|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If it has simulated consciousness, then is it really conscious? Consciousness is a physical process. It is only a physical process. Is it not? If so then you say there is a difference between an organically grown and an artificially grown mind that precludes their functioning similarly? What does "really conscious" mean?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Consciousness is a physical process. It is only a physical process. Is it not? Consciousness is so poorly defined, it is hard to say what it is. Some people are saying that consciousness is an illusion. Others are saying that everything (including rocks) are conscious. I don't agree with either of those extremes. However, I do suspect that the so called "problem of consciousness" isn't a real problem at all. If we go along with the panpsychists, then AI systems are already conscious. If we instead go with the illusionists, then humans aren't conscious. We can study and learn more about how we humans interact with the world. But what is thus discovered will probably not be considered an explanation of consciousness. And our AI systems will probably never interact with the world in the same way that we do, if only because we won't want our AI systems to be as irrational as humans can be.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: False. The idea that Luke derived the “Q” material from Matthew does away with the need for Q. It is that material - shared between Matthew and Luke but not Mark - and the problems of the idea that Luke used Matthew that create a “need” for Q. Simply arguing that Matthew was written before Mark addresses none of the issues.
quote: Is it? Wikipedia states that the earliest attribution is Papias - in the 2nd Century. And, as I recall there is reason to doubt that he was talking of the same work we have.
quote: The point is that the arguments against the Farrer hypothesis are arguments FOR Q. None of them are arguments for Matthean priority. You were implying that the Farrer hypothesis should be rejected BECAUSE there is a need for Q.
quote: Streeter and Farrer are rather important in the argument over Q. You cannot assess the “need for Q” without addressing Streeter’s arguments, Nothing Black says in that short summary address any of the arguments. quote: That is not an answer to the question. To answer it you have to show that the idea that Matthew was written before Mark is sufficient in itself. Because that is what you claimed.
quote: This is not an answer for the same reason as the previous one.(Also any relationship between the Aramiac document referred to by Papias - assuming he was right about that -and the document we call Matthew is speculative.) quote: Those would be the responses you implicitly rejected as inadequate, and which you explicitly claimed that you did not need. According to you it is enough to assume that Matthew was written before Mark.
quote: It is not insult. It is fact. What you are really asking us to do is to pretend that obvious falsehoods are reasonable positions. Even when those obvious falsehoods are fabricated strawmen of our own position. No. We are not got to do that. Nor is it in any way reasonable for you to demand that we do.
quote: Given that you failed to even understand that the arguments against the Farrer hypothesis were arguments for Q - and other rather clear failures - your evaluation tells us only that you like Black’s conclusions. There is no reason to think that you could even accurately present Black’s arguments, let alone discuss them rationally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
GDR writes: Percy writes:
Well then Christianity is theoretical as there is not sufficient consensus as there is insufficient evidence to allow a consensus to be formed. As some scientists believe string theory to be accurate many theologians believe that basic Christianity represents accurately the the nature of a deity. There are actually a variety of acceptable terminologies. You could call string theory a theory which is not yet accepted because a consensus has not formed around it. Or you could deem the term "string theory" a misnomer since it is actually just a hypothesis. Or you could say that string theory remains in the realm of the theoretical, which is another way of saying that there's insufficient evidence for a consensus to form. When you have evidence, replication and analysis sufficient to form a consensus, then you have a theory. When you have a little evidence then you can form a hypothesis around which to organize additional study. When you have no evidence then you have religion.
Percy writes: Sure I'm fine with that. They are looking for different answers. One is to discover material properties and how things work and the other is belief about why things are the way they are. You keep seeking a wording favorable to your beliefs. The proper way to say this is that science studies the real world, while religion is about spiritual beliefs. There are not two different forms of knowledge. There's just knowledge. You can have knowledge of the physical properties of water, or knowledge of the story of Jesus as told by Mark. They're knowledge of different things, but they're not different forms of knowledge. Yes, exactly. On the one hand we have evidence of the real world that potentially leads to theory, and on the other hand we have unevidenced belief. No religion has ever proceeded through a scientific process of observation, evidence gathering, analysis, replication, consensus and theory. And no one is asking religion to do this. But sometimes religion makes the claim, "We have evidence just as good as scientific evidence," and in such case the falsity of this claim has to pointed out. It's nothing against religion. It's about not allowing a false claim to stand unchallenged. Of course all religions are encouraged to shout their beliefs from the pulpits, and in such venues they can make whatever claims of evidence they like. But this isn't church, so any requests that EvC give your claims religious deference are not appropriate. Percy writes: Sure, but if a very large percentage of the population believed that fire breathing dragons existed, then maybe it would be worth considering. Defining knowledge can be confusing. Do I know what a fire-breathing dragon is? Of course I do. Is there any such thing as a fire-breathing dragon? Of course there isn't. Then how can I know what a fire-breathing dragon is if they don't exist? It is human nature to respond to the opinions of large constituencies, but belief of one person or a billion would not create an iota of evidence for fire-breathing dragons. There would remain zero evidence. Percy writes: Not every post requires a response. If you have followed what I've responded to I go through them in order. Some posts though are simply comments or simple "put downs" that don't call for an account. Or in a couple of cases there are those who claim I'm lying and so I'm not interested in maintaining a discussion with them. How many times do I have to say this? I know, I get it, you're short of time and you're drawing many responses, but that doesn't make it okay that your forcing people to remake from scratch arguments they made earlier and that you ignored/didn't have time for. You're missing the central point. Please stop using claims of lack of time and many responses as an excuse to ignore the substantive part of people's arguments, forcing them to say the same thing over and over again. Like now. Percy writes: Well, I'd suggest that there are numerous things that can be observed for which we can't absolutely say as to whether they are just nothing but absolute processes or not. As I said earlier we can roll a die that comes up 3. WE can absolutely know that it is a 3, (and personally I do believe that 3 is the result of nothing but natural processes), but we can't claim absolutely that there wasn't divine interference. No, wrong again. One person failing to find non-natural processes is subjective. Two people failing is subjective. Even a thousand people failing is subjective. But 107 billion people have ever lived, and none have ever found evidence of non-natural processes. That's about as objective a finding as you can get. There are probably few things one can claim absolutely, but is that really to be your claim: "Christianity: no evidence absolutely proving it wrong, therefore probably true." If so then once again you're on the same level of credibility as fire-breathing dragons.
Maybe science will ultimately discover a process that will tell us how abiogenesis occurred. However we won't know if there was outside interference or not. This warrants the same comment, but I'll rephrase it: we can never know anything about that with no evidence. For every unevidenced religious claim you want to make there are equally unevidenced non-religious claims. If you claim a divine influence, then I claim an invisible spaghetti monster. Or a herd of microscopic elephants. Or a statistically anomalous scientific event. Or the spirit of sea serpents on Pluto. Or hidden powers of dark matter. Or "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato." Percy writes: I have not said that non-natural processes must exist. I do maintain that the fact that natural processes exist, implies a designer. Your argument is that because natural processes exist that therefore non-natural processes must exist. Why does this make sense to you? But your designer is non-natural , so I was precisely accurate about you believing that the existence of natural processes implies that non-natural processes must also exist. Again, if there is any chain of logic leading from your premise to your conclusion, it is not apparent. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: Percy writes:
Your lack of evidence means that your personal opinion that God exists is equal to someone else's personal opinion that the invisible spaghetti monster exists. The reason that belief that gods and spaghetti monsters exist does not come anywhere near in validity to the consensus that the Higgs Boson exists is because of evidence. This simple fact about the importance of evidence is not going to change. Without evidence you are unmoored.You are expressing your personal opinion. You're being idiotic and purposefully obtuse. Nothing I say about the current consensus within science is my personal opinion. For example, it is a fact that a scientific consensus has formed around the existence of the Higgs Boson because the statistical data passed the 5-sigma threshold, which means there's only a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the data is leading us astray. Particle studies tend to be statistical, but other realms of science are more direct, for example, that the triple point of H2O is 32°F at a pressure of .006 atmospheres.
Your evidence is that you can observe or have evidence for natural processes. I don't argue against natural processes. However, it is simply your personal opinion, as I understand it, is that these natural processes are only the result of chance, and maybe you are right. However, scientifically we cannot say that the natural causes are not the result of pre-existing intelligence or even if there is inference in the processes from such an intelligence. You've shifted the discussion to an area where I've made no comment, namely the origin of the laws of the universe. If you've got evidence for the "Let there be light" version, please present it. Until you do the rest of us will continue to seek evidence for what happened. But my actual point, one I apparently have to keep making as you make every effort to shift the conversion or make up alternative interpretations, is that things that happen leave evidence behind of what happened and how they happened. You're claiming that part of the cause of what happened is non-natural, but everywhere we look natural processes account for 100% of what happened. There's no missing 1% into which the divine could fit. It is all personal opinion based on what we as individuals experience and observe. I assume this is still about what resulted in the natural processes we observe in the universe today. You have no experience or observations about this, while science continues to gather evidence hoping answers emerge. As far as I know we still cannot answer the question, "Why are these physical laws the laws of our universe and not some other laws?" Incidentally. this thread has hardly ever related to my point in starting this thread which was simply to make the point that it isn't the name of the deity or the religion that is important but the understanding of the nature of a deity and what it means to how we conduct our lives that matters, in response to the question of which god do you choose. I wouldn't say it this way because your way of saying it implies certain things that I don't believe are true, but I agree with the sentiments. By the way, notice how long it's taking me to reply. I'm in a bit of a busy period. I'm replying as I have time, and I'm not ignoring a single thing you say. Obviously it can be done. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: Paulk writes: I care very much about the truth, and like you and everyone else here we keep propping up our own beliefs. Because you don’t care about the truth, only about propping up your personal belief, You're not being honest with yourself. You don't care about truth. You only care about finding ways to validate what you already believe true. No one else here is propping up their own beliefs. They're seeking to accept the nature of the world as described by what they observe. PaulK writes:
Obviously this sort of thinking leads to an infinite regress. And it seems obvious to me that evolution is a more likely cause of intelligence than anything you might propose for your assumed “cosmic intelligence” - and that can be backed by at least some evidence.Evolution, without an external intelligence itself leads to an infinite regress of processes. How so? I don't think you have an inkling of what you just said means. Evolution occurs through the same mundane natural processes we observe going on around us all the time. There is no "infinite regress of processes." You can observe and learn a lot about how evolution happened. What is the evidence though, that there can't be an external intelligence behind the natural processes? Over and over again, the same question. Why can you never say, "Now I know, since I've asked this question before, that your answer is <summarize answer>, but I would go on to argue that <say something that moves the discussion forward>." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him.
GDR writes: AZPaul3 writes:
Nonsense. It is not a known fact. You can’t disagree. Percy did not voice an opinion. He stated a known fact. No, that is incorrect, it is pretty much a known fact. What I said was:
Percy in Message 528 writes: The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him. Aren't the writings we have today from the early Christian churches formed by Paul in the Jewish diaspora? Didn't these churches have no contact with Jesus, since he was already dead by the time Paul founded them? Didn't they therefore have no reliable source of information about him?
Richard Bauckham as I have pointed out in other posts goes through in his 600 plus page book, (which I have read) "Jesus and the eyewitnesses" and claims otherwise. It doesn't matter how many books Richard Bauckham writes. He has no evidence to contradict what I said. Stop giving us reading assignments. If you think there's evidence in Bauckman's books then its incumbent on you to bring it into the thread. It's not our job to read your references looking for the evidence you claim is there. This is a discussion board, not a jousting competition between links. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Over and over again, the same question. I'm suspecting that GDR is having a serious crisis of faith. He probably started this thread in an attempt to reassure himself, hoping that his doubts would go away. It does not seem to be working.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
GDR will never honestly discuss this. The reality destroys the core of his belief system.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: He’s been hiding from the truth and making hopeless excuses for years. This isn’t new.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
GDR writes: Percy writes:
No, the consensus isn't changing. It can only change if new evidence of eyewitnesses comes to light. Without that you've just got endless discussion of different viewpoints, which has been the situation for centuries.Actually there are a variety of reasons. Firstly the Christian scholars up until recently were heavily influenced by the form critics who completely discounted the early church fathers. Now Christian studies are taking those works seriously. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been very helpful in providing context and a better understanding of the language including the idioms. Things like the excavation of Pompeii is providing a much clearer picture of the Roman world of the 1st century. Scholarship is moving away from regarding the Bible as directly authored by God. The internet is making the data universally available and also allows scholars access to the work of others and allows them to communicate much more easily. Yes, of course scholarship in the field of Biblical studies continues, but we were talking about eyewitnesses. Nowhere do you say anything about evidence of eyewitnesses. This is so typical. I make a point about one thing, you reply on something entirely different. If you've got anything to say about a changing consensus on eyewitnesses due to new evidence then now would be the time to say it, since that was the topic, and in your own quote of me I'm clearly talking about eyewitnesses.
Percy writes:
So miracles and resurrections aren't noteworthy in 30 AD, but by 100 AD they are? You're actually describing the exact process of mythology where the details grow over time. Your own critical thinking should come into play and recognize that Papias's and Polycarp's claims of interviewing eyewitnessesn more than 70 years after the events is unlikely in the extreme. Why doesn't it?Papias was likely earlier than that... Why do you say that? Do you have any rationale or evidence to support this?
...but we can't be sure one way or the other. Your unevidenced assertion can be ignored in the face of the well argued points made in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere on the Internet.
You however are completely disregarding all that was written about Jesus in the NT. Pretty much. And you're ignoring that the increasing detail with time is a key indicator of myth.
Percy writes:
Are you sure we disagree? I'm sure we both believe the gospels were produced by the early Christian churches that Paul founded in the Jewish diaspora. And that they couldn't have had any contact with Jesus since Paul didn't start founding churches until after Jesus's death. And that their only source of information was secondhand.No, I don't agree. I realize that currently my belief runs contrary to the teaching of the majority of seminaries. However I contend, that based on both internal evidence that the Gospels were authored by eye witnesses or those with contact with eyewitnesses. So make your case. Merely stating that you disagree carries no weight. Why are you arguing this way? Why do so many of your positions begin and end with, "I disagree." There's an obvious answer, of course. You can't say anything more than, "I disagree," because you have no evidence. After reading a considerable amount on the subject, here is a summary of that belief. I don't want a summary of belief. I want the evidence. Which you don't have. As you've conceded. Percy writes: There is zero scientific evidence so I am left with the ancient texts and what I have observed from my life and from the world around me. Actually the science that I have read by people like Brian Greene etc, have helped convince me that I am on the right track. Why is it so important to you that your faith have evidence? If it had evidence would it still be faith? That's personal belief. A lot of people here have also read Brian Greene and not seen anything that lends support to any of your beliefs. However I can't know that what I believe is fact so it boils down to faith. Well, yes, precisely. Aren't we done now? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Others are saying that everything (including rocks) are conscious. Chrystal merchants and universalists aside there is a recognised neurological discipline in our most advanced schools. And, again ... humans. We're tenacious. The discipline, as science does, should recognize the physical/neurochemical structure of what consciousness is by consensus. A body of work will, eventually (1000 years +-?), reveal that structure. That's the plan, anyway. And I think it will bear fruit. When you say AI are you seeing artificial intelligence as artificial consciousness? Are the two equivalent? Is there a difference between intelligence and consciousness? My understandings make room for the two to be equivalent. The sliding scale of smarts (defined how?) is the sliding scale of consciousness (awareness/reasoning). Who knows what the smart guys will find, but I am (semi)confident they will find something. Whatever it turns out to be, will be the guiding principles for the technologists to build into their blueprints. Then the real existential dilemmas begin. Do we build it?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The discipline, as science does, should recognize the physical/neurochemical structure of what consciousness is by consensus. Perhaps it doesn't have a physical/neurochemical structure. Perhaps it has more of a behavioral structure. And we all behave differently. Science is based on systematization. And maybe we are all too different for consciousness to be systematized.
When you say AI are you seeing artificial intelligence as artificial consciousness? My view of AI is that it is a problem half-solved. We have the "artificial" part working. Or, said differently, I'm skeptical of the claims of AI.
When you say AI are you seeing artificial intelligence as artificial consciousness? I see AI systems as neither intelligent nor conscious.
Is there a difference between intelligence and consciousness? What those have in common, is that we are unable to come up with a clear definition of either. So it is hard to day whether they are the same. Some people see them as the same, and some people see them as different. Last month, I did a blog post about intelligence:
What is intelligence? I did not mention consciousness in that blog post.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Perhaps it doesn't have a physical/neurochemical structure. Perhaps it has more of a behavioral structure.structure. Perhaps it has more of a behavioral structure. Everything in this universe, which includes biology, is physical/neurochemical structure. Is there something else? What is "behavioral structure"?
And maybe we are all too different for consciousness to be systematized. What is systematize?
Or, said differently, I'm skeptical of the claims of AI. There are extreme claims from the coocoo nest which no one except a fellow coocoo could accept. Excepting the coocoo, what claims from less nutty sources raise your skepticism?Edited by AZPaul3, : word Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Excepting the coocoo, what claims from less nutty sources raise your skepticism? Claims that AI systems are intelligent. Really, they are just dumb computers following programmed rules.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024