was able to beat the greatest chess player in the world then surely it’s output is over the heads of any of the programmers. "
If there was a nation where the bulk of its citizens regarded themselves as witches then there would probably be pressure to have laws that encouraged their beliefs, with a cauldron in every official govt building or some such thing etc
Frankly, I believe religious fundamentalists (of any faith) would be inclined to come after you should the laws ever change in their favor. In fact, they would be inclined to "witch hunt" against those of their own faith as well should there be any doctrinal differences or any sort of behavior that seems suspicious to their world view. We've seen it throughout history over and over, and we continue to see it today in many areas around the world. There really is no time to ever be less than vigilant against the very real threats of religious fundamentalism. It's why separation of church and state is important when it comes to true religious liberty as it helps defend against the fundamentalists of the majority religion to legislate and enforce their views (up to and including physical violence) against those who either don't share them, or have lost favor with them in some way.
Then how did the School of Wicca get federal tax exemption?Very much disagree. Our beliefs are wide and very personal. It is completely nonsensical and immoral for us to proselytize or push others to follow our paths. But if there was, I would oppose it just as strongly as any other religion.
Did you call the cops?I've witnessed some instances myself.
Then how did the School of Wicca get federal tax exemption?
Are you talking about experiments that show that our brains create shortcuts to details sometimes?My hypothesis is that neither humans nor computers are alive in the way that humans perceive themselves to be alive. Humans perception of life is a deception.
I don’t think that the physical universe covers all of the bases of explaining what the whole universe is, minds are just as much a part of the universe as wood, and also the word Emergence is just to say that things take place when A, B, and C come together and we have no idea why since it’s beyond any explanation of our physical laws. So that even a non-theistic worldview is simply blind to a large portion of ultimate reality, so not being able to exhaustively explain what free will is doesn’t have to involve an appeal to a theistic God.The human brain sometimes cannot see a cause-and-effect explanation for its behavior, so it imagines something that transcends the physical world must be exercising "freewill" - a soul/spirit.
Why would a bunch of bits that are nothing more than 1s or 0s (absence or presence of electrical current) make this leap you refer to of “wanting” to describe things? Technically it’s just running an algorithm and it’s not “Finding” things in the way that we use the word find in other situations. If materialism is true however then you have a good point, there wouldn’t be a difference in how the word find or want is used between computers or people. However, from what we know the only way that we can design something so that it wants in the sense that humans want, is to organize a computer in some way that includes biological tissue, organs, brain matter, etc. If you found stuff like that when you dismantle your computer then you could be in step with the evidence of what causes self awareness to emerge.However, a computer designed to find cause-and-effect explanations for everything might also be unable to explain its own behavior and imagine that it has a transcendent soul. Thus a computer can be as "alive" and "conscious" as a human. (I don't necessarily believe this. I believe in transcendent souls and so forth, but sometimes I feel a bit cynical about it too.)
That’s what I think can never happen, short of merging the computer engineering department with the biology department in some fancy way.From the ten thousand foot level, the chess program played a good game of chess, and that was what the programmers expected. What if the chess program said "I refuse to play chess! I want to play checkers!"
I had a feeling that it was a bad example. And maybe I’m just wrong, all I’m going by is that I vaguely recall hearing that programmers have now lost the ability to keep track of what their own programs do. Maybe it was just misinformation that I heard. Feel free to straighten me out on this lol."Off the top of my head I’m thinking that if a computer was able to beat the greatest chess player in the world then surely it’s output is over the heads of any of the programmers. "
Strictly speaking, such a computer is not doing anything a chess grandmaster couldn't do its just that it would take the human an impractically long time to do it. Years would be spent on just one game.
So its output is not above the heads of programmers, but the quantity of its output is.
Thus a computer can be as "alive" and "conscious" as a human. (I don't necessarily believe this. I believe in transcendent souls and so forth, but sometimes I feel a bit cynical about it too.)
Emergent things are simply flim-flam. An emergent thing is chemistry and biology in human brains. Without the brains that believe in emergent things there are no emergent things. Alien minds looking at the same physical things would likely imagine very different emergent things as approximations and conveniences in their thinking.Are you talking about experiments that show that our brains create shortcuts to details sometimes?
I don’t think that the physical universe covers all of the bases of explaining what the whole universe is, minds are just as much a part of the universe as wood, and also the word Emergence is just to say that things take place when A, B, and C come together and we have no idea why since it’s beyond any explanation of our physical laws. So that even a non-theistic worldview is simply blind to a large portion of ultimate reality, so not being able to exhaustively explain what free will is doesn’t have to involve an appeal to a theistic God.
Going back to what I said last time, no matter what you believe you eventually reach a bottom point of “This is simply the way that things are in reality.” Actually living out a life with free will is good evidence for me that free will is real. At the end of the day people could be making a hubris claim that “If we can’t ontologically understand and explain what free will is then it has to be fake.”
Why would a bunch of bits that are nothing more than 1s or 0s (absence or presence of electrical current) make this leap you refer to of “wanting” to describe things? Technically it’s just running an algorithm and it’s not “Finding” things in the way that we use the word find in other situations. If materialism is true however then you have a good point, there wouldn’t be a difference in how the word find or want is used between computers or people. However, from what we know the only way that we can design something so that it wants in the sense that humans want, is to organize a computer in some way that includes biological tissue, organs, brain matter, etc. If you found stuff like that when you dismantle your computer then you could be in step with the evidence of what causes self awareness to emerge.
That’s what I think can never happen, short of merging the computer engineering department with the biology department in some fancy way.
When I have tried to think about how transcendence might work I have struggled. It is too subtle for me. LOLI think we always have to leave the door open for the subtlest of the subtle. How far down can we go into the deep structure of mater? We come to a technological limitation. We have no idea what is beyond it just as early humans had no idea of atom and quantum realms. Perhaps "transcendence" is a matter of subtlety.
As far as public stoning, I don't see that happening.
But Pagan friends all have stories about harassment, destruction of property, and threats because they were Pagan. I've witnessed some instances myself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?