Posted on 01/23/2005 12:39:01 PM PST by traviskicks
A metaphysical exploration of Religion, Consciousness, Free Will, Randomness, and, ultimately, the nature of God. Neuroscience, networking (of man, God, and governments), and AI computing are all discussed.
A Theory of God
God has never been defined to the satisfaction of rational man. Indeed, even His very existence has never been universally acknowledged. From Thomas Aquinas's famous '5 proofs of God' (3) and the writings of other great philosophers of the catholic church, to the tautological hierarchical constructions of modern philosophers (1), there has never been a logical argument strong enough to force all the atheists and agnostics of the world to believe.
It has been said that men are only truly passionate about things that are not innately obvious to everyone. (2) The bitter and acrimonious debate over the curvature of the earth that took place in the 15th Century would today be met with laughter and derision because the fact that the earth is a sphere is so obvious to nearly everyone. Although any one religion, or even God Himself, is not universally accepted in the same way, a large majority of people across the world profess a belief in God (over 90% of Americans believe in God (68), (69) ).
However, we must also consider that the vague definitions of God may contribute to His apparent non-universal acknowledgement. If we can't define what something is then how can people communicate their belief in it? It is most interesting is that this lack of definition is present across nearly all the world's religions:
Christianity/Judaism: I am that I am. (Exodus 3, 14) You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live. (Exodus 33:20)
(Excerpt) Read more at neoperspectives.com ...
This is just the sort of arrogant mumbo jumbo I've come t expect from some Christians. It's my fault I can't figure it out. It's all so simple so I'm the chucklehead and the problem. Thanks, friend. You make a body feel good.
Well, guess what. For some of us it's not so obvious as you imply. We're not god hating satan whippers either. You really need to take a breath. Everybody ain't you.
I mean, I think a healthy theological discussion as much as anyone, but the man acutally has a graph purporting to illustrate the Consciousnesses of Man and God (which looks like it was done on the Paint program, btw). The article not only seems pretentious and overanalytical, it also smells of quakery.
Well, an issue here
is that rationality
is a tool that helps
us exist, it's not
the bounds of our existence.
We are not our tools.
---
- The notion of "free will" is well-defined to the satisfaction of just about every rigorous theorist. We can prove mathematically that every algorithmically finite system will perceive itself to have something exactly analogous to "free will", it is a simple consequence of mathematics. The internal uncertainty is mathematically required in any context, but a context always exists in which there is no uncertainty for the same system.
---
I had not heard of any 'mathamatical' description of free will. Do you have any links to this?
I find it interesting that the 'internal uncertainty is mathematically required' in any context. That goes along with the two excerpts I posted in post 16.
I don't quite follow how the same system can then have a different context wherin there is no uncertainty. It seems to me that if someones actions are entirely predictable then one can suppose they don't have free will? (although I guess you could construct some scenarios like something with lab rats where their environment pushes them down very predictable paths)
"Note that quantum mechanics is orthogonal to intelligence and therefore consciousness; QM is purely time-domain, intelligence is purely space-domain, and you cannot translate time-complexity into space-complexity (though you can go the other direction)."
Well, so you are concuring with what is in this paper, in that consciousness arises from physical interactions. I am unaware that it is universally agreed upon that quantum mechanics is responsible for Consciousness, rather that it is thought that it has to be a part of any explanation. And I believe at a singularity it is theorized that it might be possible to go in the other direction (space/time). Could be wrong about this...?
I don't know what memory reference rates are (memory I assume), or how they are calculated, but it seems to me that there are a great deal of problems with HOW these computing rates are calculated. (see my example on babies and the chess graph) Because they operate in different ways.
You admit that almost everything that was previously constructed to explain Consciousness has been incorrect, and that a lot has still not been worked out, yet find fault in that I find Consciousness very mysterious. I don't think the issue is very clear cut in mainstream science at all.
However, obviously you are well versed in these issues, I would appeciate your comments on the computing section of this paper...
hmm... well, besides that graphic, does anything else bother you about it? What is quakeryish about it? You seem to be pulling the classic liberal ploy of questioning intentions. :) Keep in mind the disclaimer says:
Disclaimer: This paper reflects only ideas and theories, not necessarily my personal opinion, and is only intended to encourage discussion and thought. It is not an attempt to proselytize, criticize, or demean any faith or belief.
God is referred to in the Bible numerous times (both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, Old/New Testaments) as a "he", and "Father" as well as "Son" and "King", all masculine terms. God is not referenced in feminine terms any place I am aware of. Jesus, of course, is a man, not a woman, and is a historical figure and fully man and God.
As far as "understanding" Him, if you know the Son, you know the Father.
I never heard of that site! thnx for that link. wow, there is a lot of cool stuff there. I will go through it and see how similar (or different) it is.
I'm sorry if my attempts to make an explanation toward the article come across as "arrogant mumbo jumbo". I don't mean to demean you. You certainly aren't a "chucklehead" if you don't understand. In fact, I was once in your shoes myself and totally failed to understand. In fact, I was happy to stand back and mock.
What I am trying to say is, God's Plan of Salvation is very simple and pretty straightforward. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it - only the common human understanding available to most of us, despite our varied intellectual capacities, cultures and backgrounds.
Boiled down, it is this:
...man is a sinner by nature, all of us, no exception
...we are unable to overcome our sin nature by our own efforts
...Still, God loves us anyhow (now, there's a mystery), much like we still love our own wayward children
...God, being sinless, cannot put up with sin in his presence
...God is just, but the only acceptable just penalty for sin is "death"
...so, rather than give us the penalty we richly deserve (death), God has provided someone else to stand in our individual places and take on our death sentence - Jesus
...Jesus is God come to earth in the flesh in human form, yet without sin, which makes him the "perfect" sacrifice to take our sin on Himself which is done through His death on the Cross
...Jesus is resurrected from death as "proof" He is God and now intercedes on our behalf
...if we accept His free gift by His assuming the just death penalty for our sins, we are then forgiven for them - yesterday, today, forever - and become adopted sons (or daughters), fit for fellowship with God in Heaven.
...the downside is, those who refuse to accept the free gift of Jesus must ultimately pay their own penalty on their own behalf - death and eternal separation from God
It's oddly simple and is meant to be easy to understand, but quite profound in concept (and will always be a bit of a mystery). The above brief words don't do it anything like complete justice. The Bible takes hundreds of pages and many centuries of history to play out this tableau into our experience so we can understand what is going on. In the end, it is up to us to either accept it or reject it. We are free to do either.
For a bit longer version of the explanation without reading the entire Bible, I would direct you to the Gospel of John and then read the Book of Romans, both New Testament. Neither takes that long to read.
I hope this clears it up.
First, think of a random number from 1 to 10 and remember it. If random forces don't exist then all energy in the universe has one preordained future. In theory this could be calculated ahead of time. Since we are made of this energy, we also have one preordained future that cannot be changed. Knowing this we could change a decision, though this modification was preordained. So our sense of free will is just our imagination. Is the number you picked three? We are not so random after all.
I used to think computers were becoming a type of life form but now that I've studied electronics and how clocked logic works it's not so mysterious. It's nothing more than signals flipping switches on and off. With enough switches it can do a convincing job of simulating thought, but it is still just a simulation and is not alive. 30 years from now computers will simulate thought so well we’ll have a hard time believing they are not conscious, but still they never will be alive in their current digital form no matter how powerful. With super-human computer help it may be possible to build machines that are alive, but they won’t be binary based machines.
Good question. His simplicity is one of ignorance to the actual complexity, not the distilling of complex reality. His God is a machine whose feasibility is locked in the distant future, if ever. That machines/AI software will be so great within his lifetime is his faith.
BTW I am familiar with his book "The Age of the Spiritual Machines" and his appearances on unscientific and "scientific" television specials.
Very enlightening post!
Kursweil is a Noah Chomsky. Very good, as you said, at the fundamentals (although I find Chomsky's "revolutionary thesis" that humans have an innate capacity for language to be fairly obvious). But when they overreach the basic, they discredit themselves.
I have not read his latest books, but they all seem to be clones of his early 90s and 80s material, the Age of the Spiritual Machines being one example. I say this based on what he states in his interviews.
Very succint truth.
But when they overreach the basic, they discredit themselves.
---
Such as when they get into politics and the Middle East. :)
Chomsky is very respected as a linguist. I believe he is one of the most cited scientists EVER. Besides that german mathematician, Arros? or Orros? Eros? I believe they did networking experiments on his papers with who cited them.
Steve Pinker's 'the language instict' is a great read which is easy for the lay person to understand. It is largely a continuation of Chomsky, although i seem to recall Pinker critiquing him on some things. Most interesting is some of the research on Creol - it never became a language until the children spoke it, most probably becasue of the 'learning primed' structure of their brains. A similar phenomena took place with sign language in an isolated deaf school in south america.
Also of interest was the fact that 'hood speak', African American Ebonics type slang is actually more gramatically correct then regular english (if viewed from a certain more fundemental linguistic perspective).
Pinker says the most ungrammatical speech in the world is found at academic conferences!
Sorry, I should have made the post to post #1 so it wouldn't have been taken personally by you.
you equivocate between a narrow definition of intelligence and consciousness.
your "faith" requires that consciousness be material.
But references that God can be seen are prevalent (Gen 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:4, 32:30, 35:1, 35:7, 35:9, 48:3, Ex 3:16, 4:5, 6:3, 24:9-11, 33:11, 33:23, Num 14:14, Dt 5:4, 34:10, Jg 13:22, 1Kg 22:19, Job 42:5, Ps 63:2, Is 6:1, 6:5, Ezek 20:35, Am 7:7, 9:1, and Hab 3:3-5).
But that's irrelevant. We don't see gravity; we don't see radio waves. God is not "natural" so naturally He cannot be seen or detected naturally. Our concepts of justice, mercy and love do not stem from physics or the stone-cold universe we live in. Besides, Christianity can visualize God through the icon of Jesus. It is the only religion that has a personal connection with God on a human level, so his claim that all religions worship something unknown is only partially true.
Theology is a little more complicated than basic Philosophy 101 this individual spouts. We will never know the essence of God (how can a tool know its maker?), but we recognize God through His energies (manifestations). Traviskicks simply doesn't even measure up to the subject.
As for atheists and agnostics, who cares! If they think this world just happened to come into existence by itself -- and I mean not just the tiny little earth but all of the Universe -- let them. It's not their intellect that stops them but their pride and a western love-affair with humanity that has been elevated to deity.
But references that God can be seen are prevalent (Gen 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:4, 32:30, 35:1, 35:7, 35:9, 48:3, Ex 3:16, 4:5, 6:3, 24:9-11, 33:11, 33:23, Num 14:14, Dt 5:4, 34:10, Jg 13:22, 1Kg 22:19, Job 42:5, Ps 63:2, Is 6:1, 6:5, Ezek 20:35, Am 7:7, 9:1, and Hab 3:3-5).
But that's irrelevant. We don't see gravity; we don't see radio waves. God is not "natural" so naturally He cannot be seen or detected naturally. Our concepts of justice, mercy and love do not stem from physics or the stone-cold universe we live in. Besides, Christianity can visualize God through the icon of Jesus. It is the only religion that has a personal connection with God on a human level, so his claim that all religions worship something unknown is only partially true.
Theology is a little more complicated than basic Philosophy 101 this individual spouts. We will never know the essence of God (how can a tool know its maker?), but we recognize God through His energies (manifestations). That author simply doesn't even measure up to the subject.
As for atheists and agnostics, who cares! If they think this world just happened to come into existence by itself -- and I mean not just the tiny little earth but all of the Universe -- let them. It's not their intellect that stops them but their pride and a western love-affair with humanity that has been elevated to deity.
Apologies for double post. Also please notice change from traviskicks to 'that author'.
Intellectuals will never understand that if you could define God to the satisfaction of rational man ...then it would not be God. Any god you can put into a box is not God. He who does not accept Jesus Christ as Savior is already condemned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.