ProgrammingGodJordan

Hello, I am of course, atheistic. Beyond atheism though, based on scientific evidence, I had come to possess a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief. (As shown in my signature) I observe science's great importance, and I reject anything that disregards science, and so in addition to religious belief, I reject the very concept of belief. (See spoiler below) Anyway, why is there a religious section on ScienceForums.net?

Share your thoughts..

Part A - Artificial Intelligence and human-kind, in 2 sentences. Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably exceeding humans in cognitive tasks, and some projections observe human level brain power in artificial machines/software by at least 2020 (Wikipedia exascale computing source). Artificial Intelligence is already solving many of human kind's problems. Part B - Crucial difference between Edward and Tegmark Edward Witten is quite the human being/physicist. Max Tegmark is also, quite the human/cosmologist. Both have phd physics degrees. The urgent difference? (1) Max presents consciousness as a mathematical problem... Although Max Tegmark is not an artificial intelligence pioneer nor is officially trained as an artificial intelligence researcher, Max is already contributing important work, helping to organize the theory of deep learning (A hot paradigm in Artificial Intelligence now). A sample of Max's AI work: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225 (2) Edward Witten believes we will never truly understand consciousness... https://futurism.com/human-level-ai-are-probably-a-lot-closer-than-you-think/ Part C - How components approached by Edward's genius applies in AI today Edward Witten's work concerns some deep stuff on manifolds. (Sample: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411102) In artificial intelligence, models are observed to be doing some form of manifold representation, especially in the euclidean regime. (And are already demonstrated to be strong candidates for 'disentangling problems' of which many problem spaces occur) As an unofficial AI researcher myself, I am working on AI, as it relates to super-manifolds.(I recently invented something called 'thought curvature', involving yet another invention of mine called the 'supermanifold hypothesis in deep learning', built atop Yoshua Bengio's manifold work) So I happen to have a brief, concise description somewhere, where manifolds are shown to non-trivially relate to artificial intelligence (you can see also Deep Learning book by bengio, or Chris Olah's manifold explanation): Some number of months ago, I had personally contacted Witten, advising him that his genius could apply in AI. (No response though) Why does Edward Witten allow his belief (as shown in the video above) to block himself from possibly considerably contributing to artificial intelligence, one of human-kind's most profound tools, even despite contrasting evidence that manifolds apply in machine learning?

Part A Note that I am not disregarding scientists or science. As I expressed on page 3, hours before the moderator's comment, scientists tend to highly concern evidence, but they too are subject to particularly, the flavour of belief that disregards evidence, be it in matters of science or otherwise. (For example, there are many scientists that believe in God, regardless of contrasting evidence. The origin of the universe is a matter of science) Regardless of the above, science is true whether or not one believes in it, and science has unavoidably advanced quite a lot. However, it is also unavoidable that belief may block scientific endeavour, and we should do away with belief altogether. Part B It doesn't matter what meaning of belief they select. (I already answered this in the original post) Definition 0: Belief is especially absent evidence. Definition 1: Believe in something based on evidence. Definition 2: etc etc etc. Looking at how a dictionary works, no definition under belief will oppose definition 0. (those are found in antonyms)

Moderator see my quote made before yours, on page 3: Once more, scientists tend to highly concern evidence, but are unavoidably subject to belief, be it in matters of science (as I show above with witten and kaku) or otherwise. No where had I stated scientists especially disregarded evidence, I stated just the opposite as seen in my quote above, made several hours before your post on page 3.

I am of course, not disregarding science. As I had long underlined, science is true whether or not one believes in it. Also, as mentioned prior, scientists tend to highly concern evidence (hence why science has advanced quite a lot) but scientists are also subject to belief, and particularly, the type of belief that ignores evidence. (Eg: Newton's belief in absolute time is evidenced) Other example of live scientists who believe: Edward Witten expressing belief in YouTube video interview: Michio expressing belief in YouTube video interview: (Also, there are many scientists that believe in God, regardless of contrasting evidence. The origin of the universe is a matter of science) FOOTNOTE: Not one sequence of data amidst the original post is "speculation", all is empirical evidence, regardless of your feelings. Please provide one example of speculation, be it in the original post, or on any response made by myself in this thread. If you are unable to do so, kindly restore my thread to it's initial place.

No where did I mention that scientists typically ignore evidence. However, that scientists act in a manner that typically concerns evidence, does not remove that belief is a paradigm that largely permits non-evidence. No. (1) I have answered this question several times, before; I lack belief in all things, and not surprisingly, I lack belief in 'non-beliefism', as non-beliefism is yet another thing. (No need to believe in empirically observed sequences anyway, as they persist regardless of belief) (2) I also lack belief in myself, as I am yet another empirically observed sequence. I don't detect the relevance of the portion above.

Once more I am not disregarding Newton's work. Like Newton, humans are subject to belief's science opposing nature, but one can select to employ mannerisms (i.e scientific methodology, critical thinking) that highly concern evidence, instead of ones that barely concern evidence (i.e. belief)

Regardless of your feelings, evidence shows that belief is a paradigm that does not strive to concern evidence.

Rather than disregard science, I underline science's urgent relevance amidst mankind's evolution. (As you probably quickly observe in the contents of the advertising removed url) Neither am I disregarding Newton's work. That Newton blundered somewhere, does not suddenly warrant that all of his research is nonsense. On the contrary, I express that he too, despite his genius, is subject to belief's neglectful design. (His beliefs are not odd, for most beings were theists in Newton's time)

One need not do quantum computing, such that one may observe that belief permits low evidence concern, while scientific methodology, does not. (as is evidenced, in the original post) The fact above, persists, whether or not I exist; belief by definition/research data, opposes science. Science is mankind's best tool. Why bother to partake in a paradigm that opposes mankind's best tool?

Part A Your expression contains nonsensical data. Why bother to ignore the evidence? The evidence as shown in the original post (not my claims) persists whether or not I exist, and the evidence shows that beliefs tend to occur on the horizon of non-evidence. Part B Where had I mentioned that scientists always ignored evidence? (Hint: No where) Scientists may act in a manner that highly concerns evidence but still, they too are subject to belief's neglectful design: FOOTNOTE: Newton believed in absolute time (See Wikipedia data), blocking him from considering a more workable theory.

That there is limited evidence, does not suddenly warrant that scientists are ignoring evidence. Belief is a model that permits just this; belief constitutes low concern for evidence. Scientific methodology does not permit this low evidence concern. Scientific hypotheses, by definition still typically concern empirical evidence, however limited. Both belief and scientific hypothesis for example, concern truth, but science typically concerns empirical evidence, while belief especially concerns or permits non-evidence.

The OP's topic, isn't complex; simply, that one may believe in evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief occurs mostly on the horizon of non-evidence. No where had I shown any ignorance of the fact that belief may occur on the horizon of evidence. (See OP) Anyway, there are already opposing words that entail paradigms that highly concern evidence, belief is just not one of those. FOOTNOTE: It shouldn't be too pressing on the brain, to observe that belief is a model that opposes science; belief by definition permits low concern for evidence overall, while science/scientific methodology has no such permission.

I don't detect your comment's relevance.

Considerable, but this does not remove that scientists express that they believe...

That two or even ten may 'note' as you express above, doesn't alter that unavoidable facts were presented amidst the original post. Btw, did you forget your prior expression? And why bother to ignore the evidence in the original post (as shown in the spoiler below)?

No, I certainly don't own facts. Facts (as presented in the original post) persist regardless of my existence.

Whether or not beings accept science, science is mankind's best tool, as is empirically observed.

What you 'see', doesn't alter facts. Evidence shows that belief especially ignores evidence, while science is a paradigm that highly concerns evidence.

That scientists may believe, does not change the laws of nature. Regardless, most belief occurs on the horizon of non-evidence. (as is evidenced)

Yes, although both hypotheses and beliefs, may concern truth: (1) Science especially concerns evidence, by definition. (2) Scientific hypotheses tend to concern evidence, however limited. This contrasts a model that especially ignores evidence. (i.e. belief) By extension, scientific hypotheses concern testability, "a property applying to an empirical hypothesis".

Sorry mate, Neither of those sentences makes any sense. To spell it out: (1) belief: To accept as true, especially absent evidence. (Low concern for evidence) (2) science: Branch of facts, etc. (High concern for evidence) Why then shall one bother to employ belief, given that science exists?

My prior quote applies: Einstein's formulations were generated on strong prior evidence, rather than lack of evidence.

It isn't mysterious, belief by definition/research, lowly concerns evidence. Why bother to contact such a paradigm, given the existence of other paradigms, that highly concern evidence (i.e. 'science', or 'scientific methodology')?