Author Topic: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)  (Read 3176 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
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #120 on: March 05, 2017, 07:22:46 PM »
Quote from: werecow
And how is this connected to the thing I was responding to, which was "Our cosmos is shown to be discretized (quantized chunks)" (which is a retrodiction)?

Maybe I should rephrase the question. Describe in some detail a realistic experiment that we could run today or in the very near future that could be used to test your model on a manageable scale. "Create a human level AI or a universe" is neither realistic in any sensible time frame, nor remotely detailed enough to take seriously.


(A)

The redefinition sequence yields classifications of the redefined god, such that:

(1) humans are empirically minimally capable gods, as they can engineer human level intelligence (not ai, but humans can engineer smarter instances of themselves by learning tasks)

(2) humans may become highly capable gods by either engineering non trivial ai, or yield universes. (This is the part that is a prediction, through modern sciences such as digital physics or Penrose Hawkins' singularity theorems)



(B)

While prediction (1.b) is well, a prediction, we see evidence that universe yielding or non trivial ai yielding is probable, rather then not:


(a) Machines now run efficiently (though still not human- efficiently) at 10^14 + simulated synaptic ops per second, of the total human 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic ops per second.
Notably, as efficient parallelism increased over time, machines did more and more cognitive tasks. (and machines continue to enhance with better artificial neural synaptic approximations)


(b) We are simulating more and more detailed universes. (Eg illustris) As time had passed, simulations had enhanced. Science deals with predictions, and there is no reason to ignore the progression of capability/time relation.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 07:05:45 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 werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3257
  • mooh
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #121 on: March 05, 2017, 07:48:32 PM »
And how do these predictions differ from when we do not include your redefinition of "God"? Would that preclude creating human level AI, simulating universes, or any other prediction your model makes? If so, why? If not, then we're back to my earlier question of what this actually adds to our understanding beyond mere redefinition of an existing term.
Mooohn!

Offline Henning

  • Official Forum Artist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4941
  • Mad "Liker"
    • Anomalina
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #122 on: March 05, 2017, 08:19:29 PM »
Let me help.

Quote
(1) humans   are empirically minimally capable gods, as they can engineer human level intelligence (not ai, but humans can engineer smarter instances of themselves by learning tasks)   learn.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. -- Hitchens.

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 #123 on: March 06, 2017, 03:24:26 AM »
And how do these predictions differ from when we do not include your redefinition of "God"? Would that preclude creating human level AI, simulating universes, or any other prediction your model makes? If so, why? If not, then we're back to my earlier question of what this actually adds to our understanding beyond mere redefinition of an existing term.


No new fundamental understanding is gained. In the mannerism of science, an update is simply performed, in modern science descriptions.

 (The redefinitions "piggyback" on already established sciences, initially via cause bound components, i.e  penrose Hawkins' theorems, Digital physics etc, then via sub components like neuroscience) such that new classification forms of humans emerge.


Note that the initial post did not indicate that new fundamental work was done. As mentioned, it exists merely to update archaic god concept (using nothing other than related modern science). Classifications of humans as gods arises, in a non biased fashion. (I am an atheist)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 03:28:04 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 werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3257
  • mooh
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #124 on: March 06, 2017, 04:40:23 AM »
No new fundamental understanding is gained. In the mannerism of science, an update is simply performed, in modern science descriptions.

OK, so the only thing that's really new is the label? Earlier you said 'I didn't merely "update the concept of god"'. This now sounds to me like that is exactly what you did, which is what some of us have been saying from the start of this thread.
Mooohn!

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 #125 on: March 06, 2017, 05:17:34 AM »
No new fundamental understanding is gained. In the mannerism of science, an update is simply performed, in modern science descriptions.

OK, so the only thing that's really new is the label? Earlier you said 'I didn't merely "update the concept of god"'. This now sounds to me like that is exactly what you did, which is what some of us have been saying from the start of this thread.
(1)
No, the label is not new, hence "redefinition".


(2)
I notice you took a quote of mine, out of context.

As it relates to said 'I didn't merely" quote of mine, here is the context:

Quote from: werecow
How does that add anything to our knowledge of how the universe works? Newton didn't just "update the concept of gravity"....
Quote from: ProgrammingGod
I composed the redefinition in terms of (penrose hawkins' theorems, etc)
So, I didn't merely "update the concept of god".

I referred to the instance that like Newton, I took modern scientific components such that the classifications arose, instead of merely redefining god absent rigourous modern science.
"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 werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3257
  • mooh
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #126 on: March 06, 2017, 06:41:18 AM »
No new fundamental understanding is gained. In the mannerism of science, an update is simply performed, in modern science descriptions.

OK, so the only thing that's really new is the label? Earlier you said 'I didn't merely "update the concept of god"'. This now sounds to me like that is exactly what you did, which is what some of us have been saying from the start of this thread.
(1)
No, the label is not new, hence "redefinition".
The label was newly applied to these concepts, was my intended meaning.

(2)
I notice you took a quote of mine, out of context.

As it relates to said 'I didn't merely" quote of mine, here is the context:

Quote from: werecow
How does that add anything to our knowledge of how the universe works? Newton didn't just "update the concept of gravity"....
Quote from: ProgrammingGod
I composed the redefinition in terms of (penrose hawkins' theorems, etc)
So, I didn't merely "update the concept of god".

I referred to the instance that like Newton, I took modern scientific components such that the classifications arose, instead of merely redefining god absent rigourous modern science.

And as I said before, I fail to see any (non-trivial) difference between what you said and what I said.
Anyway, at this point it appears we're moving in circles and we're just arguing over semantics.
Mooohn!

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 #127 on: March 06, 2017, 07:16:45 AM »
Quote from: werecow
And as I said before, I fail to see any (non-trivial) difference between what you said and what I said.
Anyway, at this point it appears we're moving in circles and we're just arguing over semantics.

(1)
No need for confusion.
To make things clear, when you said the following:

Quote from: werecow
OK, so the only thing that's really new is the label? Earlier you said 'I didn't merely "update the concept of god"'. This now sounds to me like that is exactly what you did, which is what some of us have been saying from the start of this thread.


(2)
I responded:

Quote from: ProgrammingGodJordan

I notice you took a quote of mine, out of context.

As it relates to said 'I didn't merely" quote of mine, here is the context:

Quote from: werecow
How does that add anything to our knowledge of how the universe works? Newton didn't just "update the concept of gravity"....
Quote from: ProgrammingGod
I composed the redefinition in terms of (penrose hawkins' theorems, etc)
So, I didn't merely "update the concept of god".

I referred to the instance that like Newton, I took modern scientific components such that the classifications arose, instead of merely redefining god absent rigourous modern science.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 07:20:27 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 werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3257
  • mooh
Re: Humans are minimally capable Gods (written by an atheist)
« Reply #128 on: March 06, 2017, 10:52:54 AM »
Yeah OK, just copy pasting an earlier unclear response isn't gonna clear things up.

I don't think I have much more to add to this thread, though, so let's just leave it there.
Mooohn!

 

personate-rain