Romans and Jews
09 May 2008, 2:18 am
Kalister1 wrote:
That still does not mean there is a God. Using the commonly held belief of scientists, the scientific method, as a basis for "If we really know or not" is the standard that I put forth to draw the dichotomy between knowledge and belief. You're right, maybe I shouldn't put a should there, as who is to say what we should or should not do. However, simply putting God as an explanation is ludicrous. Mankind has to put forth standards to really "know", as the opposite would be an invitation to madness. According to the standard held by scientists, he does not know there is a god. You can call it arbitrary, and I would say its the best tool we have, as its arbitrary to even believe you are typing this on your keyboard right now.
I believe you are pulling your arguments from Being and Nothingness, "identity".
I believe you are pulling your arguments from Being and Nothingness, "identity".
Science is a useful tool for making sense of the world around us. However, it is not the be-all-end-all of human knowledge. People have attempted to use the "scientific method" to produce poetry and novels. Oddly enough, none of those people are acclaimed writers. Science has its uses, but to confine yourself strictly to one specific worldview limits what you are able to explain in a satisfactory manner. Eclecticism works better, if you only hold to one view you will run up against something that doesn't make sense in the context of your philosophy- if there was one unified approach to knowledge that adequately explained everything, it would be the only one still taken seriously.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
09 May 2008, 2:23 am
Orwell wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
That still does not mean there is a God. Using the commonly held belief of scientists, the scientific method, as a basis for "If we really know or not" is the standard that I put forth to draw the dichotomy between knowledge and belief. You're right, maybe I shouldn't put a should there, as who is to say what we should or should not do. However, simply putting God as an explanation is ludicrous. Mankind has to put forth standards to really "know", as the opposite would be an invitation to madness. According to the standard held by scientists, he does not know there is a god. You can call it arbitrary, and I would say its the best tool we have, as its arbitrary to even believe you are typing this on your keyboard right now.
I believe you are pulling your arguments from Being and Nothingness, "identity".
I believe you are pulling your arguments from Being and Nothingness, "identity".
Science is a useful tool for making sense of the world around us. However, it is not the be-all-end-all of human knowledge. People have attempted to use the "scientific method" to produce poetry and novels. Oddly enough, none of those people are acclaimed writers. Science has its uses, but to confine yourself strictly to one specific worldview limits what you are able to explain in a satisfactory manner. Eclecticism works better, if you only hold to one view you will run up against something that doesn't make sense in the context of your philosophy- if there was one unified approach to knowledge that adequately explained everything, it would be the only one still taken seriously.
One day, science may be able to explain everything. There is a belief. The belief that it one day can not, is also a belief. Who is to say one day science can not do those things? A computer, sensing patterns in the way novels are written, begins writing outstanding stories. I believe scientific rigor is one of the few modes of knowledge still taken seriously.
09 May 2008, 2:29 am
Kalister1 wrote:
One day, science may be able to explain everything. There is a belief. The belief that it one day can not, is also a belief. Who is to say one day science can not do those things? A computer, sensing patterns in the way novels are written, begins writing outstanding stories. I believe scientific rigor is one of the few modes of knowledge still taken seriously.
Science is taken more seriously because it is easier to be objective in science- there's no way to be objective in literature, art, theology, or even politics. I doubt we'll see much in the way of good computer-generated art, personally. Science is good (heck, it's what I intend to make a career of) but there are other approaches to knowledge as well.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
09 May 2008, 2:32 am
Orwell wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
One day, science may be able to explain everything. There is a belief. The belief that it one day can not, is also a belief. Who is to say one day science can not do those things? A computer, sensing patterns in the way novels are written, begins writing outstanding stories. I believe scientific rigor is one of the few modes of knowledge still taken seriously.
Science is taken more seriously because it is easier to be objective in science- there's no way to be objective in literature, art, theology, or even politics. I doubt we'll see much in the way of good computer-generated art, personally. Science is good (heck, it's what I intend to make a career of) but there are other approaches to knowledge as well.
Hmm..
I don't know where to go on this issue. I hope so. That would be very..odd. Maybe even.. scary. Many of us would be out of a job if the computer could make better art than humans. So maybe I don't? Science goes on blindly.
Edit: Also, best thread derailment ever. It went from crap to A++ Definitely going to re-read Sartre.
09 May 2008, 2:39 am
Kalister1 wrote:
Hmm..
I don't know where to go on this issue. I hope so. That would be very..odd. Maybe even.. scary. Many of us would be out of a job if the computer could make better art than humans. So maybe I don't? Science goes on blindly.
Edit: Also, best thread derailment ever. It went from crap to A++ Definitely going to re-read Sartre.
I don't know where to go on this issue. I hope so. That would be very..odd. Maybe even.. scary. Many of us would be out of a job if the computer could make better art than humans. So maybe I don't? Science goes on blindly.
Edit: Also, best thread derailment ever. It went from crap to A++ Definitely going to re-read Sartre.
Well, now we're into the problem of AI and synthetic sentience. Always an interesting topic. Really, I have little to no appreciation for most human-generated art, so I wouldn't be inclined to judge it against computer art. Music would be interesting if computers learned how to compose. However, there is still the question of creativity and how that could ever be produced in a machine; after all, computers run on algorithms. Can an algorithm ever lead to something entirely new? And then, since the capacity for original thought in machines would have been established, they could take over all fields of human study, all scientist would be out of a job.
And yes, this thread derailment was quite epic.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
09 May 2008, 2:42 am
Orwell wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Hmm..
I don't know where to go on this issue. I hope so. That would be very..odd. Maybe even.. scary. Many of us would be out of a job if the computer could make better art than humans. So maybe I don't? Science goes on blindly.
Edit: Also, best thread derailment ever. It went from crap to A++ Definitely going to re-read Sartre.
I don't know where to go on this issue. I hope so. That would be very..odd. Maybe even.. scary. Many of us would be out of a job if the computer could make better art than humans. So maybe I don't? Science goes on blindly.
Edit: Also, best thread derailment ever. It went from crap to A++ Definitely going to re-read Sartre.
Well, now we're into the problem of AI and synthetic sentience. Always an interesting topic. Really, I have little to no appreciation for most human-generated art, so I wouldn't be inclined to judge it against computer art. Music would be interesting if computers learned how to compose. However, there is still the question of creativity and how that could ever be produced in a machine; after all, computers run on algorithms. Can an algorithm ever lead to something entirely new? And then, since the capacity for original thought in machines would have been established, they could take over all fields of human study, all scientist would be out of a job.
And yes, this thread derailment was quite epic.
Well, my major is heavily involved in computers, so my "informed" answer is -
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
09 May 2008, 2:45 am
Kalister1 wrote:
Well, my major is heavily involved in computers, so my "informed" answer is -
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
Ha. If we need to understand the human mind before we have AI, it'll be a rather long wait. We probably would NEED some type of super-AI to be able to understand the mind.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
09 May 2008, 2:46 am
Orwell wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Well, my major is heavily involved in computers, so my "informed" answer is -
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
Ha. If we need to understand the human mind before we have AI, it'll be a rather long wait. We probably would NEED some type of super-AI to be able to understand the mind.
I'm not sure, A.I. isn't something I study very much. There are many articles on it, but for the most part they can be quite esoteric. As you can see on just the wikipedia article, many people are just trying to simulate the human mind. Very difficult.
09 May 2008, 2:48 am
Kalister1 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Well, my major is heavily involved in computers, so my "informed" answer is -
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
No idea.
I have a giant bible on A.I. that I found in a thrift store (SCORE!), and I have yet to read it. I think it all hinges on our ability to understand the human mind, and how to translate that into 0's and 1's.
Ha. If we need to understand the human mind before we have AI, it'll be a rather long wait. We probably would NEED some type of super-AI to be able to understand the mind.
I'm not sure, A.I. isn't something I study very much. There are many articles on it, but for the most part they can be quite esoteric. As you can see on just the wikipedia article, many people are just trying to simulate the human mind. Very difficult.
A place to start is with recursion. The conscious mind is the result of (continuous)Transfinite Recursion..........................
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 May 2008, 9:02 am
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
OrderAndChaos30 wrote:
Aren't options 1 and 5 redundant? The unreducible complexity of nature is the basic reason macro-evolution and abiogenisis can be refuted as logically implausible. I expect plenty of flames from the devout Atheists for insulting their un-god with reason.
They're not invited. Irreducible complexity is just one aspect of why evolution is bull, but there are many more, hence a separate option for generality.
Ah, I do love the arrogance of assuming that all non-fundies are raving atheists. Serious study of evolutionary biology doesn't really leave you with much that you can call "irreducible complexity." Evolutionary researchers have provided explanations for the development of the eye, the wing, and even the move from unicellular to multicellular as well as the development of eukaryotes.
Parakeet, have you ever studied botany? If you truly believe that plants in their present form were specifically created in their exact present form, you believe in a much weaker God than I do. The several flaws in plant anatomy convince me that they are the result of a historical process, which does not create perfect organisms to perfectly fit their environment, but rather improvises and co-opts existing structures as well as possible to meet new needs. The same can be said of much of human anatomy- why do we have an appendix? Why does our mesentery attach at the spine rather than to the rib cage? Evolutionists can answer these questions- you can not unless you admit either fallibility or malice on the part of God, which neither of us would accept.
Enough strawmen! I accept evolution, can you comprehend that?!
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
09 May 2008, 9:44 am
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I have a question: how is the conservation of mass/energy a proof of God? Is this the argument from the fine tuning of the universe?? Or where does it come from, as I do not think that there is a Hezekiah 5:7-8 that says "And the LORD said "Dude, mass and energy is conserved, y'all!(9) Also, if you get really good at science you can turn matter to energy which will be cool but you'll abuse it like the depraved wankers y'all are""
Wow, I actually thought you were going to quote Scripture for a minute there...
rather than be disrespectful and mocking about it.
What can I say... you're proof of God's patience.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
09 May 2008, 9:47 am
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
OrderAndChaos30 wrote:
Aren't options 1 and 5 redundant? The unreducible complexity of nature is the basic reason macro-evolution and abiogenisis can be refuted as logically implausible. I expect plenty of flames from the devout Atheists for insulting their un-god with reason.
They're not invited. Irreducible complexity is just one aspect of why evolution is bull, but there are many more, hence a separate option for generality.
I can't believe you are actually going to college.
I know -- he's actually not corrupted yet!
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
09 May 2008, 9:50 am
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
OrderAndChaos30 wrote:
Aren't options 1 and 5 redundant? The unreducible complexity of nature is the basic reason macro-evolution and abiogenisis can be refuted as logically implausible. I expect plenty of flames from the devout Atheists for insulting their un-god with reason.
They're not invited. Irreducible complexity is just one aspect of why evolution is bull, but there are many more, hence a separate option for generality.
I can't believe you are actually going to college. Irreducible complexity :snort:
Have you seen the rigorous disproving of that? Its really quite iron clad.
Go with your triuphalism someplace else. Also, if it can be disproved then it is falsifiable.
You're wrong on so many counts. Maybe in theology being wrong is the norm, but in science/math you get a F.
(Iamnotaparakeet: in my recent experience, this is when you know your arguments have Kalister1 pinned against the wall -- when he bluntly states that you're wrong, and gives no information backing that up.)
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
