FreeWill

For me, the opening post was about to settle what faith is and its relation to science. My argument was that both require some level of trust and believe. I tried to reason it with examples where to find trust and believe is in science and why to live to learn requires a level of faith. Religion requires trust in misinterpreted evidence to gain belief, while science requires trust in the methodology and some level of belief in the future outcome. Please note that no one will be religious Christian without hearing about it or reading the Bible, i.e without "evidence" there is no belief in the Christian religion. There are many things we can firmly believe in without actual evidence and I think each of those beliefs will require some level of trust.

Hello Gees, Thanks for the respond. Please note that less is sometimes more. It is difficult to analyse and respond to a wall of words filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. I do not understand why objective sentience, what I think can be achieved by an advanced AI, would exclude self awareness rather then promote it...

Give us an example. How would you call this kind of firm beliefs and why it is not faith? I think the best if I leave this faith topic. It is personal and every one has its own individual understanding (wiki is not clear on it either). Good luck with yours if you have any. Peace.

Why I can not have trusted knowledge-based firm beliefs? What is it by you Phi? Can you give an exact proof on the future of science? If you can not, can I believe that there is a future of science?

I think you need to justify that, a baseless assertion is meaningless... As far as I know, we do not know the theory of everything. I know that we know relativity and I know also that 99% of the population do not understand exactly relativity so I can call it difficult and not a simple theory. As it looks like the theory of everything (since we yet did not find it) is more difficult than relativity so I think I can expect that it is complicated and not Simple. If you mean the other part, I already have knowledge based deep firm trust which I think will just deepen as I learn through Life.

The Theory of Everything will not be simple and shallow otherwise we would already found it and use it. The absolute part a bit over driven. It would be a deep, firm, almost absolute trust anyway.

Faith.

True. When all the knowledge gained faith can transform to deep absolute trust.

, or failur. Faith is in the firmly believed Future.

How can we call then the learned and trusted knowledge based firm belief which has no evidence?

I think faith build on trust. The future has the element of insecurity even the future is highly predictable. The level of insecurity (lack of knowledge) requires a certain level of belief in the choosen personal path One follows to understand Reality. The predictable future outcome can be trusted and believed without absolute evidence, since it is built on Nature we perceive now. I can not really have faith in classical religions. Their explanation of Natural Reality is very lame. Knowledge and experience based belief gives faith (at least for me)

I have trust and since our scientific understanding does not seem to be absolutely complete (1/0), I have faith too. I have faith in the future of science. True, It's a trust without any* evidence. *Future yet not appeared (I.e has no evidence) but 99.999...9% of energy and matter is present, on what the future will build on. Trust in the past is faith in the future! The future can not be 100% predictable and has no appeared evidence in the present.

I do not know, did you ever experience faith, but for sure I believe (know, has faith in*) that our scientific methodology is as good as we are able to set it up. Faith is a very good motivator to set questions and search the reality One exist in. I know that the more interesting questions can not be answered without science (mathematics/philosophy, physics, biology....) *since I see it is working By which definition? I can set a 0 - 100 scale where you would get 0 and I would get 1. The Christian's pind on the cross because they did not give up their believe system gets 100. Sadly human faith is very well tested through history.

This is the believe(faith?) This is not an evidence.

1/0 has an universally true Natural Reality aligned solution. (the believe) I know from Nature what can be described with the Natural Number 1. (the evidence)

This is not supernatural, this is unnatural. A supernatural entity I think would operate in Reality with (almost) all of the functions applicable within Nature.

As we do not desire direct observation from bacterias or atoms. S/he would be still supernatural (properties and functions incomprehensible currently for humans). Supernatural Unnatural. I think a physical entity, with extended physical capabilities and understanding, originating from Nature is far more believable. Even more worthy since it would be real (part of Nature). Supernatural ≠ unnatural

This is Faith. (Which require some evidence, like parts of Nature) This is Religion (with misinterpreted evidence)

How would you call if I believe in something I think is Real but yet I can not prove? The only system I believe in is the scientific one.

That is religion. Faith is what religions try to build and maintain their theories on.

I can not agree with that. Faith is that the unknown has a Nature aligned answer, and because of that, can be answered.

The question appeared while we were discussing emegence and realized(again) how deeply it is embedded in Nature. Could Energy be a result of a process?(like Space expansion) I think Energy can pop to existence but can not disappear. Would such a function violate the Energy conservation law or generally the Laws of Nature?

1, yes, the commercial ones with the right safety measures. (gloves, goggles, etc.) 2, there are DNA differences between them, The detection is a complex process: gram staining, fimbria agglutinating tests, usage of overspent hyperimmune serum, culturing on blood agar just to name a few for e.coli. There is no staining which could make a direct difference between the 2 (both gram -, rod-shaped, and most of them has fimbriae) 3, Some of the stainings, yes, but just in the right concentration, If you have washed it down you will not be able to use the washed down stain. With the usage of electron microscopes, you can make a direct differentiation between them.

Well, of course it shows up, when the DNA determining how quarks can turn into elephants, emerged through evolution. DNA emerged = haven't been always there. (which is for me a quite important recognition.) If we just look at the elephant we cannot know was it always there like this and what determines its present. That is why we appreciate Darwin´s and Watson's work. As elephants could emerge by time so can AI sentience emerge by time. It wasn't there before and now with the process of technological evolution, it seems to emerge.

So it is a universal phenomenon, meaning it is quite important in general. Even you do not think it is relevant, looks like the others understand why it is used in this case. If you think it is not important than PLEASE give a better clearer description of the phenomenon, pointing out why it is a better explanation than what the others provided, so we can have a meaningful discussion about the original topic and not circulating around your unsatisfaction about a word you think is not informing you sufficiently.