Author Topic: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)  (Read 2532 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2017, 10:39:25 AM »
In Alice in Wonderland Humpty Dumpty insists that when he uses a word, it means what he wants it to mean. The obvious problem is that if a word means whatever you want it to mean, then there is no communication. Language functions only to the extent that the meanings of words are generally agreed upon. Confusion arises when two people have different definitions of the same word.

You can re-define God if you want. But what is the purpose? You don't believe in God, but you want to be able to use the word, so you define it to mean something entirely different. Now you can use it, but nobody will have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I could define God as the squirrel that lives in the tree just outside my house. Then when asked if I believe in God I could say, "Of course I believe in God. I see him every day." I could laugh about fooling Christians into thinking I'm one of them, but if they ever figured out the joke they'd just think I was a liar. I had a friend who named his springer spaniel Godfrey. We all called him God for short. Made for lots of fun and silly jokes. Any time someone said "God knows," meaning that something is a mystery, we'd all look at the dog. "Do you suppose that blizzard will hit Fargo?" "God knows!" <Everyone stares at Godfrey the dog, as if he might give us the answer.>

Instead of re-defining God so that people are gods, it might be more productive to just talk about human potential and that we have no need of gods. But if you really feel that the conventional definition of God applies to humans because we can build stuff, then I disagree with you, because I don't think that notion expresses the meaning of the word.


///__why would I 'want'?

Why is your response devoid of valid thought?

I did not 'want' to use the word God.

I simply identified a shared property, between the typical theistic claimed God, and humans.

Science has reduced expressions amidst empirical sequences for centuries.



///__bias

A large degree of the answers here probably stem from emotional bias.

I tend not to be bounded by such biases.

'Non-beliefism' (an invention of mine) defines God on the horizon of science.

The paradigm above allows me to operate absent silly biases.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 10:42:20 AM by ProgrammingGodJordan »
"Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor. ("Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism)
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism":
http://nonbeliefism.com
 
 
I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

Offline teethering

  • 37% better than Slick
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10802
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2017, 11:57:02 AM »
Quote
Science has reduced expressions amidst empirical sequences for centuries.

lolwut?  What is this word salad?  Try forming sentences to get ideas across, rather than using big words to masturbate.  You're not communicating, you're showing us how big your thesaurus is.

Quote
A large degree of the answers here probably stem from emotional bias.

I tend not to be bounded by such biases.

lolwut*2

So far you have failed to provide any original or thought-provoking ideas, you're just annoying people with your bewildering and unnecessary insistence on setting ridiculous ground rules on how to begin a discussion about A.I..  And the odd thing is that A.I. tends to fascinate the geek nerd-dom of this forum, so you failing to get the juices flowing should give you pause in how you're doing it all wrong.

Also, shit like what I quoted above comes across as arrogant and rude.  Again, if you want to have a conversation you want to minimize dictating the terms under which it'll happen, you want to invite people into it and make them comfortable.  Your methods are doing the exact opposite of that for no apparent reason.

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2017, 02:33:44 PM »
Quote
Science has reduced expressions amidst empirical sequences for centuries.

lolwut?  What is this word salad?  Try forming sentences to get ideas across, rather than using big words to masturbate.  You're not communicating, you're showing us how big your thesaurus is.

Quote
A large degree of the answers here probably stem from emotional bias.

I tend not to be bounded by such biases.

lolwut*2

So far you have failed to provide any original or thought-provoking ideas, you're just annoying people with your bewildering and unnecessary insistence on setting ridiculous ground rules on how to begin a discussion about A.I..  And the odd thing is that A.I. tends to fascinate the geek nerd-dom of this forum, so you failing to get the juices flowing should give you pause in how you're doing it all wrong.

Also, shit like what I quoted above comes across as arrogant and rude.  Again, if you want to have a conversation you want to minimize dictating the terms under which it'll happen, you want to invite people into it and make them comfortable.  Your methods are doing the exact opposite of that for no apparent reason.

Irrelevant.
"Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor. ("Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism)
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism":
http://nonbeliefism.com
 
 
I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

Offline teethering

  • 37% better than Slick
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10802
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2017, 05:33:45 PM »
Quote
Science has reduced expressions amidst empirical sequences for centuries.

lolwut?  What is this word salad?  Try forming sentences to get ideas across, rather than using big words to masturbate.  You're not communicating, you're showing us how big your thesaurus is.

Quote
A large degree of the answers here probably stem from emotional bias.

I tend not to be bounded by such biases.

lolwut*2

So far you have failed to provide any original or thought-provoking ideas, you're just annoying people with your bewildering and unnecessary insistence on setting ridiculous ground rules on how to begin a discussion about A.I..  And the odd thing is that A.I. tends to fascinate the geek nerd-dom of this forum, so you failing to get the juices flowing should give you pause in how you're doing it all wrong.

Also, shit like what I quoted above comes across as arrogant and rude.  Again, if you want to have a conversation you want to minimize dictating the terms under which it'll happen, you want to invite people into it and make them comfortable.  Your methods are doing the exact opposite of that for no apparent reason.

Irrelevant.

Considering that this is an internet forum I think being able to engage people in a conversation is the only thing that really matters.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4240
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2017, 05:35:53 PM »
... I simply identified a shared property, between the typical theistic claimed God, and humans. ...

Actually, you have not. You made an unsubstantiated claim of a shared property, and on the bases of that one supposed shared property, asserted that humans are (limited) gods. The flaw in your logic becomes obvious with a simple example: Birds and bats share a property: wings. But for all that, birds are not bats and bats are not birds.

Gods are supposed to be able to create things. Humans can build things. That is not sufficient to claim that humans are gods. Your premise is questionable, and even if it were true, your conclusion does not follow from it.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline teethering

  • 37% better than Slick
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10802
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2017, 05:46:32 PM »
It's more than a little weird to drop the "supernatural" aspect of divinity, which I think to most is the defining property of "God" all in an effort to make some sophomoric and trite point about how powerful technology might be becoming.  All this with diagrams and bullet points which illuminate literally nothing of substance, but seem to be employed in an effort to offer gloss to vapid and self-congratulatory dilettante philosophizing.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 14971
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2017, 05:49:51 PM »
Hey teethering, we all seem to take issue with his redefining the term "god."  But everyone else has managed to do it without being a jerk about it.
I agree with Clunn, which makes me feel all weird inside.

Offline teethering

  • 37% better than Slick
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10802
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2017, 06:30:30 PM »
Well sometimes I want to make it extra clear when someone is completely and utterly full of shit, you of all people should know that, Andrew.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 14971
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2017, 06:33:27 PM »
Well sometimes I want to make it extra clear when someone is completely and utterly full of shit, you of all people should know that, Andrew.

I get that, but the guy is new, his posts aren't absurdly long, and he's not being disrespectful.  I just don't see what he's done to earn the personal hostility.
I agree with Clunn, which makes me feel all weird inside.

Offline DG

  • The Prophet
  • Global Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2676
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2017, 06:41:10 PM »
Moderator Comment Enough diversion - get back on topic.

Signed: God
"If you don't like the theory of evolution you should probably skip the practical".


Offline teethering

  • 37% better than Slick
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10802
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2017, 06:42:42 PM »
Well sometimes I want to make it extra clear when someone is completely and utterly full of shit, you of all people should know that, Andrew.

I get that, but the guy is new, his posts aren't absurdly long, and he's not being disrespectful.  I just don't see what he's done to earn the personal hostility.

I strongly disagree that he's not being disrespectful.  The only reason I went up a notch in my criticism, which didn't start out as harsh as the last post, is that the dismissive and disrespectful approach to initial criticism isn't going anywhere.  I was hoping we'd correct the course from some inane bullshit to actually an interesting discussion on A.I.  What I see instead is that all the OP's eggs are in the basket of self-gratifying appearance of sophistication and intellect, rather than actual substance.  So I'm calling him out on that.

As a general rule, new people or no, I try to meet a person at the level of engagement they're at to start with, erring on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt if things aren't going well.  And then I take my cue from them.

Sorry DG, my last post on clarifying the meta of this thread.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4240
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2017, 06:45:29 PM »
... he's not being disrespectful. ...

He's kind of disrespectful in posts #15 and #17.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2017, 09:03:50 PM »
... I simply identified a shared property, between the typical theistic claimed God, and humans. ...

Actually, you have not. You made an unsubstantiated claim of a shared property, and on the bases of that one supposed shared property, asserted that humans are (limited) gods. The flaw in your logic becomes obvious with a simple example: Birds and bats share a property: wings. But for all that, birds are not bats and bats are not birds.

Gods are supposed to be able to create things. Humans can build things. That is not sufficient to claim that humans are gods. Your premise is questionable, and even if it were true, your conclusion does not follow from it.


Shared property: the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence. (Both humans and claimed theistic Gods contain said property)
"Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor. ("Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism)
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism":
http://nonbeliefism.com
 
 
I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2017, 09:06:13 PM »
It's more than a little weird to drop the "supernatural" aspect of divinity, which I think to most is the defining property of "God" all in an effort to make some sophomoric and trite point about how powerful technology might be becoming.  All this with diagrams and bullet points which illuminate literally nothing of substance, but seem to be employed in an effort to offer gloss to vapid and self-congratulatory dilettante philosophizing.

Irrelevant.
As I bear no bias betwixt Gods, (though atheistic) I am able to identify that property (between man and claimed theistic Gods) bound in reality.
So, I did not need to consider supernatural aspect, but merely consider property bound in reality.

The supernatural aspect is not scientifically founded.

PS: Humans create smarter instances of themselves through learning tasks. (empirically observed) This satisfies the re-definition of God in my original post.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 09:14:39 PM by ProgrammingGodJordan »
"Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor. ("Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism)
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism":
http://nonbeliefism.com
 
 
I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2017, 09:12:10 PM »
Well sometimes I want to make it extra clear when someone is completely and utterly full of shit, you of all people should know that, Andrew.

I get that, but the guy is new, his posts aren't absurdly long, and he's not being disrespectful.  I just don't see what he's done to earn the personal hostility.

I strongly disagree that he's not being disrespectful.  The only reason I went up a notch in my criticism, which didn't start out as harsh as the last post, is that the dismissive and disrespectful approach to initial criticism isn't going anywhere.  I was hoping we'd correct the course from some inane bullshit to actually an interesting discussion on A.I.  What I see instead is that all the OP's eggs are in the basket of self-gratifying appearance of sophistication and intellect, rather than actual substance.  So I'm calling him out on that.

As a general rule, new people or no, I try to meet a person at the level of engagement they're at to start with, erring on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt if things aren't going well.  And then I take my cue from them.

Sorry DG, my last post on clarifying the meta of this thread.

Your criticism is nonsense. (See above post)

Perhaps you should exercise calm, for neutral aligned beings tend to do better at logic tasks than both positively and negatively emoting beings.


Anyway, if I had detected an error in my post (based on your criticisms), I would have long made that publicly known. We are trial/error constructs, and so it would be odd to simply neglect any errors ground in science.
However, you are yet to display any such error.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 09:16:43 PM by ProgrammingGodJordan »
"Non beliefism" is probably atheism's successor. ("Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism)
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism":
http://nonbeliefism.com
 
 
I am a casual body-builder & software engineer:
https://www.facebook.com/ProgrammingGodJordan

 

personate-rain
personate-rain