Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

FREE SOFTWARE GIVEAWAY

We have 4 x Pro Licences (valued at $59 each) for 2d modular animation software Spriter to give away in this Thursday's GDNet Direct email newsletter.


Read more in this forum topic or make sure you're signed up (from the right-hand sidebar on the homepage) and read Thursday's newsletter to get in the running!


What do you think about the Revelation?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
472 replies to this topic

#201 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 22 July 2011 - 08:05 PM


We can always talk, but a meaningful conversation would require for 2 parties to have a minimum amount of respect for the other's opinion(note: Not for the right to have an opinion, for the opinion itself). I don't think your worldview is laughable, just different. But you do. I don't perceive myself smarter than you, but you do. Therefore, you're right, a conversation cannot happen.

As for free will, the subject interests me very much, and it's one of the reasons I believe in God. You said it, without an extra-physical soul, there are only impersonal natural laws and randomness. I believe there is something more, hence, the Creator God and his gift to humanity, free will.

LMAO!!


Well at least you proved you are willing to converse as equals with your reply. Didn't you say you were leaving this thread? Were you upset that people were actually furthering the discussion and there wasn't enough bigotry motivated trolling going on?

Sponsor:

#202 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2270

Posted 22 July 2011 - 08:31 PM

You know, with all respect to all posters,I think the thread ran its course and has gotten pretty off topic. It is inevitable that it will be closed, so I'm going to go ahead and ask a moderator to do it now, please.

#203 Codarki   Members   -  Reputation: 462

Posted 22 July 2011 - 08:48 PM

I'm amazed we are still talking about this in "modern" age. I find studies about cults and brain washing to be fascinating. How to make people believe and follow whatever is told. Large religions are especially interesting, becouse it's a global issue that touches us all in real life. With millions of followers it kind of feeds itself.

Also I think the globalization is the cause of the misinformation. I don't mean to point blame, but I do think the now popular thing of questioning the evolution is mainly coming from US. It's been approved fact in europe for decades. The religion is cannot be let in politics. Also at some point I thought the Vatican was crazy, but now there seems to be alot of churches in US who doesnt listen or follow what pope says about their religion.

I think we should just quit talking about this.

#204 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2270

Posted 22 July 2011 - 09:36 PM

You know, what's with this all "I think we should quit talking about this" and "I can't believe we're talking about this God thing". This is the Lounge, ffs. We had a thread about peeing at the bathtub. You can indeed not talk about this, by not posting in this thread. What, it annoys you that much to have a discussion thread in the front page that has something to do with religion?

#205 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 638

Posted 23 July 2011 - 01:03 AM


I won't argue about hell since it's obvious that you've already decided what you want to believe and it makes you feel good, therefore you are not willing to change.

I am willing to change, if I want to of course.

I am willing to change to what evidence points to, regardless of what I would like.

"We haven't seen god, therefore there isn't any reason to believe he exists".

You've changed the meaning. "We haven't seen" is very different to "We have no evidence of". If you accept things on faith without evidence you can just accept anything - all options are equally valid.

I've took that under consideration and, after a long process, I decided my personal philosophy for myself, with all the contradictions and unanswered questions that come with it.

For me unanswered questions are fine, we just have to look for more evidence to answer them. Contradictions are however a sign that a hypothesis is wrong. Unfalsifiability is another sign.


I think that's the main difference between us. I care about the truth regardless of emotions attached to it.

Well, that's good. As long as you accept that it's only what you perceive as "truth", and not the objective one.


All we know is from what we perceive (directly or indirectly). You can't claim to know an objective one. You can, of course, believe that you know, but that does not matter.
I'm curious how your "thruth" is "more objective".

#206 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2270

Posted 23 July 2011 - 08:04 AM

All we know is from what we perceive (directly or indirectly). You can't claim to know an objective one. You can, of course, believe that you know, but that does not matter.
I'm curious how your "thruth" is "more objective".


This is way I went on the "Free will" tangent, and I never got a clear response from you. Do you think we have free will, or do you think out actions are simply results of deterministic natural laws, no more "free" than my computer's software, coupled maybe with random chance? If you answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' I can explain in more detail why I'm asking that.

#207 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 638

Posted 23 July 2011 - 08:33 AM


All we know is from what we perceive (directly or indirectly). You can't claim to know an objective one. You can, of course, believe that you know, but that does not matter.
I'm curious how your "thruth" is "more objective".


This is way I went on the "Free will" tangent, and I never got a clear response from you. Do you think we have free will, or do you think out actions are simply results of deterministic natural laws, no more "free" than my computer's software, coupled maybe with random chance? If you answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' I can explain in more detail why I'm asking that.


I do not know. Why are you asking?

#208 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2270

Posted 23 July 2011 - 08:45 AM



All we know is from what we perceive (directly or indirectly). You can't claim to know an objective one. You can, of course, believe that you know, but that does not matter.
I'm curious how your "thruth" is "more objective".


This is way I went on the "Free will" tangent, and I never got a clear response from you. Do you think we have free will, or do you think out actions are simply results of deterministic natural laws, no more "free" than my computer's software, coupled maybe with random chance? If you answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' I can explain in more detail why I'm asking that.


I do not know. Why are you asking?


To prove there are things that are valid to believe in because your intuition pushes you there. I believe, for instance, in free will because, well, it sure damns seems like I have the ability to make my own decisions and I'm different from a TIVO. I have no evidence, but empirically, that's what makes sense to me.

Regardless, if someone said clearly 'I believe in free will", would you say to him that it's as unproved as Santa or the Easter Bunny?

People do things without evidence, simply because of intuition. All the time. Countless man hours have been spent the last decades on string theory, regardless of it being mostly unverified and has yet to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. Elementary particles are made of 1 dimensional strings? 10 or 11 dimensions? Where's the experimental evidence of all that? Yet many many scientist go down that road, hoping that it'll get somewhere. Do you understand? Hard scientific work goes into it, without evidence that it will actually lead somewhere. For all we know, it could be bollocks. The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

Speaking of scientists, people like Newton and Leibnitz were strong believers. Just a note.

#209 A Brain in a Vat   Members   -  Reputation: 313

Posted 23 July 2011 - 11:02 AM



As for free will, the subject interests me very much, and it's one of the reasons I believe in God. You said it, without an extra-physical soul, there are only impersonal natural laws and randomness. I believe there is something more, hence, the Creator God and his gift to humanity, free will.

LMAO!!


Well at least you proved you are willing to converse as equals with your reply. Didn't you say you were leaving this thread? Were you upset that people were actually furthering the discussion and there wasn't enough bigotry motivated trolling going on?

What you said was funny so I laughed. You describe your belief in free will, admitted by you to be no more founded than my intuition that the world is flat, as one of the reasons you believe in God. That makes zero sense and is funny to me. The phrase "Creator God and his gift to humanity" is also pretty funny.

People keep using the word bigotry. In a free country you can, of course, continue to use it, but bigotry suggests intolerance, and I am very tolerant of the rights of others to believe what they want. I don't deny you or desire to deny you the right to your beliefs or practices. It's true that I have little respect for your beliefs, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't think anyone else's beliefs are stupid. I'd guess you'd like me to use nicer words, but I prefer to be blunt because I don't really care what you think about my point of view or the way I express it. If my basic stance is that your position is one of extreme ignorance, what makes you think I'd value your opinion of the words I choose to use?

Converse as equals? I can converse with Christians as equals, but I can't do so with someone who lacks basic logic skills. It's not possible and it's not going to happen.

#210 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2270

Posted 23 July 2011 - 11:04 AM

Converse as equals? I can converse with Christians as equals, but I can't do so with someone who lacks basic logic skills. It's not possible and it's not going to happen.


That's nice to know. So, in a case of time travel, you wouldn't want to converse with this man:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."



LMAO!!!


Poor, poor, ignorant Isaac.

#211 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 638

Posted 23 July 2011 - 11:38 AM

That's nice to know. So, in a case of time travel, you wouldn't want to converse with this man:


"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."



LMAO!!!


Poor, poor, ignorant Isaac.




Steven Weinberg is an atheist. So what?
Read about argument from authority.

#212 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 638

Posted 23 July 2011 - 12:05 PM

To prove there are things that are valid to believe in because your intuition pushes you there.


Intuition tells us the Sun revolves around the Earth.

I have no evidence, but empirically, that's what makes sense to me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
Empirical data is evidence.
However, read about argument from personal experience.

Regardless, if someone said clearly 'I believe in free will", would you say to him that it's as unproved as Santa or the Easter Bunny?


No, because, as I explained in earlier posts, we have evidence to points both ways. One that you've mentioned. On the other hand, the law of nature that we know are deterministic.

People do things without evidence, simply because of intuition. All the time. Countless man hours have been spent the last decades on string theory, regardless of it being mostly unverified and has yet to make predictions that can be experimentally tested.


Yes. And no one is saying the String Theory is true until it's verified.

Yet many many scientist go down that road, hoping that it'll get somewhere. Do you understand? Hard scientific work goes into it, without evidence that it will actually lead somewhere.




Are you kidding? They just sat and thought: let's find a new theory!
We have General Relativity that describes the world on a large scale. And we have Quantum Physics that describes the world on a small scale. Both theories have been verified in their domain. The String Theory is one of the attempts to unify those.

For all we know, it could be bollocks.





Yup. It's like proving a theorem. It could true or it could be false. You have to check to know.

The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.






Ok. First define God, then define free will, the show how having free will requires God.

Speaking of scientists, people like Newton and Leibnitz were strong believers. Just a note.

Albert Einstein was against capitalism. Just a note.



#213 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7586

Posted 23 July 2011 - 12:32 PM

So, yeah, due to being busy etc I've got behind on the thread so I wont' retrace things but I do have a pondering about the belief in 'free will'.

Last I checked the bible only mentions giving man free will; to those who believe in it do you believe this is the case?

#214 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4692

Posted 23 July 2011 - 04:59 PM

The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#215 Aardvajk   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6239

Posted 23 July 2011 - 06:33 PM


The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI


Turing test vs chinese box experiment. As unresolvable as nature vs nurture et al really. We cannot define our own sentience well enough to make a meaningful comparison.

#216 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4692

Posted 23 July 2011 - 07:19 PM



The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI


Turing test vs chinese box experiment. As unresolvable as nature vs nurture et al really. We cannot define our own sentience well enough to make a meaningful comparison.

Being unable to fully explanation something shouldn't stop us from trying. With that said, I don't think what you said really addresses what I'm asking of him.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#217 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 23 July 2011 - 07:51 PM

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI

If we create sentient AI that acts significantly differently than humans would that change your stance? There's no saying what will happen when we reach that point, so it makes just as much sense to look at it from either side of the coin.

Reminds me of this:


Not necessarily God related, but very free will/AI vs human knowledge oriented. Putting aside that I like anything the tachikoma say because I think they are adorable, I really like the explanation. Not sure if I agree with it yet, but it's fun to think about.



#218 Nypyren   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4818

Posted 23 July 2011 - 07:53 PM

RE: Free will...

On very rare occasions (usually at 4am), I get into some weird mental state where I'm doing things (usually mundane such as using the restroom) seemingly on full autopilot, without conciously making myself do anything. Think of sleepwalking, except you're completely aware what you're doing. Possibly http://en.wikipedia....personalization

I thought it was kind of disturbing, but also very interesting. How much of people's beliefs are based on experiencing non-standard mental states like that?

Has anyone else here experienced depersonalization or something like it?

#219 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4692

Posted 23 July 2011 - 09:03 PM


So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI

If we create sentient AI that acts significantly differently than humans would that change your stance?

One, I never declared a stance, so that doesn't apply to me. Two, if the AI is sentient it doesn't matter whether it acts the same or different from humans. It's sentient.

There's no saying what will happen when we reach that point, so it makes just as much sense to look at it from either side of the coin.

I agree. But he made the claim, so I wanted his take on it.

Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=kN50ENE_HUU

Not necessarily God related, but very free will/AI vs human knowledge oriented. Putting aside that I like anything the tachikoma say because I think they are adorable, I really like the explanation. Not sure if I agree with it yet, but it's fun to think about.

You had me at tachikoma.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#220 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2270

Posted 23 July 2011 - 09:47 PM


The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI


Define 'sentient'. One that has 'conscience'? Could we imagine that, at year X, we have achieved AI that can solve virtually all problems that humans solve, and passes all the turing tests, but is predictable, whereas human behaviour remains unpredictable? If so, then no my stance would not change. To explain what I'm trying to say, imagine we put an AI bot and a human in a controlled environment. They both perform actions(walk,navigate,interact with objects), but at that point we can predict the bot's actions, whereas we can't predict the human's actions, even though we have the same amount of information for both(through special sensors, or "brain scanners", or simulations, or what have you). For example, we can say 'in the next few minutes, the bot will occupy itself interacting with object A and object B' and be correct, but can't do the same about the human. In that case no, my stance would not change. If we can predict the human behaviour, then yes, it would. Or in the case of Civ2(which is impressive by the way): Both the computer AI and a human can play the game and win, but we can predict how the AI will play, when we can't for the human.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS