dimreepr

It seems to me that mr Pratchett, got the difference...

It's the difference between a scientific fact and a human truth. What's god got to do with it? Wouldn't that be easy for the madman with his light in the morning; few people get the opportunity to say "I told you so" just bc human life is so nuanced that the hour is seldom the time...

Nope, it's data without contextual understanding. I think you don't understand what you're talking about, cold fusion puts a stick in your spokes, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the robustness of the scientific process against any thought of some sort of conspiracy.

I think "God Emporer of Dune" was the opus.

The foundation series, by Isaac Assimov, is fundamental to the genre, if you want a deep dive (nerd like); but if you want to be entertained, Douglas Adams is your go too author...

I agree, but that word has a very different meaning scientifically than it does philosophically, for instance, an emotional reaction can be measured, but it can't be understood scientifically. But as Wittgenstein suggests 'language is fundamental to how we think', also there's many examples of philosopher's arguing against the veracity of the written word. I feel this is still relevant to the topic, but feel free to start a new. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" I can't remember who said it but google can.

Indeed, guilty... But it's arguable that oral transmition of information is more effective at creating understanding across the generation's bc it evoles with the culture and the context is clear. The written word is frozen information in time, for the same reasons. It was also claimed to have seven colour's by Newton, bc seven is his lucky number, he shoe-horned/made-up indigo...

You seem to have an almost religious obsession with your AI chums, it's difficult to work out what side of the fence you're on, wrt the topic?

Hmmm, kinda my point, which one of the ten is objectionable?

This is a closed loop that emerged from beneath a bridge, your version of fun teaches nothing to no-one...

I fought the law but the law won...

Then you're mistaken... ☹️

You're a strange cove, it's almost like you're attempting to rile both sides of the coin, do you live near a bridge?

You seem confused... For god to work as a teaching aid/metaphor then omnipotence is a necessary attribute, until one understands why one should be punished for doing stupid stuff. For science to work, we just have to measure again. You have to ask yourself, why do I need a god? If it's to punish other's, then the Bible's have taught you nothing...

Remind me, what is it that you want to discuss? Also, can you confirm, which side of the coin you believe in (God good or god bad)? What do you think enlightenment mean's in the context of this thread? Most of the "bible/s" seems to be more concerned with how to live and enjoying the singing; the only time we absolutely know that we can appreciate it (or not if it's hymns, I prefer Led Zeppelin).

Or, it could mean 'if you keep harping on about "your big mistake", you may as well be a pillar of salt, for all the people who wants to talk to you.' 😉

The Dawkins delusion, runs through this thread like a it's a binary question that has correct answer.

Welcome to our brave new world, in which thinking is the savage...

When one understands why some people needs a god, it's for those that don't really understand the bible, then one also understands why a god is unnecessary, for others... You're conflating again, this time it's trust and belief; I don't have to believe that my computer will work bc I trust in the on switch...

This is an interesting hypothesis. Universe emerged from time, not from space? New theory shows how "It is believed that matter, motion, gravity, and everything else we know of originated from the three dimensions of space and one of time. However, a new idea challenges this theory, suggesting that time, specifically in three dimensions, is the true fabric of the universe, with space emerging as a secondary effect.."

I think the problem is, we already rely on security cameras both individually and nationally; "we" also don't want to pay for enough police to scan the images we've allowed to be taken. This is the perfect, almost inevitable, testing ground for AI to be accepted by the public, if it gets enough hits to drown out the noise of the occasional innocent, then the public are happy to accept its protection; when they're the innocent, it's too late to object.

There are many studies on the subject, do I have too???

Indeed, but there is evidence to suggest there is one. Fairness, is a complex issue in our primate brothers attitude to life...

Bolded mine; of course it does, it's practically Newtonian or Socratian if you prefer, any damage you do to other's, you do to yourself. It's like a god substitute for criminal's on the run; they often welcome capture as an escape from the reality of being paranoid... 😉 Bc it corallated with my thoughts on the subject.

I think the problem here is on the input side of the equation, but as @iNow suggests that would be reduced by human intervention on the output side. They might just do it for a laugh, to start with... ☹️