Definition and Foundation of Knowledge to observe God / the non-material

[Photizo]

We are on the verge of creating a new life form.

"Creating", huh...why not just sit back and let it evolve...or would that take too long? :yawn:

Life can only come from Life. Anything man 'creates' will be as lifeless as its 'creator'.

 

[Cris]

Phototizo,

Life can only come from Life.

Why?

Anything man 'creates' will be as lifeless as its 'creator'.

Isn't man alive then?

But what do you think life is? Can you define life? The answer is not so easy as most people would think.

 

[lightgigantic]

But they can steer themselves. Where is the man in the car ?

how is it possible for a computer to make a wrong move?
(computers only make wrong moves in the eyes of their conscious programmers)

this idea is corroborated by New Scientist Magazines analysis of Deep Blue 2 's defeat of chess champion Gary Kasparov

Deep Blue cannot tell chess sense from nonsense, and it is blind to what a chess position or chess game is all about. ... Forget artificial intelligence. Deep Blue is a product of human intelligence to modern computing technologies.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
“ If we consider the model of an infinite universe with no beginning then what would result would be one phenomenon being the cause of another in an infinite series. ”

this leaves us with the issue why things tend to behave in a predictable fashion
”
No it doesn’t if the laws of behavior are fixed. Causes and effects simply then correspond to participating components obeying fixed laws. E.g. two particles exist according to fixed laws, if one collides with another, a cause, a specific effect will result.

thus the model of an infinite universe only makes sense if there is an issue of control - which then leaves one with the issue of how something can control something else without being beyond the effect of it

“
in other words if the cause of an effect is infinite and the effect of a cause is infinite, there would be no reason for the laws of physics to operate (there would be no reason why an apple couldn't fly off into the sky instead of falling down to the earth)
”
Your conclusion doesn’t appear to follow from the proposition. Why would the laws of physics need to change for an infinite series of events to occur? I see no relationship.

if you argue that the universe is infinite and that it has no aspects of contingency or cause, it becomes difficult to understand how the laws of physics enter into your world view - in other words you have the difficulty of explaining how the laws of physics operate as a controlling aspect of matter

“
I think I might agree. I would speculate that the justice concept is the result of reasoned thought. And at the moment with our current lack of knowledge on how the brain operates I would not be able to empirically show how that notion had developed. ”

hence tracing causes with empiricism is ultimately futile - the reason is that empirical knowledge is essentially tacit
”
I see no basis for such an absolute conclusion, and I don’t see why your offered reason has any bearing.

empiricism is futile in the sense that it runs out of steam at a certain point of the macrocosm and also runs out of a steam at a certain point of the microcosm - that just leaves you with a small segment of knowledge between two expanding points of infinity - as such it has no jurisdiction into discerning ultimate causes or ultimate effects

“
If I had to describe [this] right hand of mine, which I am now holding up, I may say different things of it: I may state its size, its shape, its color, its tissue, the chemical compound of its bones, its cells, and perhaps add some more particulars; but, however far I go, I shall never reach a point where my description will be completed: logically speaking, it is always possible to extend the description by adding some detail or other.
- Friedrich Waismann

we all know explicitly what a "hand" is - but empirical definitions cannot convey that understanding in full (hence the term, "tacit")
”
And why is that relevant to our discussion? I believe I would disagree with your assertion of “cannot” and would prefer the technical scientific concept of theory where the potential for additional details is always left open.

the point is that empiricism has no capacity to close such definitions - its not that empiricism has the choice to have potential definitions added - instead it is the natural consequence that after arriving at one empirical definition one is assaulted by the need to define a further dozen - in this way, there is no ultimate conclusion with empiricism

But what do you mean by full understanding and why is that important? For example I do not need a full understanding of someone’s hand to be able to shake it, similarly for the case of knowing that a hand can hold a hammer. OTOH a surgeon may need to know extremely microscopic detail to be able to sew back a finger torn off through a grotesque accident, yet he wouldn’t need the detail down to the atomic level.

thus the scope of empirical knowledge is merely relative

Isn’t the degree of any understanding of anything relative to our need at the time? For example I can understand that a highly skilled and qualified brain surgeon can operate on someone suffering from brain damage and save their life. I do not need to have an understanding of the “how of brain surgery” to be able to observe the effect.

the problem arises when the effect (or alternatively, the cause) is traced to a certain level, we do not know the answer - technical advancement of empiricism does not make this gap of knowledge close, but merely adds an extra link on to the chain of cause and effect - for instance there is the statement of physicists, that the more we investigate matter, the more matter disappears

“
Understood, but I don’t see how those “thoughts” can lead to a substantive supernatural reality that by necessity must exist outside of pure thought.
In this case the end result must be a phenomenon and not noumenon, and where it should be available to empirical study if it realy exists. ” ”

part of this knowledge involves being conscious on a level that is superior to the mind (or "thought") - in other words it is understood that the mind is a phenomena of our consciousness, as opposed to the noumena of our consciousness - this is what separates theistic knowledge from traditional models of philosophy, even if that sense of philosophy is somewhat compatible with theistic values (like say plato)
”
None of that really made any sense to me so I need to break it down.

A person's moment of decision is always now. The decision I make in the present is influenced by my previous experience of life. And that decision is aimed at what I hope will be a better future. But my core person, the decisive self, exists in a continual present, bobbed ceaselessly by the waves of time that ripple through the mind. - in other words there is a clear distinction between mind and the decisive self (or consciousness) My memories of the past, and my hopes and fears for the world to come, flicker upon these waves like sparkles of light upon the surface of a lake.

In other words the mind flickers upon the waves of consciousness

The timeless, immediate presence of my own person is not verifiable by sense perception, as I might verify the existence of a material object. Nor is it implied by my logical speculation. Whatever I perceive and think comes and goes.

“
part of this knowledge involves being conscious on a level that is superior to the mind (or "thought")
”
This doesn’t make sense. Being conscious is a result of mind and thought;

no

mind is what flickers with issues of acceptance and rejection, through analyzing the past, discerning the present and anticipating the future - consciousness is that steady platform that exists in the present (logically what is "now" is not the past nor the future) - you could liken consciousness to a canvas and the mind as a paintbrush in the sense that the mind exhibits its function on the medium of consciousness

it is nonsense to talk of one being superior to the other. It is like saying a chair is superior to the wood, nails, and glue that are its components.

what you are suggesting is based on the empirical theory that consciousness is some sort of composed object

“
in other words it is understood that the mind is a phenomena of our consciousness, as opposed to the noumena of our consciousness –
”
Sorry I don’t follow that – I simply see – Brain -> Mind -> Consciousness – i.e.

you don't see that

you assume it to be seen like that

at the very least there is no empirical evidence for this vision

the root source of consciousness appears to be the physical brain and nuances of noumena/phenomena do not seem to change that perspective, i.e. I still do not see a path to a non-material construct of any type.

quite clearly, mind deals with issues of past, present and future. Consciousness deals exclusively with the present

If you want to argue that mind is the ultimate nature of consciousness (or ultimate cause or noumena), then you have to explain exactly how it is that we are existing in the past and future, while being in a state that can only be indicated by the present - In other words if you want to argue that the brain (ie mind) is the noumena of consciousness, that leaves you with the impossible feat of jugglery in determining how the consciousness is the phenomena

“
The noumena causes you offer here, i.e. god and souls, still represent non-material sources. In all other examples of noumena I can conceive there is always a material component. E.g. the concept of justice arises when a physical brain is present. I’ll refrain from suggesting that the concept arises as a result of brain activity, although I don’t believe the proposal would be unreasonable. I would suggest that you would find it difficult to offer any noumena where the material is not present or cause. If so then the leap to an immaterial god/soul as a source of noumena is without justification. ”

it is the purpose of analogy to call upon something known to illustrate something unknown
the analogies given for noumena (clapping, justice, etc) are actually relative noumena - which is just another way of saying they are phenomena - in otherwords anything that falls within in the purview of empiricism is essentially phenomenal (ie tacit). To require that one indicate a tacit noumena is an oxymoron.
”
But that simply leaves me without any examples or precedents where a root cause can be anything other than material.

and that is the precise dilemma of empiricism - it cannot reference anything but phenomena, since it is firmly situated between two infinitely expanding points - one at the point of macrocosm and the other at the point of microcosm

The very attempt to arrive at an ultimate cause with empiricism is non-different from the attempt to jump over one's knees

 

[lightgigantic]

Godless
“

insects certainly have consciousness
”
Yes but they can't reason!

perhaps not on the level of a human, but reasoning certainly exists - if they didn't, they would have no notion of value (bugs certainly appreciate the value of food)

Just cause an entity supposedly posses consciousness does not automatically mean that it can reason, and there lies the difference between all existing beings, as we know it scientifically only humans in this planet have the ability to reason. Though some entities on this planet other then humans have a sense of self awareness. Primates of certain species have been shown to be self aware, and have the ability to make tools for hunting, birds even have been shown to "learn" different ways to figure out problems, they are certainly all conscious, however none other then the human & chimps have developed a sense of "I"

so you mean to say that if two cockroaches bump into each other in the dark they get mixed up who is who because they have no sense of "I"?

“
as for a robot, despite whatever facility they have for analyzing data, they are unable to place any value on such information, since they have no sense of "I"
”
I disagree, since AI is a bit more complex than what you seem to understand. A robot with a the capability to learn can develop consciousness and self awareness, all the paradigms are there just as a human baby learns and becomes self aware. We are on the verge of creating a new life form.



http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2083908,00.htm

dud link

We decide things by entertaining, in consciousness, one opportunity or possibility as "correct," "better," "hopeful," and another as not. Sentient beings thus plot their movement through life. Now, robots move. But robots do not decide a particular direction to be "correct," "better," or "hopeful" and another not. What can it mean for a robot to make a wrong move since the robot has no point of view?

 

[Godless]

perhaps not on the level of a human, but reasoning certainly exists - if they didn't, they would have no notion of value (bugs certainly appreciate the value of food) [/QUOTE

No reasoning does not exist in these minor beings, this is like claiming a microbe can reason cause it feeds on other microorganisms, the ability to feed is out of survival, life's main goal is to thrive to survive thus all organism automatically work for the survival of the organisms.

so you mean to say that if two cockroaches bump into each other in the dark they get mixed up who is who because they have no sense of "I"?

Cockroaches don't bump each other in the dark, they interact much like the borg species, they interact in automatic survival mode, they each know the other is there, they don't interact to hunt together, such as some mammals do for food, each is on their own, however I'm no entomologist but I'm sure each species deals with reality in a different way and perhaps each have a different set of behaviors. One thing is for sure though, they don't posses a sense of "I". Neither did you when you where shitting your diapers, however since your brain had the capacity and size needed for the data entering your consciousness evolved from an empty slate allot different then if your brain was the size of a pin head; but then again your brain size can be debatable.

dud link

It was working this morning, don't know what happened?:shrug:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2083908,00.htm

It works on my computer then again, who knows if it will work this time?

We decide things by entertaining, in consciousness, one opportunity or possibility as "correct," "better," "hopeful," and another as not. Sentient beings thus plot their movement through life. Now, robots move. But robots do not decide a particular direction to be "correct," "better," or "hopeful" and another not. What can it mean for a robot to make a wrong move since the robot has no point of view?

Everything that you've learned, though not much, can be programed to a basic computer to interact with human behaviors, thus a test was done where an AI computer and a human where behind curtains and a test subject
"human student" was literally confused of who was the computer or the human by it's answers of many given questions, thus fooling completely several human subjects.

The capacity to learn make these robots a bit different then what you think, you truly need to brief yourself in the concepts of AI, to truly understand that these are not your "60's sci-fi movie" robots these are machines with the capacity to learn, thus wrong choices will be made by these machines, and they will learn from past mistakes, learning correct procedures or better ways to make something or do something. As for "hopeful" No, not yet this will be one of many things that will not compute to a computer's logic. Fortunately AI will be atheistic, since there's no logic in; hope, faith, religion, supernatural, spiritualism, love, however this could be debatable, since these traits could be programed sometime in the future.

 

[lightgigantic]

Godless

perhaps not on the level of a human, but reasoning certainly exists - if they didn't, they would have no notion of value (bugs certainly appreciate the value of food) [/QUOTE

No reasoning does not exist in these minor beings, this is like claiming a microbe can reason cause it feeds on other microorganisms, the ability to feed is out of survival, life's main goal is to thrive to survive thus all organism automatically work for the survival of the organisms.

self-preservation is not reasonable?

“
so you mean to say that if two cockroaches bump into each other in the dark they get mixed up who is who because they have no sense of "I"?
”
Cockroaches don't bump each other in the dark, they interact much like the borg species, they interact in automatic survival mode, they each know the other is there, they don't interact to hunt together, such as some mammals do for food, each is on their own, however I'm no entomologist but I'm sure each species deals with reality in a different way and perhaps each have a different set of behaviors. One thing is for sure though, they don't posses a sense of "I". Neither did you when you where shitting your diapers, however since your brain had the capacity and size needed for the data entering your consciousness evolved from an empty slate allot different then if your brain was the size of a pin head; but then again your brain size can be debatable.

you mean to say that if I soiled my pants as a baby, I would think it happened to someone else?


regardless of the size of one's brain, the very first thing a sentient creature has is a sense of I - certainly explains why living creatures pay particular interest to their needs, interests and concerns and why computers can't

“
dud link
”
It was working this morning, don't know what happened?

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2083908,00.htm

It works on my computer then again, who knows if it will work this time?

ok got it

“
We decide things by entertaining, in consciousness, one opportunity or possibility as "correct," "better," "hopeful," and another as not. Sentient beings thus plot their movement through life. Now, robots move. But robots do not decide a particular direction to be "correct," "better," or "hopeful" and another not. What can it mean for a robot to make a wrong move since the robot has no point of view?
”
Everything that you've learned, though not much, can be programed to a basic computer to interact with human behaviors, thus a test was done where an AI computer and a human where behind curtains and a test subject
"human student" was literally confused of who was the computer or the human by it's answers of many given questions, thus fooling completely several human subjects.

this is based on Turing's test for intelligence -

He imagined a game between three people, two of whom were to be hidden in separate rooms. They, a man and a woman, were to be interrogated by the third player and try, by written answers, to convince him that they were both women. If during the game a computer took over for one of the hidden players and was able to persuade the interrogator that it was at least human (male or female wouldn't matter), that would be demonstration enough of the machine's intelligence. From this we may conclude that Turing believed intelligence equals dissemblance, or the concealment of one's true nature. If a male or female gets away with dissembling as the opposite sex, he or she's got smarts. It follows that if a machine gets away with dissembling as a human being, it's got smarts too.

But real intelligence sees through dissemblance - in other words real intelligence is the ability to discern "this is a computer acting like a human" as opposed to the mere ability for a computer to fool a human

The capacity to learn make these robots a bit different then what you think, you truly need to brief yourself in the concepts of AI, to truly understand that these are not your "60's sci-fi movie" robots these are machines with the capacity to learn, thus wrong choices will be made by these machines, and they will learn from past mistakes, learning correct procedures or better ways to make something or do something. As for "hopeful" No, not yet this will be one of many things that will not compute to a computer's logic. Fortunately AI will be atheistic, since there's no logic in; hope, faith, religion, supernatural, spiritualism, love, however this could be debatable, since these traits could be programed sometime in the future.

still, putting aside the questions of where science fiction takes over from science, how is it possible for a computer to make a "wrong move"?

 

[Photizo]

Isn't man alive then?

If he was, He wouldn't need Christ...he needs Christ so, no, man is not alive. Look around, you see people in all stages of decay. Look at yourself, you're aging...your body is wearing out... Once the body becomes so weak, it ceases to function--or some malfunction occurs, or some unfortunate event--and the spirit separates from the body. Unless one is found "In Christ" i.e. connected/restored to Life Himself in perfect righteousness, one continues on in a state of death outside the Presence of God, separated for all Eternity.

There is no guarantee how long you will continue in your current fragile state.

 

[Enmos]

how is it possible for a computer to make a wrong move?
(computers only make wrong moves in the eyes of their conscious programmers)

this idea is corroborated by New Scientist Magazines analysis of Deep Blue 2 's defeat of chess champion Gary Kasparov

Deep Blue cannot tell chess sense from nonsense, and it is blind to what a chess position or chess game is all about. ... Forget artificial intelligence. Deep Blue is a product of human intelligence to modern computing technologies.

And ? We are 'programmed' too.

 

[Enmos]

Using a few basic rules a mobile robot can decide for itself which direction to go. So who is guiding it ?

 

[Enmos]

If he was, He wouldn't need Christ...he needs Christ so, no, man is not alive. Look around, you see people in all stages of decay. Look at yourself, you're aging...you're body is wearing out... Once the body becomes so weak, it ceases to function--or some malfunction occurs, or some unfortunate event--and the spirit separates from the body. Unless one is found "In Christ" i.e. connected/restored to Life Himself in perfect righteousness, one continues on in a state of death outside the Presence of God, separated for all Eternity.

There is no guarantee how long you will continue in your current fragile state.

So we are all undead ?
Nice reasoning there btw. "If he was, He wouldn't need Christ...he needs Christ so, no, man is not alive" lol

I don't need Christ, so I'm alive then.. ? And you are dead ?

 

[Photizo]

So we are all undead?

We are all dead until the moment of regeneration in Christ...i.e. being born again.

I don't need Christ, so I'm alive then..

If you were God that would be true...You're not God... so you're not alive... therefore, you need Christ.

 

[Enmos]

We are all dead until the moment of regeneration in Christ...i.e. being born again.



If you were God that would be true...You're not God... so you're not alive... therefore, you need Christ.

Listen buddy, I am not dead. And I decide whether I need Christ or not.

 

[Photizo]

Listen buddy, I am not dead. And I decide whether I need Christ or not.

You are dead. You just don't know it yet. ("...the dead know not any thing.") When you pass into the state of living death, then you'll know you're dead and that you need Christ. Unfortunately at that moment, Christ (and accordingly, Life) will be unavailable/unattainable--which will make your state all the more poignant/pathetic.

 

[lightgigantic]

And ? We are 'programmed' too.

perhaps in the sense that our issues are presented in the form of the body we inhabit (like for instance if we want to fly, we require an upgrade of sorts) - but then we have more issues running than just the "programs" of our bodies

We decide things by entertaining, in consciousness, one opportunity or possibility as "correct," "better," "hopeful," and another as not. Sentient beings thus plot their movement through life. Now, robots move. But robots do not decide a particular direction to be "correct," "better," or "hopeful" and another not. What can it mean for a robot to make a wrong move since the robot has no point of view?

Using a few basic rules a mobile robot can decide for itself which direction to go. So who is guiding it ?

why the programmer of course - in the eyes of the programmer it is possible to understand that a robot is making a wrong move, but it is impossible for the robot to come to grips with such things since it has no point of view