Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn't - the manner by which computers learn via machine learning is effectively exactly the same as we do. In other word via a process of 'directed' learning, in other words with direct input from a teacher (in the case of the computer a programmer) and then through independent learning - without external input being able to assimilate and learn from information available to the computer.

All done in the perception of a conscious human observer - not the computer
The computer does not "know" what it is doing.
Only human conscious awareness can perceive this.

[ProfessorDavey]

All done in the perception of a conscious human observer - not the computer

If we do not watch, does this occur anyway.

Answer - yes it does.

If we do not intervene, does this occur anyway.

Answer - yes it does.

The machine learning doesn't require any human intervention, nor any human perception.

Get with the programme.

[torridon]

It is certainly possible to mimic human behaviour or surpass the limits of human intelligence by intelligently developed software, but you will never be able to program the self awareness needed to enable consciously driven acts of will.

We routinely fit amputees with prosthetic limbs, are such people slightly less human than those with their original limbs ?  Suppose in the future we learn to treat dementia by replacing dead neurons with lab grown ones, or with prosthetic neurons that have the same functionality. Would a patient with a head full of artificial neurons be incapable of consciousness ?

[Roses]

We routinely fit amputees with prosthetic limbs, are such people slightly less human than those with their original limbs ?  Suppose in the future we learn to treat dementia by replacing dead neurons with lab grown ones, or with prosthetic neurons that have the same functionality. Would a patient with a head full of artificial neurons be incapable of consciousness ?

Good post.

[Alan Burns]

We routinely fit amputees with prosthetic limbs, are such people slightly less human than those with their original limbs ?  Suppose in the future we learn to treat dementia by replacing dead neurons with lab grown ones, or with prosthetic neurons that have the same functionality. Would a patient with a head full of artificial neurons be incapable of consciousness ?

Yes, the physical human body is just an assembly of replaceable parts, but the one thing which can't be replaced is what comprises "you" - your soul.

[Roses]

Yes, the physical human body is just an assembly of replaceable parts, but the one thing which can't be replaced is what comprises "you" - your soul.

A soul doesn't exist!

[Alan Burns]

If we do not watch, does this occur anyway.

Answer - yes it does.

If we do not intervene, does this occur anyway.

Answer - yes it does.

The machine learning doesn't require any human intervention, nor any human perception.

Get with the programme.

Outside human conscious perception, the activity of any computer software becomes just meaningless reactions.  With no human to perceive the results, the programmed activity, no matter how complex, is pointless.

[torridon]

Yes, the physical human body is just an assembly of replaceable parts, but the one thing which can't be replaced is what comprises "you" - your soul.

Given you haven't been able to describe what the soul is or provide some sort of link to evidence, then we can ignore your baseless assertion.

By the principle of Hitchens' Razor, that which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

[Alan Burns]

Given you haven't been able to describe what the soul is or provide some sort of link to evidence, then we can ignore your baseless assertion.

By the principle of Hitchens' Razor, that which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

On the subject of Hitchens,
I posted this link some weeks ago on another thread, but it drew no comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8yBnpN48w
It is an interesting take on Hitchens from a very devout Christian

[Sebastian Toe]

"you" - your soul.

Ah, the soul.......

If, as you assert, your soul resides in a timeless realm, only experiencing time when it visits our physical universe, in order to make some free-will decisions.
Please use your free will to describe to me what it is like, residing in a timeless place. 
What do you feel, experience there?
Use your time here to give an insight as to that existence?
For example, there must be some sort of volume there because there will be billions if other souls existing alongside yours. Are you aware if them?
Are the souls of the people yet to be born there? If not, where could they possibly be?
Do the souls of those who die move somewhere else? If so, where and how?
So many questions.

It would be fascinating to see your description of your experience of that place.

[Stranger]

Yes, the physical human body is just an assembly of replaceable parts, but the one thing which can't be replaced is what comprises "you" - your soul.

Baseless assertion.

Outside human conscious perception, the activity of any computer software becomes just meaningless reactions.  With no human to perceive the results, the programmed activity, no matter how complex, is pointless.

Baseless assertion.

Where is the first hint of the "sound logic" you said you had?

[torridon]

On the subject of Hitchens,
I posted this link some weeks ago on another thread, but it drew no comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8yBnpN48w
It is an interesting take on Hitchens from a very devout Christian

I think he is looking to build fan base among waverers by heaping praise on Hitchens. In order to scoop that, he positions himself at the opposite end of the spectrum from literalism and redefines God as 'justice', or 'goodness' rather than some sentient being wielding supernatural powers and intervening in people's personal lives.  Some waverers might warm to that, and conversely, conservative factions within the church will cringe in horror.

[Alan Burns]

I think he is looking to build fan base among waverers by heaping praise on Hitchens. In order to scoop that, he positions himself at the opposite end of the spectrum from literalism and redefines God as 'justice', or 'goodness' rather than some sentient being wielding supernatural powers and intervening in people's personal lives.  Some waverers might warm to that, and conversely, conservative factions within the church will cringe in horror.

You are totally wrong on his take on God, as you would discover if you read or listened to his prolific output on the Christian faith.  Try listening to his hour long affirmation of the real presence in the Eucharist which leaves you in no doubt about his faith in God as the supreme being, the source of all creation and all existence.

[Roses]

You are totally wrong on his take on God, as you would discover if you read or listened to his prolific output on the Christian faith.  Try listening to his hour long affirmation of the real presence in the Eucharist which leaves you in no doubt about his faith in God as the supreme being, the source of all creation and all existence.

Whatever his take on faith it is only a belief with no evidence to support it.

[SteveH]

Given you haven't been able to describe what the soul is or provide some sort of link to evidence, then we can ignore your baseless assertion.

By the principle of Hitchens' Razor, that which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Hitchens was a deeply irritating twat, but I suppose he had a point there.

[torridon]

You are totally wrong on his take on God, as you would discover if you read or listened to his prolific output on the Christian faith.  Try listening to his hour long affirmation of the real presence in the Eucharist which leaves you in no doubt about his faith in God as the supreme being, the source of all creation and all existence.

Which is in contrast to the video you chose to post up.  Adjusting his output for different audiences, I suppose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

On the subject of Hitchens,
I posted this link some weeks ago on another thread, but it drew no comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8yBnpN48w
It is an interesting take on Hitchens from a very devout Christian

Had a quick look at the video, at least for as far as I could stomach it. He kicks off with the appeal to flattery fallacy (“CH was a great writer” etc), moves next to the No True Scotsman fallacy (“but the god CH disliked wasn’t the real god we sophisticated Christians believe in” etc) then launches into the fallacy of reification with a series of unqualified statements of faith presented as if they were facts (“God is justice” etc).

Pretty thin stuff, and he’s way out of his depth.

Oh, and I see that you’ve just ignored again the various explanations I gave you about the nature of emergence in particular. How do you expect to learn anything if you’re determined to remain ignorant of the matters on which you presume to pontificate?     

[Nearly Sane]

Which is in contrast to the video you chose to post up.  Adjusting his output for different audiences, I suppose.

Or indeed lying

[SusanDoris]

AB,

Had a quick look at the video, at least for as far as I could stomach it. He kicks off with the appeal to flattery fallacy (“CH was a great writer” etc), moves next to the No True Scotsman fallacy (“but the god CH disliked wasn’t the real god we sophisticated Christians believe in” etc) then launches into the fallacy of reification with a series of unqualified statements of faith presented as if they were facts (“God is justice” etc).

Pretty thin stuff, and he’s way out of his depth.

Oh, and I see that you’ve just ignored again the various explanations I gave you about the nature of emergence in particular. How do you expect to learn anything if you’re determined to remain ignorant of the matters on which you presume to pontificate?     

I don't know how you could bear to click on the link - the very thought of so doing makes me cringe!

[Alan Burns]

Given you haven't been able to describe what the soul is or provide some sort of link to evidence, then we can ignore your baseless assertion.

By the principle of Hitchens' Razor, that which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

But there is evidence in abundance - which you and others have sought reasons to dismiss.
For example the reality of our own conscious freedom - a freedom you demonstrate by consciously trying to dismiss such freedom as an illusion.  A freedom which is indeed a logical impossibility when analysed from a materialist point of view.

And there are the miracles, personal witness stories, historical accounts of God's witness to mankind, culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus - all apparently dismissed using the "logically impossible version of conscious freedom".

[Alan Burns]

Oh, and I see that you’ve just ignored again the various explanations I gave you about the nature of emergence in particular. How do you expect to learn anything if you’re determined to remain ignorant of the matters on which you presume to pontificate?     

You are free to put your faith in whatever you think can emerge unintentionally from unguided physical reactions in material entities.

I put my faith in God.

[Nearly Sane]

You are free to put your faith in whatever you think can emerge unintentionally from unguided physical reactions in material entities.

I put my faith in God.

Is there any way in which you could chose not to put your faith in your god?

[Stranger]

You are totally wrong on his take on God, as you would discover if you read or listened to his prolific output on the Christian faith.  Try listening to his hour long affirmation of the real presence in the Eucharist which leaves you in no doubt about his faith in God as the supreme being, the source of all creation and all existence.

Then he's being dishonest in the video you linked to before.

[torridon]

But there is evidence in abundance - which you and others have sought reasons to dismiss.
For example the reality of our own conscious freedom - a freedom you demonstrate by consciously trying to dismiss such freedom as an illusion.  A freedom which is indeed a logical impossibility when analysed from a materialist point of view.

I was free to post on here because no body and no thing is stopping me.  This is what freedom means.

From Merriam Webster dictionary :

Definition of freedom
1: the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another

Stop twisting words and concepts, you've been pulled up on this before. I am free to do what I want because no one is stopping me.  I haven't exerted any supernatural powers to stop people from bothering me.  Freedom is not the same thing as consciousness.  Consciousness is not defined as some magical state that liberates people from determinism, or from themselves, or from their desires or from principles of logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But there is evidence in abundance - which you and others have sought reasons to dismiss.

Yes, and you in turn have been unable to explain why you think those reasons to be wrong.

For example the reality of our own conscious freedom - a freedom you demonstrate by consciously trying to dismiss such freedom as an illusion.

Except what you call “reality” here is just a repletion of your unfounded, logically impossible assertion about the matter.

A freedom which is indeed a logical impossibility when analysed from a materialist point of view.

Lying won’t help you either. The “materialist” part has nothing to do with it (as you’ve had explained countless times). Materialist or not, it’s just logic. And logically your claims are indeed impossible. That’s why you have to resort to magic to get you out of the bind. 

And there are the miracles,…

No, there are stories and claims of miracles – as there are from many faiths you believe not to be true.

…personal witness stories,….

If by "stories" you mean eye-witness accounts, there are none and even if there were there’d be no way to know whether the narrative explanations these witnesses came up with for what they saw were true.

…historical accounts of God's witness to mankind,…

There are no such "historical" accounts.

…culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus –

A story with no means of verification, and remarkably similar to the same resurrection claims from various faith systems that preceded it.

all apparently dismissed using the "logically impossible version of conscious freedom".

No, dismissed because they fail even basic tests of historicity. If you really want to set the bar for admissible “evidence” lower than a snake’s undercarriage though then you have no choice but to accept the evidence of claims from countless other faiths made on exactly the same basis.

Is that really where you want to be?