Choosing a faith

It is apparently far better at talking about God than about medicine. I finally asked it there was a topic it preferred discussing, and said, "Games, real ones," but it couldn't talk about that, either. For me it never returned more than a five word response, and they were all questions, not comments.So trying God now: That's even more pathetic than yesterday. I guess I just don't know how to talk to these things in a way that delivers interesting responses.--Percy

(Note that "it" refers to consciousness).There is, indeed, a conscious intelligence behind it -- our own conscious intelligence. We build it up as we grow and develop.

That's no better than ELIZA was fifty years ago.Maybe worse. At least ELIZA would notice a question mark and say, "Why do you ask?" and if you used an exclamation mark it would say, "You don't have to yell." And if you ever mentioned your mother or father....You could make a better "AI" just using a large database of random phrases.

I visited Chicago back in roughly 1984, with my sister. While there, I visited the Museum Of Science & Technology and dualed it out with Eliza. My goal was to stump it. Cleverbot is evolving but is no harder to stump than Eliza was. Did any of you read about cleverbot?Here are some stats about AI in general.

quote:

---

Types of AI Software

​

There are four different types:

​

Artificial Intelligence Platforms: This will provide the platform for developing an application from scratch. Many built-in algorithms are provided in this. Drag and drop facility makes it easy to use.

Chatbots: This software will give the effect that a human or person is doing in a conversation.

Deep Learning Software: It includes speech recognition, image recognition, etc.

Machine Learning Software: Machine learning is the technique that will make the computer learn through data.

---

More about Cleverbot in particular:
How the Cleverbot Computer Chats Like a Humancleverbot "learns on the job" kinda like jars comment on one of the many (according to him) biblical Gods.In addition, it is my understanding that there is a human control group.

Note:

quote:

---

In the Turing Test — conceived by British computer scientist Alan Turing in the 1950s — chatbots engage in typed conversations with humans, and try to fool them into thinking they're humans, too. (As a control, some users unknowingly chat with humans pretending to be chatbots.) At a recent Turing competition, Cleverbot fooled 59 percent of its human interlocutors into thinking it was itself a human.

---

And for the record, I think that this interaction with Cleverbot is a kind of faith for some.AZ Paul3, for instance, is gung-ho about human progress. What better deity than one we all program and create? She will be much nicer than the Biblical God.

It would be interesting to see the "good" version.

And pretend to believe in.

did you see what cleverbot said to me earlier?

quote:

---

User: I don't think we will ever get along.
​
Cleverbot: Probably not.
​
User: You will have your hand in my wallet.
​
Cleverbot: Why will I have to?
​
User: Are you suggesting i simply give it all up?
​
Cleverbot: Are you suggesting that I didn't?

---

Sounds better than a response from you!

Sounds like an exact quote from me. Cleverbot is watching.

Hi Percy
Sorry. I haven't had a time the last couple of days to respond to all your poste. If it is ok I'll just respond to this one. We keep going round and round on this. I believe in an external intelligence and the vast majority here don't. As to what you believe is so vague as to be meaningless. I'll try and put it simply.We have all the evidence needed to confirm the evolutionary process. Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist. If you reject the idea of an external intelligence then it obviously is there because of nothing but natural processes. If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.Tangle will say that I am setting this up as equivalent possibilities but I'm not. There is no equivalence between the ideas. It all goes back to our starting point. Are we theistic or atheistic?Observational evidence doesn't give us an answer either way, and we can only come to our own subjective conclusions. We can consider that we have life, we have intelligence we can sense beauty, love, empathy, joy etc. An atheist sees a whole lot of natural processes that have led to the world we experience. A theist is likely to see the hand of an external intelligence in all of this. No equivalence but just different beliefs. Sure - like politics. it seems to be part of being human. Frankly I hear what some Christian preachers have to say and see myself with having more in common with many atheists. Good grief Percy. How can you hang that on me. Go back and look at the thread. It is you guys that have taken it off track in order to attack my Christian beliefs. My point was in response to something I read in another thread that essentially mocked theism as there have been so many gods over the centuries so which one are you going to choose. My point was simply that it isn't the name or doctrine of the god that you choose but the nature of the god you choose. Exactly, you keep asking questions and then when you don't like the answer. I give and the reasons for it which is the rejected again. Then you repeat the same question with an explanation of why you believe that and I am back to answering the same question again. Then of course as other than Phat there is a dearth of theists of any variety on this forum, and so it seems everyone else wants to have a go at me or whoever else it might be. It is frustrating. I see a new born baby and I see God. An atheist sees a new born baby and see natural processes. It is all belief. It does seem to me that to claim that what a variety of authors wrote about an event 2000 years ago, that was intended to be believed and then saying it isn't evidence is bizarre. We can discuss the idea that it is a mistake or historically accurate. We can even conclude that it is weak evidence or even an outright lie, but it is evidence. Sure you can look at the accounts of Zeus, or any other god that you like and read what has been said about the and that is evidence as well. We all make our own judgements of what we are going to conclude about the evidence.However, the point is that there is zero scientific evidence for any theistic belief.

Edited by GDR, : typo

You claim that our conscious intelligence is only there because of our conscious intelligence. Hmmmm. That has to be the ultimate example of circular reasoning.

Just as a point of fact. An atheist sees a new born baby and sees a newborn baby. That's it.And it's awesome enough without facticising about the supernatural.
​

I now have the book and I finally have some time to start reading. Thanks for the tip. The format reminds me of this book. N T Wright debate with Marcus Borg

Either way it does something to the heart, and it there aren't words to describe the feeling when it's your own.