ProgrammingGodJordan

Don't you know the meanings of the word concern, highly, and science? I am atheistic, and lack belief in God or gods. That said, of what relevance is your response, w.r.t. the Op?

The original post persists as science permits; for science enables that models are updated as time passes. In matters of science, why bother to express inconsequential, irrelevant anecdotes?

Rather than musings, they were evidenced expressions, and such scientific evidence persists whether or not you select to acknowledge such. The reality is that there is no event for which one must largely ignore evidence (i.e. believe) instead of especially concerning evidence (i.e. do scientific thinking). FOOTNOTE: You had earlier lamented that due to the incidence of our non-omniscience, we must believe. This is false, that we are not omniscient, does not necessitate that we must believe (i.e. especially ignore evidence), instead of do scientific thinking. One can employ a manner of thinking that especially concerns evidence, which contrasts belief by definition and research. (where knowing all things is not a requirement for such a manner of thought)

On the contrary, one need not omniscience, to largely concern evidence (i.e. do scientific thinking) instead of especially ignoring evidence (i.e. believe). Could you elabourate with respect to Sam Harris?

You are perhaps right, I could use expressions, that are better processed by many beings. As such, in my interactions with this thread, along with hundreds of others, I have come to use expressions that are better understood by many, while still expressing the same evidence. FOOTNOTE: Notably, "We may highly concern evidence." is grammatically correct. (Check it on https://www.scribens.com/) It is typical English structure, meaning simply that we may prioritize scientific evidence. How do square wheels relate to the original post?

Yes, it is as simple as the the website in my signature presents; non-beliefism disregards belief (and anything else that disregards science), because belief is a model that generally facilitates that beings especially ignore evidence. (as evidence shows) We can employ scientific thinking, instead of belief, and thereafter, we may highly concern evidence. I thank you for clearly observing my expressions, with respect to the evidence presented. FOOTNOTE: Sam Harris is quite the atheist, as am I. What have you to say in relation to his expressions on "God"?

The source consists of a novel redefinition of God, on the horizon of science. Regardless of its author, the science in it persists. FOOTNOTE: Unfortunately, I can't continue this exchange now, for I shall depart for work.

On the contrary: (1) The source paper in the original post had long expressed of God, as it relates to Artificial Intelligence. (2) The original post's source paper describes a possible way how Sam, an atheist, could assert that Gods are likely. (Pertinently, while still being atheistic to all Gods) (3) Although Sam clearly mentions that "we will build Gods in boxes" (See minute 1:13, in video) I had long expressed that the type of God Sam refers to, is disparate from theistic description. (4) The redefinition's foundation is not "cracked". Rather it is as science typically permits. Consider that astronomy was redefined such that astrology/mythology was purged. The God redefinition in the original post occurred in a similar manner.

How does a being (i.e. myself) that disregards the very concept of belief, supposedly engage in belief (given that belief is optional, and scientifically shown to contrast science?)

On the contrary, Sam unavoidably did mention that Gods are likely. Also, recall: (1) The source paper in the original post had long expressed of God, as it relates to Artificial Intelligence. (2) The original post's source paper describes a possible way how Sam, an atheist, could assert that Gods are likely. (Pertinently, while still being atheistic to all Gods)

My intellect is not the subject of this thread. Anything to contribute to the original post, with respect to Sam Harris?

How did I supposedly cherry pick anything? Did you miss the links to the full videos (that I had presented) containing all of what Sam mentioned? FOOTNOTE: In particular it is notable that Sam, expressed that God is not only likely, but likely inevitable. The above is beyond merely "not discounting God". It is also notable that the God Sam refers to, is quite disparate from theistic description.

My prior quote applies:

Contrary to your claim above: (1) Science is true whether or not one chooses to believe in it. (2) Scientific evidence (See cognitive paper on belief) shows that belief is contrary to science; belief typically enables beings to act absent evidence. (Fortunately, scientists tend to highly consider evidence... but the same can't be said for the remainder of humanity, as you will see in the paper) (3) As such, (2) is true whether or not it satisfies your requirements; scientific evidence shows (2) is true regardless of your feelings. (4) There is no event for which one must act in a manner that especially ignores evidence (i.e. believe) instead of applying scientific thinking, and thus one need not believe in anything. FOOTNOTE: Do you have anything to contribute to the original post, with respect to Sam Harris? Note also, that non-beliefism is not the central topic at hand, but Sam's remarks instead.

Intriguingly, here is a Google Deepmind paper (September 2016) that like the paper of mine, entitled "Thought curvature" (May 2016), considers combining translation invariant, and translation variant paradigms (i.e. disentangling factors of variation), particularly in the regime of reinforcement learning, causal laws of physics, and manifolds: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05579 Separately, "Thought curvature", describes algebra that utilizes super-manifolds, instead of merely manifolds. Given particular streams of evidence..., is a degree of the super-manifold structure a viable path in the direction of mankind's likely last invention, Artificial General Intelligence?

I can't answer for Sam Harris, but it is likely that the God he refers to, is similar to what is described in the source presented.

I wanted to quickly share how an atheist such as Sam Harris, could validly express that a form of God is possible, and likely inevitable, all while still being an atheist. Consider the following; especially item (3): (1) I am an atheist. (2) Beyond atheism, I lack belief in all things, and so I had come to invent a paradigm called 'non-beliefism'; so not surprisingly, I lack belief in all things, including God or Gods, as Sam Harris likewise demonstrates. (3) God is observable in a scientific context, see source. As such, "God" as observable in the scientific context presented, is compatible with atheism. See minute 14:11 in the following video: See minute 1:13 in the following video:

Notably, that we live in a simulation is not empirically observed, but there are efforts such as digital physics, that may generate answers. Intriguingly though, as we simulate more stuff with higher and higher fidelity, (the idea that a universe with conscious entities can be simulated) gets less and less crazy. High fidelity (4k) 3d simulation: A cool video discussing simulation, by fellow with Morgan Freeman like voice style: Another cool video discussing simulation, by fellow "robot" SciencePhile for the Ai: Anyway, I recall of this old, and amusing guideline, on how to live in a simulation: http://www.jetpress.org/volume7/simulation.htm FOOTNOTE 1 : I don't know why the mod didn't move this thread to somewhere else - instead of closing it, given that I had inadvertently posted it in Physics. FOOTNOTE 2 (from old thread): Hey Prometheus, perhaps, given the nature of science, if our cosmos was simulatory, we could perform tests on simulations we built; ...we could then probably derive approximations of outcomes from the simulated thing, before doing anything (outside of the simulation we built), in our reality.

Notably, that we live in a simulation is not empirically observed, but there are efforts such as digital physics, that may generate answers. Intriguingly though, as we simulate more stuff with higher and higher fidelity, (the idea that a universe with conscious entities can be simulated) gets less and less crazy. High fidelity (4k) 3d simulation: A cool video discussing simulation, by fellow with Morgan Freeman like voice style: Another cool video discussing simulation, by fellow "robot" SciencePhile for the Ai: Anyway, I recall of this old, and amusing guideline, on how to live in a simulation: http://www.jetpress.org/volume7/simulation.htm

Probably..

Yes, science will probably bring mankind's last universal invention; artificial general intelligence: Examples of human cognitive exceeding models: 'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/1...inding-cancer/"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...cancer-signalsAlso, here are a sequence of other cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED human-kind:1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go')n) etc, etcWill artificial intelligence take your job?: Humans need not apply: The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn: The rise of automation, why today's flavour of automation is different:

A break down: C∞π(Rnπ) is a 'novel' term, consisting of a novel organization, of pretty standard components. "Simply", it consists of manifolds as models for concept representation, in conjunction with some π like policy system - a temporal difference learning paradigm representing distributions over eta.This means there is an overall model that may learn causal laws of physics (sample), in a reinforcement learning based setting. Some structure like the above is required, because typical deep learning object detectors like uetorch.. include pooling for translation invariance, while reinforcement learners like Atari q exclude pooling layers, as the model needs to be sensitive to the varying changes in object orientation, and it is feasible to combine translation invariance and non invariance in a single model, as by example, young biological brains are observed to do both reinforcement learning and unconscious physics calculations.

I need some assistance with this: https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God What do you make of it?

Once more, it would be false to express that I am absent scientific knowledge of physics. Here is a brief mathematical description of quantum computing, of mine: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318902160_A_delicious_mathematical_expression_describing_the_basis_of_quantum_computing Secondly, could you please provide a summary of the following portion of mine? Your summary may help diagnose the problem here.

Something I have come to observe: Scientific data -> (as seen by laymen) -> Garbage, gibberish Scientific data -> (as seen by scientists) -> Scientific data