Author Topic: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)  (Read 2982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« on: February 22, 2017, 01:21:57 AM »
NOTE I: No opinion, faith, belief nor emotion was utilized in the creation of the following passage.
NOTE II: I am atheistic, I tend to avoid things such as belief/faith etc, especially as the inventor of 'non-beliefism'
ADAPTED FROM PAPER: https://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scientific_redefinition_of_God_by_an_atheist


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

[In youtube video "youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg", minute 14:11]








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)


A.II: WHY A?

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



{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?


(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.


The aforesaid progression merely metamorphoses the typical archaic god, betwixt the falsifiable paradigm.









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)

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

Here are three steps for how one may become a highly-capable god, on the horizon of the scientific definition above.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 08:09:58 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 Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15349
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2017, 06:23:51 AM »
Step 1: Redefine the word "god."

Step 2: ...

Step 3:
(click to show/hide)

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4546
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2017, 09:59:48 AM »
A god is not necessarily omnipotent. The God of the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an is claimed by his believers to be omnipotent, but this is not a necessary condition for being a god. That particular god is claimed to be able to create intelligent creatures, but this too is not a requirement for being a god.

A god is an entity that can act upon our material world in ways not consistent with the laws of nature that govern the natural world and the creatures in it. To a greater or lesser degree, a god can do things that violate the laws of nature.

Therefore, gods do not actually exist, but are inventions of human imagination, and humans are not gods in any sense of the word except when used as a figure of speech, as in the phrase "I am a god to my dog." The phrase does not claim that the speaker actually is a god, merely that the speaker's dog regards the speaker as the speaker would regard a dog.

Thus I disagree with the premise that being able to built stuff makes us "minimally-capable gods."
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 Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • I know you know I know
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2017, 01:06:06 PM »
I kind of agree with daniel1948, but a little more loosely.  I'd say that there's a lot of definitions of the word "god", but that the original poster's definition is not one of them.  Existing primarily outside of the natural world (not being constrained by its limits like everyone else) is one characteristic that is fairly wide-spread and central.  Creating intelligence is not really god-like in my opinion.

Offline 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2017, 01:09:05 PM »
God is in many ways a useless term. "I can't conceive of how evolution happens, therefore a god exists".

God as in an ancient Greek god, sure. Living on top of a mountain, affecting weather events, having sex with animals. Not that far-fetched.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4546
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2017, 01:24:44 PM »
God is in many ways a useless term. "I can't conceive of how evolution happens, therefore a god exists".

This is a very recent phenomenon. People believed in gods long before anyone came up with the idea of evolution. The actual paradigm among fundamentalist evolution-deniers is: "I believe God exists and I don't see how evolution fits into the Bible, therefore I don't believe in evolution."
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 Louie

  • Actually three chimps tag-teaming a keyboard.
  • Global Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Let the elephant make everything kushtee.
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2017, 01:48:41 PM »
God is in many ways a useless term. "I can't conceive of how evolution happens, therefore a god exists".

God as in an ancient Greek god, sure. Living on top of a mountain, affecting weather events, having sex with animals. Not that far-fetched.

That disregards the search for greater meaning and the comforts of shared beliefs, as well as the unifying sense of locality that underlies the formation of most religions. It's not just hearing the thunder and going: "Crap, what's that?!
"It can't end like this. Tell them I said something." - Pancho Villa's last words (1923).

Offline teethering

  • 37% better than Slick
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10907
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2017, 02:00:27 PM »
We have words that mean things.  Like "car" means a vehicle of a particular set of characteristics, usually four tires, some number of doors between 1 and 5 etc etc.  When you say "car" another human being that speaks English understands to some degree of certainty the meaning you're trying to convey and you have a meeting of the minds and can continue talking about things involving cars with ease.

However if you start your conversation about automobiles with re-defining "car" to mean "a flightless bird that has seventeen tentacles and lives in a burrow and enjoys singing operatic arias in the moonlight" then that's not conductive to a meeting of the minds.  How about we leave "car" to mean "car" and "God" to still mean "God" and then talk about artificial intelligence in a clear and straight-forward way.  We have lots of ways to describe the power of technology that is in no way relates to religious faith or magic.  Let's use them.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10640
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2017, 02:23:41 PM »
It's somewhat trivial but modern technology certainly gives us abilities that would have bee ascribed to gods not that long ago. Other than than that, meh. 

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2017, 03:12:10 AM »
God is in many ways a useless term. "I can't conceive of how evolution happens, therefore a god exists".

God as in an ancient Greek god, sure. Living on top of a mountain, affecting weather events, having sex with animals. Not that far-fetched.

Merely the theistic mind bounds God to daniel's defintion.

In contrast, my definition keeps one shared ability (the ability to generate non-trivial intelligence, an empirically present ability in humans), & discards scientifically unfounded properties (immaterial control, omniscience etc)


PS: I tend to avoid opinions, perhaps you should too..
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 03:15:43 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 Caffiene

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4793
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2017, 05:09:26 AM »
The question is, what is the purpose or intended audience of your writing?

Ok, so youve got your own definition of god. Thats fine, youve stated it upfront, but it leaves the question then of what purpose the discussion is. You are no longer using the same definition, so the ideas have no relevance to anybody elses ideas about god. It cant respond to theists, atheists, or anybody else without being an equivocation. At best, you can offer arguments based entirely on the opinion that their definition is "wrong".

So... I am somebody who can to some degree improve my brain. Ok. Seems pretty obvious and non-controversial, what was the purpose of describing it?

The rest is essentially a version of the Simulation Hypothesis but with less reference to a source of creation.
[Lurk Mode Disengage]

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2017, 05:42:14 AM »
The question is, what is the purpose or intended audience of your writing?

Ok, so youve got your own definition of god. Thats fine, youve stated it upfront, but it leaves the question then of what purpose the discussion is. You are no longer using the same definition, so the ideas have no relevance to anybody elses ideas about god. It cant respond to theists, atheists, or anybody else without being an equivocation. At best, you can offer arguments based entirely on the opinion that their definition is "wrong".

So... I am somebody who can to some degree improve my brain. Ok. Seems pretty obvious and non-controversial, what was the purpose of describing it?

The rest is essentially a version of the Simulation Hypothesis but with less reference to a source of creation.

The instance that we are Gods, does not require an understanding of the simulation hypothesis.

We are empirically observed to be able to self-enhance our intellect.

Anyway, this seeks to purge atheistic ignorance. Atheists tend to offset that gods are unlikely.

Before Sam Harris mentioned the possibility of Gods, I had sent him an article related to the original post.

I seek to purge ignorance.




PS:
Whether or not I decide to make these notations, humans are Gods, as defined in the original post, based on the overlap observed therein, between the claimed theistic Gods, and humans.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 06:30:15 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 Caffiene

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4793
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2017, 06:58:57 AM »
Anyway, this seeks to purge atheistic ignorance. Atheists tend to offset that gods are unlikely.

And they are correct (assuming you mean "atheists believe", or "atheists posit", etc... I have no idea what "atheists tend to offset" is supposed to mean otherwise). They are not referring to your definition of God, they are using a different definition with different requirements, and to use the two definitions interchangeably is the logical fallacy of Equivocation.

I could just as easily define "Christian God" as an entity that can engineer non-trivial intelligence and then say Christians are correct and we've proved that the Christian God exists. If we arent using the same definition its meaningless.
[Lurk Mode Disengage]

Offline ProgrammingGodJordan

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • I am the creator/founder of "nonbeliefism.com".
    • "Non beliefism" = Atheism minus Theism
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2017, 07:04:05 AM »
Anyway, this seeks to purge atheistic ignorance. Atheists tend to offset that gods are unlikely.

And they are correct (assuming you mean "atheists believe", or "atheists posit", etc... I have no idea what "atheists tend to offset" is supposed to mean otherwise). They are not referring to your definition of God, they are using a different definition with different requirements, and to use the two definitions interchangeably is the logical fallacy of Equivocation.

I could just as easily define "Christian God" as an entity that can engineer non-trivial intelligence and then say Christians are correct and we've proved that the Christian God exists. If we arent using the same definition its meaningless.

Yes, atheists tend to posit that gods are 'entirely' unlikely.
I have observed an atheist (Richard Dawkins) that disregarded the possibility of form of God similar to what is defined in the original post:

This is observed as emotional bias, rather than 'the logical fallacy of equivocation'.
"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 daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4546
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2017, 08:45:50 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.
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

 

personate-rain