Jump to content

ProgrammingGodJordan

Senior Members
  • Posts

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ProgrammingGodJordan

  1. No. As the original post entails, I pointed out belief's science opposing nature. That belief may concern evidence, does not suddenly remove that belief lowly concerns evidence. There are already opposing phrases that entail things that highly concern evidence, such as 'science', or 'scientific methodology'.
  2. Why did you mention that consciousness was not science (contrary to evidence?) Why do you feel your blunder above warrants my banning?
  3. Wrong. What type of nonsense are you expressing? I expressed just the opposite of the underlined section; the links support what I had expressed earlier; that scientists unavoidably believe in science. .... What I said prior: Scientists believe in matters of science, such as the science of consciousness. You: No, consciousness is outside of science: Did you forget your earlier quote?
  4. Actually, it does strictly express of belief's science opposing nature (in the premise section):
  5. Yes, your quote a few posts ago was valid, with the exception of the '0 belief in science portion'. Scientists are unavoidably shown to believe in matters of science. Consciousness is not 'outside of science': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_Studies/The_Neuroscience_Of_Consciousness
  6. Where did I supposedly claim the opposite, wrt to the statement below? The entire original post strictly expresses that science is true, whether or not one believes in it. (You should see the first url, 'nonbeliefism.com'.
  7. I had long pointed out (See original post) that belief may concern science. However, that some beings believe in non-nonsense/scientific data, does not suddenly remove that most belief occurs on the horizon of non-evidence. Belief by definition/research, permits beings to lowly concern evidence. There was no need to 'torture' or distort anything. Did you miss the evidence?:
  8. Are you saying Michio Kaku, and Edward Witten are "not informed"? The above is valid. Edit: Your quote is valid, with the exception of the '0 belief in science' nonsense above...
  9. 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)
  10. All types of scientists demonstrate that they believe in matters of science: Edward Witten 'believes....': Michio Kaku 'believes....':
  11. I am the guy who invented 'non-beliefism' (url removed) Ever wonder why scientists believe in science? The *FACTS*: (1) Belief definition: "To accept as true, especially absent evidence". (Note: None of the varying meanings of belief under a particular dictionary's definition of belief opposes the meaning above. Any opposing meaning would be found in antonyms instead..) (Google belief definition source) (2) Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias: (Cognitive paper on belief) (3) "Belief memories" are typically false: (Neuroscience paper on belief) Belief is observed to oppose science by definition/research. (i.e. belief lowly concerns evidence, while science highly concerns evidence) SO, WHY DO SCIENTISTS (EXCEPT Neil Degrasse Tyson...) BELIEVE IN SCIENCE (especially when Science is true regardless of belief)?
  12. ANNOUNCEMENT: After some searching (weeks of searching until now) I discovered today that the idea presented in the original post's paper is an old one. It falls under the topic of Artificial Embryogeny, a sub-topic in Neuroevolution.
  13. No, I didn't miss it. In fact, notice I reference neural stem cells on pages 2 to 3 of my paper. I argued that observing such real, actual cells are perhaps crucial in replicating some degree of proliferation, determination & differentiation of pluripotent neuronal expansion system in silicon. Edit: The source may still be useful anyway. Thanks.
  14. (Part A) In early machine learning days, researchers coded programs with specific rules to respond to as many scenarios as the researchers themselves could imagine. However, when unforeseen scenarios came along, their programs quickly broke/failed. (Part B) Modern machine learning now learns rules automatically, and fail far less, achieving human level performance on narrow cognitive tasks. However, there are still problems with modern machine learning, and separately, researchers are still manually designing the basis nodes/connections (artificial neurons/synapses) involved in these modern automatic rule learning models. (Part C) So, I then investigate whether it is feasible to automate even more, by utilizing stem cell data to "grow" those basis nodes/connections, instead of manually designing them. (Part D) What follows is a rough exploration of stem cell proliferation, determination & differentiation as an approach to‘grow’ some degree of software artificial general intelligence. See my paper here: stem-cell-agi-exploration_research-gate Or here:stem-cell-agi-exploration_academia Criticism regarding the topic is welcome. Help me to scrutinize this idea fully. (or build on the idea if possible)
  15. We are hardwired to do many things. And yet we may avoid doing those things...
  16. Science/belief properties: Science is likely to contain empirical, testable sequences. Belief is likely to contain non-science. Your Words: Belief is essential to human life. Conclusion from your words and properties of science/belief: Today, there exists one moment for which science is not applicable, while one cannot avoid approaching that moment. FOOTNOTE: In simpler words, today, you are expressing that there must be some event where: (1) Science is not applicable (i.e. merely belief is applicable) and (2) Where (1) occurs, in which ONE HAS NO CHOICE but to apply belief. Tell me, what event satisfies (2) in the footnote above?
  17. ...that beliefs are not essential? For example, insects, bacteria don't believe...
  18. Irrelevant. The point here is, science is observed to contain testable, empirical sequences, unlike belief, whether or not you consider belief to be effective.
  19. Regardless of Neil's expression, belief is not scientific. Beliefs may refer to science, but beliefs may also refer to non-science. (I use the word refer here with particular reason) For example, why would one select a model that is observed to likely contain failing|haphazard predictions (i.e. belief ...), instead of one that is observed to likely contain empirical, testable sequences (i.e. science)?
  20. As you prior mentioned (and as is indicated in hundreds of dictionaries) belief is a form of trust. So newton trusted/believed in god, and didn't bother to compute what he probably could have computed, as per Principia description. I still observe my prior comment; for still in the scientific hypothesis stage, one need not believe. One may rank events on probabilities, and establish probabilistic predictions, absent trusting/believing in such.
  21. No such thing as certainty anyway, as far as science goes. (Uncertainty principle) I still express that given that science contains no non science, it would be silly to proceed with belief, when it is likely that non science shall partake.
  22. In other words, are you saying there is no empirical evidence that shows that humans may live for a period of x time? (1)Contrarily, Newton trusted that God did certain things, and so he didn't derive all he could have probably derived. (See Principia Mathematica) Einstein trusted that "God didn't play dice", and so he probably had a more difficult time than he needed to with quantum wierdness. etc (2) You don't need to trust in probabilities. Whether or not probabilities are trusted, applicable science remains applicable science. You may need to redundantly believe in that which is already empirically observable, or that which applies mathematically/reasonably, but others have already found a way to avoid that trust scenario.
  23. See the neuroscience paper provided in reply #16. (1) My prior speech: "people with beliefs/faith are generally less intelligent", according to paper x. Where is the gross misrepresentation? Are religious beliefs, not beliefs? (2) It is empirically observable, given the laws of physics, that tomorrow is probable. (3) I don't need to believe in them, because science shows these. We observe empirically that: (i) Belief is non-scientific. (Where science occurs without non-science, belief is likely to occur with non-science) (ii) Belief is redundant.(Whether or not belief exists, things persist. (Example science persists whether or not people believe in science)) (iii) Belief yields delusions. (See paper provided regarding beliefs and delusions) (iv) Beliefs/faiths tend to occur in beings of less intellect. (See paper provided regarding religiosity and intelligence) Furthermore, I don't need to believe/trust in any data sequence. Are you saying that one must trust something?
  24. (i) Life's meaning probably occurs on the horizon of optimization: (source: mit physicist, Jeremy England proposes new meaning of life) (ii) Today, artificial intelligence exceeds mankind in many human, cognitive tasks: (source: can we build ai without losing control over it?) (source: the wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn) (iii) The creation of general artificial intelligence is so far, mankind's largely pertinent task, and this involves (i), i.e. optimization. The human brain computes roughly 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second. (iv) Mankind has already created brain based models that achieve 10^14 of the above total in (iii). If mankind isn't erased (via some catastrophe), on the horizon of Moore's Law, mankind will probably create machines, with human-level brain power (and relevantly, human-like efficiency), by at least 2020. (v) Using clues from from quantum mechanics, and modern machine learning, I have composed (am composing) a naive fabric in aims of absorbing some non-trivial intelligence's basis. Paper + Starting Code (rudimentary): "thought curvature" (vi) Criticism is welcome/needed.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.