NOTE I: No opinion, faith, belief nor emotion was utilized in the creation of the following passage. [merely science is utilized]
NOTE II: I am atheistic, so I tend to avoid things such as belief/faith etc, especially as the inventor of a phenomenon called 'non-beliefism' (nonbeliefism.com)
Quote By Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist): "We have to admit that we are building some sort of God..."
[in youtube video "Can we build AI without losing control over it?", minute 14:11]
youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg
A.I: SCIENTIFIC-REDEFINITION OF GOD
God is any probably non omniscient entity with the ability to engineer non-trivial intelligence (perhaps artificial), that shall probably exceed that of the the intellect of its creators.
Source: See "Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type)"
A.II: WHY A?
In the above, I reduce the typical claimed theistic God definition, amidst empirical scientific sequences:
{Supposed_Properties_TypicalTheisticGods | omniscience, omnipotence, omni…., ability_to_engineer_non-trivial_intelligence}
{Properties_Mankind | the_ability_to_engineer_non-trivial_intelligence}
There is an overlap above, whence omniscience, omnipotence, omni… is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY founded.
WHY IS GOD SCIENTIFICALLY REDEFINABLE?
(1) There is a prominent branch of science (concerning the universe's origin) that describes the universe as a probable simulation/information processing construct. [Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis]
(2) The concept of typical claimed theistic gods, is a frail hypothesis having emerged par archaic science/religion. [The aforesaid claimed theistic gods manifest as supposed cause sequences, predating modern science abound the macrocosm's origin]
(3) From (2), the typical claimed theistic god sequence (claimed to compute the cosmos' origin) is analysed against reality/empirical evidence. Falsifiable modules - omniscience, omnipotence are derivable... WHENCE said god(s) manifest as claimed cause sequences {See Digital Physics/Simulation Hypothesis, par cause/descent sequences}..., WHILST non-falsifiable regimes are dismissed...]
(4) From (3), an empirical definition of god emerges, while scientifically unfounded properties (omniscience, omnipotence, omni...) are purged.
B: YOU ARE A 'MINIMALLY-CAPABLE' GOD, BUT NOT THE THEISTIC-OMNISCIENT TYPE
In a similar way that the hypothetical super artificial intelligence (mentioned in section "C" below) engineers itself (and probably how today’s artificial neural networks update themselves), …we constantly self-engineer our brains, such that enhanced versions of ourselves are probable.
This satisfies definition A.
C: YOU CAN BECOME A 'HIGHLY-CAPABLE' GOD, HOWEVER STILL PROBABLY NOT THE RELIGIOUS-OMNISCIENT TYPE
So, mankind is gaining more and more, a specific ability, that several theistic gods are claimed to possess.
Source: See "Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type)"
That is, the ability to generate at least human-level, artificial, non-trivial intelligence.
This is probable, given that we don't erase ourselves with war etc, or encounter some other catastrophe.
D: HOW TO BECOME A 'HIGHLY-CAPABLE' GOD
Following, are three steps on how one may become a highly-capable god[/b], on the horizon of the scientific definition above.
Source: See "How to become a highly capable god in three steps"
Language: English