Jump to content
ProgrammingGodJordan

Humans are minimally capable gods (written by an atheist computer scientist)

Recommended Posts


NOTE I: No opinion, faith, belief nor emotion was utilized in the creation of the following passage. [merely science is utilized]


NOTE II: I am atheistic, so I tend to avoid things such as belief/faith etc, especially as the inventor of a phenomenon called 'non-beliefism' (nonbeliefism.com)


Quote By Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist): "We have to admit that we are building some sort of God..."

[in youtube video "Can we build AI without losing control over it?", minute 14:11]

youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg




1*CM3HUMdEJZA62pt7HGXVVg.png



A.I: SCIENTIFIC-REDEFINITION OF GOD


God is any probably non omniscient entity with the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the the intellect of its creators.

Source: See "Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type)"









A.II: WHY A?


In the above, I reduce the typical claimed theistic God definition, amidst empirical scientific sequences:


peMkFrS.png


{Supposed_Properties_TypicalTheisticGods | omniscience, omnipotence, omni…., ability_to_engineer_non-trivial_intelligence}


{Properties_Mankind | the_ability_to_engineer_non-trivial_intelligence}


There is an overlap above, whence omniscience, omnipotence, omni… is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY founded.













WHY IS GOD SCIENTIFICALLY REDEFINABLE?


(1) There is a prominent branch of science (concerning the universe's origin) that describes the universe as a probable simulation/information processing construct. [Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis]


(2) The concept of typical claimed theistic gods, is a frail hypothesis having emerged par archaic science/religion. [The aforesaid claimed theistic gods manifest as supposed cause sequences, predating modern science abound the macrocosm's origin]


(3) From (2), the typical claimed theistic god sequence (claimed to compute the cosmos' origin) is analysed against reality/empirical evidence. Falsifiable modules - omniscience, omnipotence are derivable... WHENCE said god(s) manifest as claimed cause sequences {See Digital Physics/Simulation Hypothesis, par cause/descent sequences}..., WHILST non-falsifiable regimes are dismissed...]


(4) From (3), an empirical definition of god emerges, while scientifically unfounded properties (omniscience, omnipotence, omni...) are purged.














B: YOU ARE A 'MINIMALLY-CAPABLE' GOD, BUT NOT THE THEISTIC-OMNISCIENT TYPE


In a similar way that the hypothetical super artificial intelligence (mentioned in section "C" below) engineers itself (and probably how today’s artificial neural networks update themselves), …we constantly self-engineer our brains, such that enhanced versions of ourselves are probable.


This satisfies definition A.















C: YOU CAN BECOME A 'HIGHLY-CAPABLE' GOD, HOWEVER STILL PROBABLY NOT THE RELIGIOUS-OMNISCIENT TYPE



So, mankind is gaining more and more, a specific ability, that several theistic gods are claimed to possess.

Source: See "Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type)"


That is, the ability to generate at least human-level, artificial, non-trivial intelligence.


This is probable, given that we don't erase ourselves with war etc, or encounter some other catastrophe.















D: HOW TO BECOME A 'HIGHLY-CAPABLE' GOD


Following, are three steps on how one may become a highly-capable god[/b], on the horizon of the scientific definition above.


Source: See "How to become a highly capable god in three steps"

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan
please stop advertising your website here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you use a silly definition of "god" then, yes, you can claim humans are gods. But what is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you use a silly definition of "god" then, yes, you can claim humans are gods. But what is the point?

Here is a nice summary, via the sources in the original post:
Why is ‘God’ scientifically redefinable?

(1) There is a prominent branch of science (concerning the universe's origin) that describes the universe as a probable simulation/information processing construct. [Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis]

(2) The concept of typical claimed theistic gods, is a frail hypothesis having emerged par archaic science/religion. [The aforesaid claimed theistic gods manifest as supposed cause sequences, predating modern science abound the macrocosm's origin]

(3) From (2), the typical claimed theistic god sequence (claimed to compute the cosmos' origin) is analysed against reality/empirical evidence. [Falsifiable modules - omniscience, omnipotence are derivable... WHENCE said god(s) manifest as claimed cause sequences {See Digital Physics/Simulation Hypothesis, par cause/descent sequences}..., WHILST non-falsifiable regimes are dismissed...]

(4) From (3), an empirical definition of god emerges, while scientifically unfounded properties (omniscience, omnipotence, omni...) are purged.

The aforesaid progression merely metamorphoses the typical archaic god, betwixt the falsifiable paradigm.
Thusly, the re-definition persists naturally, whether or not I exist...
Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

 

I am going to scientifically redefine Dog to mean a two-legged bipedal mammal. Therefore we are minimally capable dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ancient issue?

 

Genesis 1

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

My last thought was:

God exists if it exists for you, (God is in quantum order)

which means that it's your responsibility to be a child of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't mean anything. Strange is right. It's just a matter of definition.

 

All you have done is proposed a new definition of god. By your definition, humans are gods. By the standard definition, humans aren't gods. That's all.

 

This discussion is too vague and pointless, even for philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Moved from Religion to Speculations, since even religion gets a redefinition in the OP. You need to show some supportive evidence for your idea in Speculations, PGJ, otherwise we'll have to shut this thread down. We're not very big on guesswork discussions, and prefer to have reality on our sides when examining an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the religious definition is deemed unrealistic, why not just dispense with the terminology altogether, instead of this redefinition nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six colours of fonts

Bold text, underlined text, normal text, italic text

Two fonts sizes

Giant graphics

Large empty spaces

 

By and large I liked the last item best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the religious definition is deemed unrealistic, why not just dispense with the terminology altogether, instead of this redefinition nonsense?

You should probably recall that 'gravity' had humble beginnings, and was essentially nonsense before it became sensible.

This doesn't mean anything. Strange is right. It's just a matter of definition.

 

All you have done is proposed a new definition of god. By your definition, humans are gods. By the standard definition, humans aren't gods. That's all.

 

This discussion is too vague and pointless, even for philosophy.

I see now that the prior sequence was not clear.

 

Here is a simplified sequence displaying why god is scientifically redefinable:

 

(a) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.

 

(b) One shall recall that a cause for the universe (the typical archaic claimed God) had been established before modern science (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawkins' singularity theorems etc)

 

(c.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms.

 

(c.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably recall that 'gravity' had humble beginnings, and was essentially nonsense before it became sensible.

 

I see now that the prior sequence was not clear.

 

Here is a simplified sequence displaying why god is scientifically redefinable:

 

(a) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.

 

(b) One shall recall that a cause for the universe (the typical archaic claimed God) had been established before modern science (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawkins' singularity theorems etc)

 

(c.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms.

 

(c.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.

 

 

Gravity is a scientific model that has been refined, not redefined. Science dispensed with the notion of gods, as they are outside the purview of science, and represent an unnecessary hypothesis. We didn't redefine phlogiston when it was shown to be the wrong explanation, we discarded the notion that it existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably recall that 'gravity' had humble beginnings, and was essentially nonsense before it became sensible.

 

 

I don't think gravity has ever been nonsense. Things have always fallen down.

(b) One shall recall that a cause for the universe (the typical archaic claimed God) had been established before modern science (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawkins' singularity theorems etc)

 

No such cause has been established. (Neither has any "creation" of the universe.) There are various speculations and hypotheses but these don't really have very much more basis than "god did it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

//////

 

Gravity is a scientific model that has been refined, not redefined. Science dispensed with the notion of gods, as they are outside the purview of science, and represent an unnecessary hypothesis. We didn't redefine phlogiston when it was shown to be the wrong explanation, we discarded the notion that it existed.

Wrong.

 

Early gravity (in antiquity) was disparate from modern science.

 

The meaning "attractive force" was not the earliest meaning.

 

Also, modern science has not dispensed with the notion of god. (See simulation hypothesis, and or digital physics)

 

I don't think gravity has ever been nonsense. Things have always fallen down.

 

Keep in mind that early descriptions of gravity did not mean "attractive force".

 

Anyway, things have fallen down, but recall that people have long observed reality, that is, like how persons observed falling things (without modern scientific description), persons also discussed that things exist/began (Also previously without modern scientific description, ie: "God did it" typed arguments)

 

No such cause has been established. (Neither has any "creation" of the universe.) There are various speculations and hypotheses but these don't really have very much more basis than "god did it".

Wrong, modern science describes probable causes.

 

See the simulation hypothesis, and or digital physics.

 

 

 

 

//__please research before commenting

 

I would prefer solid objections to the original post, that actually hold water (if possible).

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, modern science describes probable causes.

 

See the simulation hypothesis, and or digital physics.

 

 

These are not "probable causes". They are speculations with no supporting evidence. Barely even real science.

 

 

 

I would prefer solid objections to the original post, that actually hold water.

 

Maybe if it weren't nonsense ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably recall that 'gravity' had humble beginnings, and was essentially nonsense before it became sensible.

 

I see now that the prior sequence was not clear.

 

Here is a simplified sequence displaying why god is scientifically redefinable:

 

(a) One shall recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.

 

(b) One shall recall that a cause for the universe (the typical archaic claimed God) had been established before modern science (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawkins' singularity theorems etc)

 

(c.i) One shall recall that science updates itself. It appears science "forgot" to update the archaic science of Gods, in modern science terms.

 

(c.ii) Recall 'gravity'. We are aware that science updated from archaic gravity (De Caelo), to Newtonian gravity, then to Einsteinian description. The word 'gravity' maintained regardless.

 

So? What's your point?

 

We have learned things we didn't know in the past. I don't see how your conclusions follow from this.

What Strange and Swansont said is both right and wrong in a way. We DID redefine gravity, in a sense, after Einstein's GR was introduced. The equations that we knew still applied and some new ones were added. I don't see what that has to do with the discussion.

 

We define god as a higher, possibly omnipotent/omniscinest being that is not human or of this realm. We didn't learn one thing about god throughout history, so why the need to redefine him? The fact that we've improved our technology and lifestyle standards has no relevance to the definition of god. You just randomly proposed that the definition of god be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Early gravity (in antiquity) was disparate from modern science.

 

Because modern science didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because modern science didn't exist.

 

Yes, that's pretty obvious.

 

The point is "gravity" (the concept/word) was not born in modern science.

These are not "probable causes". They are speculations with no supporting evidence. Barely even real science.

 

Digital physics is a scientific theory.

 

A scientific theory is different from mere speculation.

 

Speculation is statements. Theories test speculations.

 

Digital physics is now being rigouorsly tested.

 

Such is science's nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital physics is a scientific theory.

 

 

"So far there is no experimental confirmation of either binary or quantized nature of the universe, which are basic for digital physics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

 

 

 

Digital physics is now being rigouorsly tested.

 

Citation needed.

 

But, of course, this has nothing to do with the random redefinition of the word "god" to mean "a bowl of petunias".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? What's your point?

We have learned things we didn't know in the past. I don't see how your conclusions follow from this.

What Strange and Swansont said is both right and wrong in a way. We DID redefine gravity, in a sense, after Einstein's GR was introduced. The equations that we knew still applied and some new ones were added. I don't see what that has to do with the discussion.

 

We define god as a higher, possibly omnipotent/omniscinest being that is not human or of this realm. We didn't learn one thing about god throughout history, so why the need to redefine him? The fact that we've improved our technology and lifestyle standards has no relevance to the definition of god. You just randomly proposed that the definition of god be changed.

Let's break things down:

(1) God was a proposed cause (absent evidence) long before modern scientific theories that also propose causes.

 

(2) Gravity did not always mean attractive force. In antiquity, gravity and other things, such as alchemy and aether were nonsensical components, a part of science.

 

(3) Gravity moved from antiquity to modern science's account, but gravity the word was kept.

 

(4) There are modern probable causes established in science, but the word "god" was not kept.

 

 

So it appears science "forgot" to update god in modern scientific terms.

 

But now, with me, science "remembers" to update "god" concept.

"So far there is no experimental confirmation of either binary or quantized nature of the universe, which are basic for digital physics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

 

 

 

Citation needed.

 

But, of course, this has nothing to do with the random redefinition of the word "god" to mean "a bowl of petunias".

There was a time when there was not any experimental confirmation of gravitational waves.

 

As I had said before,things are being tested for digital physics.

 

..and don't forget about Hawkins' Penrose theorems.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'god' is not a scientific word though... It means MANY MANY different things to different people and different cultures - you can't 'define' it and expect everyone to follow suit and accept your definition.

Edited by DrP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

 

Early gravity (in antiquity) was disparate from modern science.

 

The meaning "attractive force" was not the earliest meaning.

 

 

 

In antiquity, we didn't have modern science (kind of a tautology there), so what does that have to do with anything? You can't have the notion of gravity as an attractive force if you don't have the notion of a force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'god' is not a scientific word though... It means MANY MANY different things to different people and different cultures - you can't 'define' it and expect everyone to follow suit and accept your definition.

(1)

God was a word in archaic science.

 

See the cosmological argument. (Aristotle...)

 

 

(2)

PS:

"Gravity" (the word) was not invented by newton.

 

It meant different things to different cultures/people.

 

It was hijacked and adapted.

 

 

In antiquity, we didn't have modern science (kind of a tautology there), so what does that have to do with anything? You can't have the notion of gravity as an attractive force if you don't have the notion of a force.

Redundant.

 

The point is, gravity was updated.

 

Please refrain from redundant sentences.

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's break things down:

(1) God was a proposed cause (absent evidence) long before modern scientific theories that also propose causes.

 

(2) Gravity did not always mean attractive force. In antiquity, gravity and other things, such as alchemy and aether were nonsensical components, a part of science.

 

(3) Gravity moved from antiquity to modern science's account, but gravity the word was kept.

 

(4) There are modern probable causes established in science, but the word "god" was not kept.

 

 

So it appears science "forgot" to update god in modern scientific terms.

 

 

It still makes no sense. Computers have evolved a great amount over the last 20 years and still continue to do so by a incomparably faster rate than humans? Why are computers not renamed to ''gods''? Because it's completely unneccessary.

 

Einstein redefined gravity (refined might be more appropriate) for accuracy and consistency with the new model. It bore relevance to physics. It needed to be updated to account for changes and new equations. It was more correct to define it the way he did.

 

Renaming humans to gods bears no relevance to anything whatsoever. There would be no inherent benefits from doing so. It's utterly unneccessary. The word ''god'' cannot be made more accurate because it's not a scientific term and it's just a made up definition, whereas gravity isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It still makes no sense. Computers have evolved a great amount over the last 20 years and still continue to do so by a incomparably faster rate than humans? Why are computers not renamed to ''gods''? Because it's completely unneccessary.

 

Einstein redefined gravity (refined might be more appropriate) for accuracy and consistency with the new model. It bore relevance to physics. It needed to be updated to account for changes and new equations. It was more correct to define it the way he did.

 

Renaming humans to gods bears no relevance to anything whatsoever. There would be no inherent benefits from doing so. It's utterly unneccessary. The word ''god'' cannot be made more accurate because it's not a scientific term and it's just a made up definition, whereas gravity isn't.

///__you wrote redundant things

You wrote something redundant; that science updates with reason (this has been a part of my post's initial theme). It is merely recently in human history that there are reasons to update/incorporate "god" as it relates to causes of cosmos.

 

 

 

 

//__why not redefine computers

Gods were proposed as cause of cosmos, before computers.

 

So, god is still updatable by science, as 'gravity' was.

 

 

 

//__frail in antiquity

Gravity was frail in antiquity. Gravity did not always mean attractive force.

 

 

 

//__please research before commenting.

I would still prefer solid objections that actually hold water(if possible).

 

PS:

If I had detected an error in the redefinition, based on any responses to my original post, I would have long acknowledged such. .

Edited by ProgrammingGodJordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.