Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


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

#401 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 31 July 2011 - 07:56 AM



OK. Why does god need our love?


He doesn't o.O


I'm starting to wonder if you are a troll.

Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.



Seriously?!? Is it really that difficult to understand? That says nothing about God needing our love, just that we are to love him. You're reading more into it then is there, as many do. :(
Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

Sponsor:

#402 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 599

Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:10 AM




OK. Why does god need our love?


He doesn't o.O


I'm starting to wonder if you are a troll.

Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.



Seriously?!? Is it really that difficult to understand? That says nothing about God needing our love, just that we are to love him. You're reading more into it then is there, as many do. :(



Look up 'need' in the dictionary.
To make it easier for you: why does god require our love?

#403 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:50 AM


Seriously?!? Is it really that difficult to understand? That says nothing about God needing our love, just that we are to love him. You're reading more into it then is there, as many do. :(



Look up 'need' in the dictionary.
To make it easier for you: why does god require our love?


Verb: Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".
Noun: Circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity

God requires our love to grant us salvation. He doesn't need it for himself.

#404 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:55 AM

Of course God doesn't need our love. It's the other way around, we need a loving relationship with Him. All those commands are for the benefit of man entirely, God doesn't need anything, he could spend all his time blowing up galaxies or something for all he cared.

Of course you might say 'I don't need that', but many times people have poor judgement. Take for instance Brain in A Vat, who believes his mind is not fundamentally different from a TiVo or a vacuum cleaner. That's a pretty sad state to be in. And no,his blabberings about the subject don't have evidence that support them; the issue runs quite deep. I'm reading right now a marvellous and well-sold greek book of a famous astrophysicist "I Komi Tis Verenikis" that deals with astronomy,cosmology,evolution and sociology and he poses the question 'can just the increase in calculations complexity of the brain give rise to what we define as the conscious mind, with the abilities to self-reflect and introspect?'. And his answer is 'probably, no'. But of course he is a wise man, not some adolescent that discovered Logic 101 last year and wants to shove his naive ideas to everyone's throat. But I digress...

Another point: There are things in the OT that disgust me too. There's this passage about a man that was gathering sticks on Saturday and was put to death. Now, does that sit well with anyone? I hope not. Where's mercy and forgiveness? Put a human being, a precious life to an end because of a ceremonial law? Wasn't Jesus that said 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath'? Now what I say will probably horrify most Christians, but I don't care as I'm not really a part of any denomination, my faith is personal: It is very possible that the vast compilation of books that is the OT was edited and re-edited hundreds of times, with passages edited, deleted or even added by,say, the Sanhedrin. In this case, what is described here is possible that never happened: The Sanhedrin(or whoever else) added it to 'scare' the Jews into proper observation of the Sabbath. That's only a theory, but it is a logical assumption. And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.

#405 Codarki   Members   -  Reputation: 462

Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:51 PM

It's usually the same old arguments thrown around in these topics. I'm glad to see couple fresh arguments I haven't seen before. Though I'm a bit disappointed no real evidence is shown one way or other, which have been the norm for couple thousand years now, so I'm not surprised.

And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me.

I'm with you on this. Only that my mind tells me it's all man-made. I accept things if they ring true to me, until I'm shown to be in false belief, when I just change my mind for better. It's not a shame to be incorrect, it's a shame be stubborn and incorrect.

#406 _moagstar_   Members   -  Reputation: 461

Posted 01 August 2011 - 03:36 AM

Irrelevant. The O.T. is history, not Christian doctrine.


How do you draw that conclusion?

We're talking in circles here.


Agreed, and it's rather frustrating. I guess we just don't read the bible in the same way, anything that I see as a contradiction you will always find a way to explain, you see crystal clarity where I see a mud of confusion and contradiction. Invoking 'context' doesn't nullify the contradiction or make it any clearer for me, in fact it just serves to demonstrate just how convoluted these texts really are. In fact if we look at the 'larger' context, that these books were written by scores of authors over thousands of years (~2000 years ago), copied and recopied, translated and re-translated, then it does make sense to me. Contradictions and inaccuracies are inevitable! One shouldn't try and 'explain' the contradictions, just accept that it's penned by humans and as such deserves the same kind of scrutiny that any other text written by humans would.

I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.


This reminds me of:


Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it.



And it seems that you, mikeman, are not the only christian who feels this way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14257755

#407 Binomine   Members   -  Reputation: 538

Posted 01 August 2011 - 03:53 AM

t is very possible that the vast compilation of books that is the OT was edited and re-edited hundreds of times, with passages edited, deleted or even added by,say, the Sanhedrin. In this case, what is described here is possible that never happened: The Sanhedrin(or whoever else) added it to 'scare' the Jews into proper observation of the Sabbath. That's only a theory, but it is a logical assumption. And now, you might say, how do you know what part of the OT is the word of God and what is man-made? Well, the same way as ever: Using your mind. I never accept truths just because they're written, I accept written things if they ring true to me. And so it is for me. I'm sure most Christians would not agree, but there you go.

However, the NT is full of these things as well. The two endings of Mark.

Mark 16:1 ~ 8 has the women of Jesus coming down to clean Jesus's body. They are told about Jesus's resurrection, which prompts them to flee and tell no one. There are several additional endings to Mark, but finally someone added Mark 9 ~ 20 at some point, where Jesus comes back later, finds the women and explains the passion to them

Anyways, the gospels all are pretty uniform until a point. By their own accounts, when Jesus was captured, everyone fled. The big question is, who was there to record what happened afterwards? The fact that only Jesus, the Jews and the Romans were there for a lot of this gives each writer a lot of wiggle room, since none of those parties are talking.(Well, maybe Jesus). It seems to me that the only likely conclusion is that after Jesus's betrayal by Judas, each writer inserted his or her own spin on the story and filled in things that they could not have known in a way to support their own conclusions about Jesus. The whole of the story is suspect and the fact that Christians try to present the Easter story as one full consistent story is verging on falsehood, since the gospels are inconstant to the point where creating one story that agrees with them all is not possible. The ending of Mark has none of Jesus's followers believing in the resurrection until after He goes back and visits them. And He has to keep coming back, because no one believes it. It's completely different from the 100 foot angels and Jesus so tall you can't see his head greeting everyone and no one seems afraid at all about towering godly figures in Jon.

#408 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 826

Posted 01 August 2011 - 07:08 AM


You responded with people having their lives ruined for being correct.

I haven't had time to read every single entry listed in those links, but AFAICT they're talking about scientists being, at best, ridiculed, not having their lives ruined. Moreover, in all these cases, the scientific community at large did realign their beliefs, once the evidence was presented.

Maybe I weigh being fired an unable to find a decent job for years a little higher on the, "how fucked your life is," list.

Fair enough, though I don't think this is an issue of the scientific method. I'm still curious to know by what mechanism does religion accept new views - that things once thought to be not true, are now accepted as true?

Science shouldn't have accepted the neo-darwinist view of evolution in the first place purely based off of scientific evidence, as there are plenty of experiments with evidence counter to what should happen.

What about evolution are you arguing against here, specifically? What experiments are you referring to?

I do think that religious belief is misguided (i.e., not supported by any evidence) and irrational. I also think we shouldn't uphold religious belief, faith and so on as being good things, or things that should be respected, just as we wouldn't for any other kinds of irrational belief.

Why is it irrational? I find my belief to be logically consistent. Not to say some people's religious beliefs are not irrational, but certainly not all of us. There is an important difference between not having share-able evidence for something and being irrational.

I do not see evidence for the claims. The claims tend to be cases which have either been disproved, or are unfalsifiable.

What is this evidence that can't be shared? Oh of course, you can't share it - couldn't anyone claim this about any belief they held, no matter how irrational it seemed?
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#409 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:35 AM

Fair enough, though I don't think this is an issue of the scientific method. I'm still curious to know by what mechanism does religion accept new views - that things once thought to be not true, are now accepted as true?

There are tons of religious councils through the years that completely rewrite parts of the catholic catechism. edit: the most recent being vatican 2

What about evolution are you arguing against here, specifically? What experiments are you referring to?

http://amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt
That explains the issues with the existing theory of evolution from the perspective of a scientist.

I do not see evidence for the claims. The claims tend to be cases which have either been disproved, or are unfalsifiable.

What is this evidence that can't be shared? Oh of course, you can't share it - couldn't anyone claim this about any belief they held, no matter how irrational it seemed?


There is nothing irrational with making claims that are un-falsifiable. There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.

As far as I know nobody has logically disproven God, so there's no reason to think that all religious people are irrational; certainly there are many who are, but that's true of any group of people really.

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 09:33 AM

I'm reading right now a marvellous and well-sold greek book of a famous astrophysicist "I Komi Tis Verenikis" that deals with astronomy,cosmology,evolution and sociology and he poses the question 'can just the increase in calculations complexity of the brain give rise to what we define as the conscious mind, with the abilities to self-reflect and introspect?'. And his answer is 'probably, no'. But of course he is a wise man, not some adolescent that discovered Logic 101 last year and wants to shove his naive ideas to everyone's throat. But I digress...


Care to share more about this book or this "famous astrophysicist"? Who is this "wise man", who you consider so because you happen to agree with him? If he's famous surely we've heard of him.

Because all amazon knows of said title is this: http://www.amazon.com/I-Komi-Tis-Verenikis/dp/B001XJXICY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1312212819&sr=1-1

#411 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 599

Posted 01 August 2011 - 11:49 AM

What about evolution are you arguing against here, specifically? What experiments are you referring to?

http://amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt
That explains the issues with the existing theory of evolution from the perspective of a scientist.

Can you write something yourself (you still haven't answered the Bible questions)? Currently the evidence suggests that you don't understand what you link.
You can read a review of this amazing scientist's book here: http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml
Also a discussion with the man here: http://www.talkorigi...oms/milton.html

I do not see evidence for the claims. The claims tend to be cases which have either been disproved, or are unfalsifiable.
What is this evidence that can't be shared? Oh of course, you can't share it - couldn't anyone claim this about any belief they held, no matter how irrational it seemed?

There is nothing irrational with making claims that are un-falsifiable.

<facepalm>

There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.


You've no idea what rational and falsifiability means.

As far as I know nobody has logically disproven God invisible flying hippos, so there's no reason to think that all religious people who believe they exist are irrational; certainly there are many who are, but that's true of any group of people really.

Fixed.

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:06 PM


There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.


You've no idea what rational and falsifiability means.


I believe he does, actually. As you point out with your "flying hippo" argument, way2lazy2care asserts the following premise:
A: It is not true that I should disbelieve in the existence of something simply because there is zero evidence and no deductive or inductive argument to support its existence.

Given that he accepts this premise, there is no point in arguing. You two disagree on a very basic premise, and therefore your argument can't be fruitful.

Carl Sagan said:
"You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe."

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:27 PM

And perhaps where I've gone wrong is by not abiding by certain social protocols that are expected to be upheld. I think that's the source of the fact that I've offended some people.

To quote H.L. Mencken,
We must respect the other fellow`s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

#414 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:29 PM

Care to share more about this book or this "famous astrophysicist"? Who is this "wise man", who you consider so because you happen to agree with him? If he's famous surely we've heard of him.


He's Greek(I'm from Greece) so you might not heard of him of course:

http://www.physics.u...ammatikakis.php

I here provide a rough translation of mine of a part of the book, which has sold 17 editions here:

As Eric Chaisson states: "The epitome of civilization perhaps is the ability to search for the truth about ourselves and the Universe.
A more basic, though, factor that relates with it in importance is the ability to desire the search for the truth.
What is that, then, that allows us, even pushes us, to pose fundamental questions and try to find their solutions?
The answer gives consciousness,this part of human nature that allows us to wonder,introspect,abstract,interpret.
The ability to keep our distance and, understanding the grand picture, to question how our existence relates
to the existence of the whole of things".

And while the existence of consciousness, this subtle reality that allows our connection with the world and ourself
is not questioned, its origins are.
...
Generally, the mechanism of consciousness is unknown. Some assume that it's just the evolution of the neural system, the
accumulation of more and more specialized cells. Assumption rather naive and mechanistic, according to this author.
Because, the creation of images or imagination is difficult to explain with similar mechanism. Not just difficult, but impossible, is
with the same way, the explanation of self-awareness, the awareness of being and its manifestations, the question about how we
question. Some, perhaps, special and for long to come unknown, mechanism works here with the brain and the neural system and
produces or evolves consciousness.

As a prominent modern physicist, Roger Penrose, points out "Consciousness is such an important phenomenon, that I just
find it impossible to believe that it appears randomly through a complex calculative process. It's the phenomenon that allows
the very Knowledge of the existence of the Universe. One can state that a Universe with laws that don't allow consciousness is
a Universe that is not a Universe at all". Penrose stands by the opinion that, as Einstein insisted, Quantum Mechanics is not
sufficient for the explanation of the cosmos; it's possible that the natural processes of the mind are characterized by deeper,
unknown laws.


And I believe Roger Penrose at least needs no introduction.

#415 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:49 PM

And it seems that you, mikeman, are not the only christian who feels this way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-14257755


I believe there are many Christians that would not miss some parts of the OT if there was thrown out. Some things just don't add up. Let's start again with the previous example, the man that was put to death because he was gathering sticks on Sabbath. God, says the Bible, order him to be killed. Yet, the same God, incarnated, told the exact same nation that "Sabbath was made for man" when his disciples plucked weed on such a day. And he also stopped a stoning of an adulteress. That doesn't mean He abolishes the law(and Sabbath is, in my opinion a good law, a day of the week that must be dedicated to rest and celebration of life), it's just that he introduces forgiveness. But it's the same God. Jesus Christ is Yahweh incarnated. One one occasion, he orders the Jews "kill the trepassers" and on the other occation he orders the Jews "forgive them"? It's not even about questioning God or throwing away parts you "don't like", it's about completely opposite orders for the same situation. Anyone with common sense will most probably suspect that there's something 'off' going on here, especially when Jesus said "not one stroke or letter of the law will pass as long as Earth and Heaven exist". Most honest Christians I know either struggle with these questions or they just ignore them, saying pretty much 'that stuff don't count'. But it's not like that, not for me at least.

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:52 PM

He's Greek(I'm from Greece) so you might not heard of him of course:

http://www.physics.u...ammatikakis.php

I here provide a rough translation of mine of a part of the book, which has sold 17 editions here:


As Eric Chaisson states: "The epitome of civilization perhaps is the ability to search for the truth about ourselves and the Universe.
A more basic, though, factor that relates with it in importance is the ability to desire the search for the truth.
What is that, then, that allows us, even pushes us, to pose fundamental questions and try to find their solutions?
The answer gives consciousness,this part of human nature that allows us to wonder,introspect,abstract,interpret.
The ability to keep our distance and, understanding the grand picture, to question how our existence relates
to the existence of the whole of things".

And while the existence of consciousness, this subtle reality that allows our connection with the world and ourself
is not questioned, its origins are.
...
Generally, the mechanism of consciousness is unknown. Some assume that it's just the evolution of the neural system, the
accumulation of more and more specialized cells. Assumption rather naive and mechanistic, according to this author.
Because, the creation of images or imagination is difficult to explain with similar mechanism. Not just difficult, but impossible, is
with the same way, the explanation of self-awareness, the awareness of being and its manifestations, the question about how we
question. Some, perhaps, special and for long to come unknown, mechanism works here with the brain and the neural system and
produces or evolves consciousness.

As a prominent modern physicist, Roger Penrose, points out "Consciousness is such an important phenomenon, that I just
find it impossible to believe that it appears randomly through a complex calculative process. It's the phenomenon that allows
the very Knowledge of the existence of the Universe. One can state that a Universe with laws that don't allow consciousness is
a Universe that is not a Universe at all". Penrose stands by the opinion that, as Einstein insisted, Quantum Mechanics is not
sufficient for the explanation of the cosmos; it's possible that the natural processes of the mind are characterized by deeper,
unknown laws.


And I believe Roger Penrose at least needs no introduction.


I think you went a little far calling him "famous". Regardless, let's accept that he was. Let's accept that he was very intelligent as well. To assert that the fact that an intelligent person believes something is an argument for the validity of that thing is a fallacy. We can probably agree on that, at least, as surely you'll accept that there are many intelligent people who would call the idea of consciousness stemming from "deeper" laws than those of physics absurd.

And throwing Einstein in there is disingenuous. He did disagree with much of Quantum Mechanics (though he was posthumously proven wrong), but that does not mean he believed in the false dichotomy of: either QM is sufficient to explain the universe, or there is a supernatural consciousness. I can't find any Einstein quotes directly dealing with the concept of a consciousness, but this reflects his views well enough:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.


Either your translation is poor, or what you're reading is ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish.

#417 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 599

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:54 PM



There is a stark difference between something that seems irrational and something that is irrational.
Unscientific is not a synonym for irrational. Rationality deals purely with logic, which is not concerned with the existence of evidence only that an argument is consistent with the evidence that exists. For example:
1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. if A then C
Is totally rational though there is no evidence and isn't really falsifiable. It's logically consistent.


You've no idea what rational and falsifiability means.


I believe he does, actually.


In the context of the discussion, falsifiablity deals with observation and experiment. Examples he has given are from a domain with absolute certainties where you can prove or disprove something. In physics, biology etc. you just gain evidence that supports a claim or contradicts it, you never have 100% certainty. Therefore, he's argument is off topic.

Given that he accepts this premise, there is no point in arguing. You two disagree on a very basic premise, and therefore your argument can't be fruitful.

I agree.

#418 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 01 August 2011 - 01:03 PM

Either your translation is poor, or what you're reading is ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish.


Oh? Is that rubbish as well?

http://en.wikipedia....d_consciousness

I'm not saying Penrose is "correct"(many others, including Minsky, for instance, disagree and he's arguably the top mind of our day in the field of AI - but then again it would make sense for an AI expert to insist that AI can reach human intelligence, wouldn't it :P ), but, hell, it's Penrose. Go ahead and tell me that you think he's being ignorant and full of 'ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish'. Penrose and Grammatikakis are not even theists.

#419 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6801

Posted 01 August 2011 - 01:56 PM

Direct quote from a sidebar of that very page you linked;

Despite Penrose's contributions, most of the thinkers who have appraised his work say that he has so far failed to support the claim that consciousness could not be explained by existing scientific principles


Or, in other words, just because someone is smart and wrote a book doesn't mean anything without supporting evidence.

Even the link given earlier as a counter to 'neo-darwinism' suffers much the same problem with the sources; either the source in question has no sound scientific backing just a bunch of ideas in a book (nothing wrong with this, ideas need to be put out there, it's how we advance, but it's not science without evidence) or the author takes the points out of context.

My favorite for example;

Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA. In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 1,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.

Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.


Personally I've never seen a single claim from evolution which states 'more complex = more DNA' (and until we sequence the DNA and figure out what it is for who knows why a rose bush has all that material; much of it might be useless 'marker' or 'junk' DNA, or even left over virus DNA).

I could probably pick out a few other points which run counter to the 'modern' take on evolution (and this letter is 16 years old so maybe some of the things were issues or language has changed) but I feel I've made my point.

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:39 PM

Oh? Is that rubbish as well?

http://en.wikipedia....d_consciousness

I'm not saying Penrose is "correct"(many others, including Minsky, for instance, disagree and he's arguably the top mind of our day in the field of AI - but then again it would make sense for an AI expert to insist that AI can reach human intelligence, wouldn't it :P ), but, hell, it's Penrose. Go ahead and tell me that you think he's being ignorant and full of 'ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish'. Penrose and Grammatikakis are not even theists.


I was referring to Grammatikakis when talking about ideological pseudo-scientific rubbish. That quote which you translated specifically is ridiculous and intentionally misleading. The name of Einstein in particular was purposefully inserted to lend credence to a statement which Einstein would have disagreed with.

Regarding Penrose. Oh, I'm sorry. You italicized his name. It's Penrose. All hail Penrose. I don't care if it's Penrose, Einstein, or Moses. His arguments regarding non-computational processes in the mind giving rise to consciousness are without merit. The very quote you just gave reveals that the majority of scientists in these fields agree that his arguments are without merit. I don't know if I'd go as far as calling it pseudo-science -- at least not without reading his books on the subject and those of others -- but italicizing his name doesn't make him any more correct.

I actually will look into Penrose's arguments, now that you mention it, since the topic is interesting to me (and related to what I received my degrees in), but the fact that the argument comes from someone named Penrose won't bend my skepticism. Only rational arguments can.




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