Jump to content

What defines religion (split from correlation w/poverty)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

But you acknowledge that it's still religion. Why is that? It seems inconsistent with your position.     You just broke my irony meter.

Quoting someone who agrees with you is not proof of anything other than that person agrees with you. All you've done here is assert your opinion as fact and then proclaim that nobody else's opinion m

Immortal - Do you understand, and acknowledge, the following fact: There exist religious people whose interpretation of their religion (or of yours, for that matter) conflicts with your own... ??

If reality doesn't exists then the equipment doesn't really exist.

So you can't use it to prove anything.

 

Empirical reality is a dream, working scientists have underestimated religion and have underestimated the Lord. Even in dreams entities appear to exist independent of us but in reality we know that it is only a state of mind and similarly even in this empirical reality the equipment appears to exist independent of us but in reality this empirical reality is only a state of mind. The equipment exists but only in your mind and hence it is not objectively real.

 

"9—10 In dreams, what is imagined within the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but truly, both are known to be unreal. Similarly, in the waking state, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but both should be held, on rational grounds, to be unreal"

 

- This is the decision of Vedanta, the eastern philosophical system or school of thought. Science is not all there is.

 

 

Chapter II — Vaitathya Prakarana (The Chapter on Illusion)

 

1 Harih Aum. The wise declare the unreality of all entities seen in dreams, because they are located within the body and the space therein is confined.

 

2 The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved, cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects. Nor does he, when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.

 

3 Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non—existence of the chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the unreality established by reason is proclaimed by scripture.

 

4 The different objects seen in the confined space of dreams are unreal on account of their being perceived. For the same reason i.e. on account of their being perceived, the objects seen in the waking state are also unreal. The same condition i.e. the state of being perceived exists in both waking and dreaming. The only difference is the limitation of space associated with dream objects.

 

5 Thoughtful persons speak of the sameness of the waking and dream states on account of the similarity of the objects perceived in both states on the grounds already mentioned.

 

6 If a thing is non—existent both in the beginning and in the end, it is necessarily non—existent in the present. The objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are regarded as real.

 

7 The utility of the objects of waking experience is contradicted in dreams; therefore they are certainly unreal. Thus both experiences, having a beginning and an end, are unreal.

 

8 The objects perceived by the dreamer, not usually seen in the waking state, owe their existence to the peculiar conditions under which the cognizer i.e. the mind functions for the time being, as with those residing in heaven. The dreamer, associating himself with the dream conditions, perceives those objects, even as a man, well instructed here, goes from one place to another and sees the peculiar objects belonging to those places.

 

9—10 In dreams, what is imagined within the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but truly, both are known to be unreal. Similarly, in the waking state, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but both should be held, on rational grounds, to be unreal.

 

11 If the objects perceived in both waking and dreaming are illusory, who perceives all these objects and who, again, imagines them?

 

12 It is the self—luminous Atman who, through the power of Its own maya, imagines in Itself by Itself all the objects that the subject experiences within and without. It alone is the cognizer of objects. This is the decision of Vedanta.

 

Immortal,

 

The question remains, what bearing, does reaching nirvana have, on reality and the rest of us? How would you define the difference between understanding ultimate reality, by taking LSD, or learning the secret of the Vedas?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You have misunderstood many things, mysticism is not entirely subjective, it can be empirically studied. For example, St Teresa of Avila shattered the whole room so much that her nuns came running to see what happened to her, you might not know the power of the numinous and might go on and fool yourself but I am not and also when they opened her cremation again her body gave out an aromatic fragrance which is a common phenomena among the mystics of all cultures.

 

Scientists have ignored such phenomena and have decided not to investigate the supernatural but I doesn't want to show such biases and ignore such phenomena by saying such silly things as they were all on LSD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Immortal,

 

"If the objects perceived in both waking and dreaming are illusory, who perceives all these objects and who, again, imagines them?"

 

The human. By realizing there is a reality that he/she is in and of. This reality, in total has formed the physical person, and informed him/her of all the forms that exist outside the limited space of their person. The "illusions", while waking are internalized analog representations of the forms that exist outside the person. This outside, we call (as Atheists) in the West, the universe, or reality. That we as persons are connected, for real, with this outside is a given. There would be no place to come from, no where to go, nothing to interact with, and nothing to effect us, and nothing to dream about without it.

 

The dream, is made from the same forms, but the forms are mixed together in unrealistic fashions. Mappings and simplifications, pattern matching, analogies, metaphors, and dots and lines filling in gaps that put a dream reality together that need not follow the rules of reality, and need not fit together as solidly and continually as the forms of reality fit together.

 

The self combines the forms contained in the dream, and the forms experienced in the waking state, and notices the difference between and the similarities between.

 

To eliminate any confusion as to whether the dream fits reality, one tests the dream against what is found in the waking world. If it fits, it is usable. If it doesn't fit, either the dream is incomplete or incorrect, or reality needs to be adjusted by real actions, to match.

 

So we are back to the same question. What is your next action, after dreaming you are an illusion in the dream of God. My contension is, you make breakfast, and arrange yourself and your surroundings, to match your dream of what you are going to have for supper.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Empirical reality is a dream, working scientists have underestimated religion and have underestimated the Lord.

 

Saying it again doesn't make it true. You said you had proof, but your "proof" contradicts itself.

Do you actually have evidence?

(Once again, I remind you that an appeal to authority won't do: nor will an experiment which relies on equipment which you claim does not really exist)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying it again doesn't make it true. You said you had proof, but your "proof" contradicts itself.

Do you actually have evidence?

 

 

Yes, I have lots of proofs and I am not a fool to hold such a radical position without genuine logical reasons or proofs and to take sides with Penrose and Bernard.

 

Proof of Bell's theorem

 

Violation of Bell's inequality implies either one of these premises or assumptions of science are wrong.

 

1. Einsteinian separability - i.e. An event A cannot be the cause of an event B if [latex]( \Delta s) ^2 < 0.[/latex]

2. Realism - i.e. The assumption that an object has an independent pre-defined properties prior to measurement.

3. Induction

 

Nature indeed violates Bell inequality which means either one of these assumptions must be wrong and experiments were made to allow for non-local influences and tested for realism but even then non-local realistic theories fail to account for observed correlations showing that it is the premise of realism which is wrong. We need to abandon the notion of an objective reality existing independent of us.

 

A variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem proved by Roger Penrose to show that strong AI is impossible.

 

 

"I told you that the mind is like a pillar of light. Hold on to that pillar. When the light gets scattered its power gets dispersed. But if the light is focused and one-pointed then it is all powerful and quite bright. The same principle holds in respect of the mind. By nature it is fickle. When you intend to hold an object in your hand, you use all your fingers to clasp it, don't you? Likewise, if you wish to "hold" your mind, you should have a perfect hold on the sensory organs which are the instruments of the mind. If you wish to achieve or attain anything you should see that your concentrated attention of mind is not led astray by your senses. That concentrated mind should be focused fully on what you wish to achieve. Then, like a top, which spins round a centralized point, your mind remains fully, unswervingly concentrated on the aim or the object. It is like a serpent turning its head round to contact the tail. Your mind which begins with a strong question or doubt finds a suitable answer after a concentrated spin round the point. This I would say, is the first or primary step for your tapas."

 

-Devudu, Sanskrit Scholar

 

There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths. However we have a mechanism for how mathematicians access the ideal world of numbers in the platonic realm. In the words of Penrose there must be something in the physics of the nature which is non-computable, however Penrose doesn't seem to be aware of the Pagan mystery religions and hence he thinks he can find that answer in the structure of space-time at the fundamental fabric of the cosmos which in my opinion is a wrong approach to find the platonic values, platonic values are beyond space-time where as space-time are just categories of the human mind. Penrose might be wrong in how he is connecting all his ideas together but he is right about his mathematical arguments that there is something in the way humans think which cannot be simulated on a computer.

 

The only reason I believe in the pagan mystery religions is because of this and not because of other things like quantum mechanics. QM just adds additional reasons and forces us to question the existence of the empirical reality independent of the human mind. These ideas are not meant for publication because the authors of the Upanishads didn't signed their names on their works. This is no one's intellectual property. This knowledge belongs to the people of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, I have lots of proofs and I am not a fool to hold such a radical position without genuine logical reasons or proofs and to take sides with Penrose and Bernard.

 

Proof of Bell's theorem

 

Violation of Bell's inequality implies either one of these premises or assumptions of science are wrong.

 

1. Einsteinian separability - i.e. An event A cannot be the cause of an event B if [latex]( \Delta s) ^2 < 0.[/latex]

2. Realism - i.e. The assumption that an object has an independent pre-defined properties prior to measurement.

3. Induction

 

Nature indeed violates Bell inequality which means either one of these assumptions must be wrong and experiments were made to allow for non-local influences and tested for realism but even then non-local realistic theories fail to account for observed correlations showing that it is the premise of realism which is wrong. We need to abandon the notion of an objective reality existing independent of us.

 

No. As explained in quantum mechanics textbooks experiments are compatible with both realism and locality. Quotations from textbooks can be given if required...

 

There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths.

 

The chemistry behind mathematicians' brains is the same than that behind the rest of us. They are affected by the same drugs, chemicals... Moreover there is not "absolute mathematical truths" in our modern understanding of maths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Immortal,

 

Brahman is true, Atman is true, but the vedic solution to the problem stinks.

 

It is quite obvious that we are far removed, and well insulated from the beginning and the end of the universe.

It is quite obvious that we are tiny compared to the solar system, galaxy and local cluster, much less the universe in total.

It is quite obvious we are huge compared to the quarks that make us up.

 

The middle way is the best way. More Buddist than Vedic. And much more realistic than your "illusion" solution provides.

 

I am convinced that I have just as much Atman and just as much Brahman as any other peice of universe that there is. There is no secret that the universe can keep from itself.

 

And I am just as much a peice of objective reality to you, as you are to me, and as a tree is to the both of us.

 

That we are sentient means exactly that we feel reality.

 

Enlightenment means absolutely zero, if there is nothing to illuminate.

 

Regards, TAR2



And the scientific method beats the pants off the sage's method of finding truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This

"There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths."

is an argument from ignorance and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Looking on the bright side, it makes a change from the appeals to authority which I'm sure we were all getting bored of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. As explained in quantum mechanics textbooks experiments are compatible with both realism and locality. Quotations from textbooks can be given if required...

 

 

The chemistry behind mathematicians' brains is the same than that behind the rest of us. They are affected by the same drugs, chemicals... Moreover there is not "absolute mathematical truths" in our modern understanding of maths.

 

I guess you're talking of this textbook.

 

Quantum Theory and Reality

 

However Griffiths is wrong, there are theorems which have been proved to show that the measurement problem is unavoidable and it leads to a contradiction in quantum mechanics, either the Schroedinger wavefunction is not all there is or the wavefunction isn't right.

 

You are also wrong about the latter one too(mathematical insight) and both of your misunderstandings has been corrected and tackled in this paper.

 

Foreward: A Computable Universe, Understanding Computation and Exploring Nature as Computation - Roger Penrose

 

However Penrose has missed a simple puzzle, if he thinks that absolute mathematical truths exist somewhere outside of ourselves then he is looking for it in the wrong place, he is searching for it in the structure of space-time and in the microtubules of the brain but anyone who has studied the Pagan mystery religions very well knows that Platonists i.e. our ancients argued that there is a Nous(Mind) apart from the brain which access the ideal Platonic forms from the intelligible realm. Its as simple as that. I figured this out years back and all evidence is in favour of a hypercosmic God i.e. my God. I am quite happy that brilliant physicists like Bernard do recognize it. Progress in science doesn't come by evading the problem, progress and advancement comes by thinking and solving it and giving up our strongly held prejudices.

 

I am pushing forward this as a God hypothesis. A God hypothesis is a reasonable competing hypothesis explaining the origin of the cosmos and our place in it. This is not a god of the gaps argument, this is a argument which fills a gap in our understanding of the cosmos. This time it is religion which is going to correct science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pushing forward this as a God hypothesis. A God hypothesis is a reasonable competing hypothesis explaining the origin of the cosmos and our place in it. This is not a god of the gaps argument, this is a argument which fills a gap in our understanding of the cosmos. This time it is religion which is going to correct science.

 

 

Immortal, do you know what irony is? You are attempting to fill a gap with Goddidit... While scientists are formulating theories that do explain the origin of the universe you want to yet again say goddidit, What you are proposing is no better than the Goddidit explanation for lightning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This

"There is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which can account for how the mathematicians can access the ideal world of the platonic realm and obtain absolute mathematical truths."

is an argument from ignorance and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Looking on the bright side, it makes a change from the appeals to authority which I'm sure we were all getting bored of.

 

I have studied both molecular neurobiology and also the Pagan mystery religions and there is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which account for how mathematicians access absolute truths existing outside of ourselves, of course magical forces might be lurking inside our brains, there is no evidence of it but there is evidence to believe that a Nous(Mind) exists separate from the brain and one can verify it by performing Theurgy.

 

Also experiments were given to show that the empirical reality doesn't exist independent of us and not appeals to authority. I am actually quite bored of these silly excuses given as a cop out to escape from the facts of nature. Either this forum is outdated and the members have not kept up with recent findings and experiments or it doesn't deserve to be a science forum since no one here goes according to the facts of nature discovered by scientists and religious scholars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have studied both molecular neurobiology and also the Pagan mystery religions and there is no mechanism with in the neuro-chemistry of the brain which account for how mathematicians access absolute truths existing outside of ourselves, of course magical forces might be lurking inside our brains, there is no evidence of it but there is evidence to believe that a Nous(Mind) exists separate from the brain and one can verify it by performing Theurgy.

 

For the sake of the god you profess to believe in Immortal please show some thing besides reheated bullshit to support this crap... Why do feel like you can assert that with out god i can't count? Because trimmed of all the bullshit that is what you are saying...

 

Also experiments were given to show that the empirical reality doesn't exist independent of us and not appeals to authority. I am actually quite bored of these silly excuses given as a cop out to escape from the facts of nature. Either this forum is outdated and the members have not kept up with recent findings and experiments or it doesn't deserve to be a science forum since no one here goes according to the facts of nature discovered by scientists and religious scholars.

 

 

or possibly you are mistaken... Hmmm which could it be... there are no facts of nature discovered by religion...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two major problems with Immortal's latests assertions.

The first is an argument from ignorance.

He thinks that , because he doesn't understand the mechanisms by which the brain does things, it can not do them without needing to involve some sort of "magical" ingredient.

That's plainly absurd.

 

the second thing is the he tacitly asserts that some sort of "magical" event takes place when a mathematician comes up with something new, and he assigns that "magic" to God.

OK, by that "definition", computers are now blessed by God because computers can invent mathematical theorems which nobody knew about before.

Here's a link to a book full of them.

 

So, either the programmers managed to build some "magic" into their computer or Immortal is simply wrong to assume that creating new maths needs "magic".

That's not too big a shock.

He made the assumption that some "magic" was needed on the basis that he doesn't understand the neuroscience involved.

Well, nor do I and I suspect nobody does. But that doesn't mean that there is no "magic free" explanation- it just means we haven't found it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the link. Could you take it on faith for the minute that I'm not stupid enough to lie about it and answer the point?

 

Computer generated proofs exist.

So either the machines have God in them too, or proof doesn't need God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Cuthber,

 

I like your argument. I think Immortal will have a hard time finding a logical answer that refutes your argument, and stays consistent with his own conclusions.

 

It is difficult for Immortal to explain an illusion being able to have a "mind" of its own. Though this has been my point against Immortal's position all along. I think you have finally cornered the gentleman. We will see what contortions follow.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you're talking of this textbook.

 

Quantum Theory and Reality

 

I wrote "textbooks", which is plural. But the above textbook is specially good because addresses, in a direct way, some of the more typical misunderstandings of quantum mechanics.

 

However Griffiths is wrong, there are theorems which have been proved to show that the measurement problem is unavoidable and it leads to a contradiction in quantum mechanics, either the Schroedinger wavefunction is not all there is or the wavefunction isn't right.

 

The same link that you gave mentions the measurements:

 

Measurements play no fundamental role in quantum mechanics, just as they play no fundamental role in classical mechanics. In both cases, measurement apparatus and the process of measurement are described using the same basic mechanical principles which apply to all other physical objects and physical processes. Quantum measurements, when interpreted using a suitable framework, can be understood as revealing properties of a measured system before the measurement took place, in a manner which was taken for granted in classical physics. See the discussion in Chs. 17 and 18. (It may be worth adding that there is no special role for human consciousness in the quantum measurement process, again in agreement with classical physics.)

 

There is no theorem that proves him wrong.

 

You are also wrong about the latter one too(mathematical insight) and both of your misunderstandings has been corrected and tackled in this paper.

 

Foreward: A Computable Universe, Understanding Computation and Exploring Nature as Computation - Roger Penrose

 

However Penrose has missed a simple puzzle, if he thinks that absolute mathematical truths exist somewhere outside of ourselves then he is looking for it in the wrong place, he is searching for it in the structure of space-time and in the microtubules of the brain but anyone who has studied the Pagan mystery religions very well knows that Platonists i.e. our ancients argued that there is a Nous(Mind) apart from the brain which access the ideal Platonic forms from the intelligible realm. Its as simple as that. I figured this out years back and all evidence is in favour of a hypercosmic God i.e. my God. I am quite happy that brilliant physicists like Bernard do recognize it. Progress in science doesn't come by evading the problem, progress and advancement comes by thinking and solving it and giving up our strongly held prejudices.

 

I am pushing forward this as a God hypothesis. A God hypothesis is a reasonable competing hypothesis explaining the origin of the cosmos and our place in it. This is not a god of the gaps argument, this is a argument which fills a gap in our understanding of the cosmos. This time it is religion which is going to correct science.

 

He does not say that I am wrong. He simply states his personal opinion (he emphasizes "I do") and next writes:

 

But I appreciate that others are sometimes less sympathetic to this kind of viewpoint.

 

Indeed! But "less sympathetic" is not the correct term used by critics including myself. He is just wrong.

 

I missed the link. Could you take it on faith for the minute that I'm not stupid enough to lie about it and answer the point?

 

Computer generated proofs exist.

So either the machines have God in them too, or proof doesn't need God.

 

Adam is a well-known example of a robot scientist inventing new laws and theorems...

 

The Automation of Science 2009: Science 324(5923), 85–89. King, Ross D.; Rowland, Jem; Oliver, Stephen G.; Young, Michael; Aubrey, Wayne; Byrne, Emma; Liakata, Maria; Markham, Magdalena; Pir, Pinar; Soldatova, Larisa N.; Sparkes, Andrew; Whelan, Kenneth E.; Clare, Amanda.

Edited by juanrga
Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the link. Could you take it on faith for the minute that I'm not stupid enough to lie about it and answer the point?

 

That's not the only doubt that I had in my mind, one more doubt which I had was whether you have understood the argument or not and I think you have not understood the argument yet. In case you have not understood it please understand it, the argument is Can machines think? or to put in Turing's words Can machines do what we can do? The answer to that question which has been already proved is a clear no.

 

Is thinking Computable?

 

Please understand the argument by reading this paper.

 

Computer generated proofs exist.

So either the machines have God in them too, or proof doesn't need God.

 

humanvsmachine.jpg

 

First we will go for simple tasks before building a machine which discovers new theorems for us.

 

Consider this simple problem, Armstrong numbers-

 

[latex]1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3 = 153[/latex]

 

Given this example I want a machine which generates an algorithm for me as its output all by itself which when given any number the algorithm needs to check whether the number is an Armstrong number or not. I want the machine to discover that algorithm for me all by itself.

 

Only then one can reasonably say that the machine has some understanding and has some insights or is thinking. We are no where near it.

 

Even if you give that machine a thorough crash course on the C language and make it learn we still don't know how to make that machine understand the problem in hand in the first place because a human being need to interfere and define the semantics and meaning and provide a representation to the machine and after all this how do you give the power of insight to the machine as to what should be the next step that needs to be taken to discover that intended algorithm or the solution to a problem?

 

We are no where near it and it has already been proved that human beings can do things which machines will never be able to do, human beings knows answers or truth values to problems for which no algorithm exists, ergo human thinking is non-computable and all part of human thinking cannot be simulated on a computer.

 

Once you understand the fact that conscious thought cannot be simulated on a computer the next thing is to look for alternate models which account for that phenomena and this is where a God hypothesis is inevitable and a honest person should investigate such a hypothesis and if you actually do theurgy the truth is right out there for anyone to verify it.

 

There is no theorem that proves him wrong.

 

You're mistaken, there are sound proofs which show that the measurement problem leads to a contradiction in quantum mechanics and it is unavoidable. Either Schroedinger's wavefunction isn't all there is or the wavefunction isn't right.

 

A general argument against the universal validity of the superposition principle - Angelo Bassi and Ghirardi

 

This is one proof and much more stronger version of that proof has been proved by Bernard.

 

 

Adam is a well-known example of a robot scientist inventing new laws and theorems...

 

The Automation of Science 2009: Science 324(5923), 85–89. King, Ross D.; Rowland, Jem; Oliver, Stephen G.; Young, Michael; Aubrey, Wayne; Byrne, Emma; Liakata, Maria; Markham, Magdalena; Pir, Pinar; Soldatova, Larisa N.; Sparkes, Andrew; Whelan, Kenneth E.; Clare, Amanda.

 

Adam did not invented any laws or theorems, it discovered previously unknown genes which codes for particular enzymes all by itself which is no surprising than a evolutionary algorithm coming up with new design solutions which were previously unknown to human beings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can stop waiting now (Sorry, I had to catch the bus to work earlier.)

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Home-Education/Computer-Generated-Encyclopedia-of-Euclidean-Geometry.shtml

Others are available.

So, lets be clear about this.

Computers can generate new mathematics- previously unknown to man.

 

 

On that score, humans are no longer unique (if they ever were: I'm not getting into an argument about what animals think here)

 

BTW, I read Penrose's book when it was new. It didn't convince me then either.

Citing it doesn't do anything to convince me of the validity of your case.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're mistaken, there are sound proofs which show that the measurement problem leads to a contradiction in quantum mechanics and it is unavoidable. Either Schroedinger's wavefunction isn't all there is or the wavefunction isn't right.

A general argument against the universal validity of the superposition principle - Angelo Bassi and Ghirardi

This is one proof and much more stronger version of that proof has been proved by Bernard.



No. As explained in any QM textbook there are two possible evolutions of a given quantum system and each evolution is described by a different postulate of quantum mechanics: Schrödinger postulate vs von Neumann postulate. Evidently the latter is not reducible to the former (something already proven by von Neumann in his foundational papers) because otherwise you would not need two postulates. In von Neuman's own words:

 

  • The probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change brought about by observation and measurement, as outlined above.
  • The deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolution of an isolated system that obeys Schrödinger's equation (or nowadays some relativistic, local equivalent, i.e. Dirac's equation).

 



Bassi and Ghirardi just verify that the evolution associated to the von Neumann postulate is nonlinear. Something which has been known for many decades; this is why the dynamical laws postulated since the 60s to describe collapse are all nonlinear...

Adam did not invented any laws or theorems, it discovered previously unknown genes which codes for particular enzymes all by itself which is no surprising than a evolutionary algorithm coming up with new design solutions which were previously unknown to human beings.



First I would like to link to the computer who discovered Newtonian laws by itself before replying about Adam

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/

About what Adam did/does I will simply quote the Science paper cited before:

The basis of science is the hypothetico-deductive method and the recording of experiments in sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. We report the development of Robot Scientist "Adam", which advances the automation of both. Adam has autonomously generated functional genomics hypotheses about the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and experimentally tested these hypotheses by using laboratory automation. We have confirmed Adam’s conclusions through manual experiments.

[...]

With robot scientists, comprehensive metadata are produced as a natural by-product of the way they work. Because the experiments are conceived and executed automatically by computer, it is possible to completely capture and digitally curate all aspects of the scientific process (11, 12). To demonstrate that the robot scientist methodology can be both automated and be made effective enough to contribute to scientific knowledge, we have developed Robot Scientist "Adam" (13).

[...]

Adam formulated and tested 20 hypotheses concerning genes encoding 13 orphan enzymes (16) (Table 1).

[...]

To further test Adam's conclusions, we examined the scientific literature on the 20 genes investigated (Table 1) (16). This revealed the existence of strong empirical evidence for the correctness of six of the hypotheses



Tested hypothesis are the laws and theorems associated to the underlying formal systems. The physicists concept of law is not the only possible in science, biology and chemistry have their own laws.
Edited by juanrga
Link to post
Share on other sites

Immortal,

 

While we can argue whether a machine can be developed that would have human judgment, it, the consideration, assumes there is real humans that have human judgment, and real machines, that do not. These things we are judging, as to their consciousness or minds are real things, not imaginary things. Exactly not illusions, or dreams. Real, existing entities.

 

If there is a "human spirit" it would be void of any meaning or value, or "place" to exist, if it were not a fact, a real, not an illusion fact, that humans exist.

 

Since any argument, about the nature of man, the genesis of life on our planet, the beginnings of religion, the origin of language, the history of thought, or what is a wrong philosophy or a right one, demands first that there are many examples of humans with various real histories, personalities, wills and ideas, existing on a real planet, with a history and a current existence, and a future that will be real as soon as we all together reach the next real present moment, I would think your "illusion" solution is false, by definition. A sage CANNOT live without food and water and air. He/she will DIE without them. This will render the Sage very unsagelike. No thought, no dreams, no consciousness, no way to sense anything, or make any judgements about what is the difference between this and that, or what is consistently present, or any way to discern reality from illusion, or any reason to make such distinctions. Dead, the sage will not be able to listen to the silence, or rise above, or overcome, or leave anything undone, or complete anything. Without being a live human, the sage cannot experience human experience of reality.

 

Life is a thing you can not live without.

 

Experiencing reality is something you cannot do without reality to experience.

 

Your demand for us to accept the unreal as the only reality is completely devoid of sense and meaning.

 

If you can't find God, in reality, then God is unreal. Only dream, only ideal, only hope, only faith. And these things are not real, until we find them in objective reality, in the person of a real entity, or group of entities, that really exist, like each other, for instance. Our neighbors, our family, the people we socialize with, the people we talk to on forums, the people that have created the wonderful ways they have created to arrange reality for human benefit, and human existence...since homosapiens lifted the first tool, and utter the first word, and made the first human judgment.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can stop waiting now (Sorry, I had to catch the bus to work earlier.)

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Home-Education/Computer-Generated-Encyclopedia-of-Euclidean-Geometry.shtml

Others are available.

So, lets be clear about this.

Computers can generate new mathematics- previously unknown to man.

 

 

On that score, humans are no longer unique (if they ever were: I'm not getting into an argument about what animals think here)

 

BTW, I read Penrose's book when it was new. It didn't convince me then either.

Citing it doesn't do anything to convince me of the validity of your case.

 

 

It doesn't change the fact that you haven't understood the argument yet, the argument made was not that machines cannot prove theorems, the argument made was that if you take any such automated theorem prover as given by you it will have statements which it cannot prove but we humans can know the truth value of those statements, any such ATP will be either incomplete or inconsistent but a human can go beyond such a formal system and can know the truth value of those statements. Ergo machines can never surpass human mathematical insight.
Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.
-Kurt Godel
Actually its both, mathematics is too big for the human mind and hence it exists separately in the platonic realm apart from the Nous(Mind) which we call the Intellect and Mind is more than a machine in the sense it is the product of a divine God.
Now I have given two valid reasons one is this and another one is what we call reality is only a state of mind and since even the brain falls under empirical reality there must be a mind separate from the brain which generates this empirical reality including our brains. The atheistic scientific community might be blind about this however we are not and we will continue to model the world that a mind and an intellect exists separate from the mind and we will continue to study the divine light rays of God and the government here has established this university to do just that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep making essentially the same argument from ignorance.

Because you can not make a computer which can prove (some) things in mathematics which humans can, you assume that it's impossible.

I contend that I don't need to understand how that computer works to demonstrate its existence: because I have one between my ears.

 

In a sense your view is begging the question.

You say the mind is not a computer because it can do things which a computer can't do.

It's just as valid to say that, because the mind can do these things, and the mind is a computer (albeit made of grey squishy stuff) a computer demonstrably can do these things.

 

For example: a computer solved Fermat's last theorem.

It was the computer in this guy's head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles

 

 

No need for God, just a rather better computer than you or I can (at least currently) understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Immortal,

 

Well I think there is another way, other than the eminations of rays, to understand our situation.

 

If you believe in evolution, then there was a time when the human mind did not exist. It emerged, as living organisms became more and more complicated with subsystems forming systems and systems developing in concert with each other to "fit" with reality, and pass on a "working" form or stucture, to the next generation.

 

In my muses, I have come to the understanding that my "thoughts" are of reality. My senses pick up sights and smells and vibrations, and reproduce them in an analog way, within the briain. I "remember" reality, in this fashion, and contain a "reflection" of it, in the synapses and neural fibers and connections in my brain. As a smooth lake surface reflects the sky and trees and mountains, reality is reflected in the folds and structures and signals of our brains. That we each have this internal model of reality, within us, is not a separation of us from reality, but a connection, a solid connection to reality, that our thoughts are made of.

 

In addition to our ability to remember reality, is our ability to compare past images with present ones. To notice changes in reality. And our math abilities, our analogies, our mappings, our set theories, our ratios and relationships, our functions and our metaphors, are OF reality. I do not think the mere fact that our minds are capable of this "copying" and noticing of reality, should be taken as if our image is the real thing, and the real thing is an illusion. I think it is rather the opposite. Reality exists, and we build a somewhat crude model of it, in our thoughts or brain, or mind. It is, however VERY uncrude, in the sense that it is a much better model we are able to build, than the model a rock is able to build. We can learn from each other, and follow stories way beyond the reach of our senses, through the use of the language and symbol systems we have developed, which allow us to pass our "thoughts" our evidence, and even our dreams, onto others.

 

In this take of mine, we are reality, we reflect on reality, and our minds and focus are real. No eminations are required to explain the situation. Our association with objective reality is automatic, real, and complete. No magic required.

 

Regards, TAR2



Bottom line, Immortal, anything we think is a derivative of reality. It cannot be the other way around, as you suggest.



Except of course when and where we arrange reality to fit our dreams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.