John Cuthber Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: No, the re-definition expresses that humans are Gods Which is simply not true. 8 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: Both hot air ballooning, and coarse fishing are evidencable, unlike the archaic God concept. So what? Do you understand that the example I gave of pointlessly redefining something is silly? If you wan to talk about the fact that people can model stuff- that's fine. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with Gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said: No, the re-definition expresses that humans are Gods (that simulate universes such as illustris). You could discuss that without using the word god. Quote That our particular universe is simulated is scientifically unfounded, and the definition does not approach that matter. As far as I know, our universe is the only one that has been simulated. Quote The definition also underlines the probability that humans shall, given sufficient time, create cognitive machines that exceed humans in all cognitive tasks. That has nothing to do with simulating universes. It is also completely unnecessary to use the word "god" in this context. But ONCE AGAIN you have failed to demonstrate any science: Hypothesis? No. Model? No. Testable predictions? No. Experimental tests? No. Quote Both hot air ballooning, and coarse fishing are evidencable, unlike the archaic God concept. You seem to have problems understanding the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted August 18, 2017 Author Share Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Which is simply not true. Note that humans are Gods as scientifically redefined; non omniscient entities with the ability to model universes (such as illustris) etc. Quote So what?Do you understand that the example I gave of pointlessly redefining something is silly? Science is a paradigm that constantly enables that its models are redefined. Such is typical of science. Quote If you wan to talk about the fact that people can model stuff- that's fine. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with Gods. Archaic god concept is also observed as entities in archaic science, that had supposedly forged the cosmos. That is the relation that is underlined in the redefinition. 36 minutes ago, Strange said: As far as I know, our universe is the only one that has been simulated. Do you have any evidence to support your claim above? Recall: that our universe is simulated, is scientifically unfounded, and so the God redefinition does not approach that matter. Quote You could discuss that without using the word god. That has nothing to do with simulating universes. It is also completely unnecessary to use the word "god" in this context. It is general intelligence that humans use to simulate universes. General intelligence is a neurobiological phenomenon that occurs in humans. However, degrees of general intelligence have already been empirically observed to arise in machines, such as Deepmind's Atari q player or Alpha go, etc. General intelligence is thusly not limited to humans, and so it is included in the redefinition. Quote But ONCE AGAIN you have failed to demonstrate any science: Hypothesis? No. Model? No. Testable predictions? No. Experimental tests? No. Contrarily, given that you observed the paper, and topics such as scientific inquiry, you would likely come to observe that the God redefinition paper employs typical science. To begin, take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry Edited August 18, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 ! Moderator Note Rule 2.10 says "Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations)." So posting this to the lounge is a rules violation. Further, since this does not conform to the rules of speculations, there's no point in continuing it there. I will go ahead and drop it down into the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts