SamBridge

But how do you know those stars create lines that intersect where you need without doing the proper calculations in the first place? Even if you have a 3-D map you need to plug in the right data so the map get's it right.

And there's no guarantee that intersection will happen exactly where you want it, it's also much less efficient that the method I stated. If you're doing something like launching a space craft even just to orbit, being off by 1 mile could throw everything off.

You're right in some sense, but not totally. You do start out with inherent abilities, your brain can cognitively reason and connect events in memories to present observation even while you're not aware of it. Supposedly you are not conscious while you are asleep, in a sense you can in fact turn off and on.

Which leads back to my previous point, which is that your response doesn't have much to do with what I'm saying. So if that's not what you're discussing no one is forcing you to respond about it. There are multiple meanings to god being dead. One is more physically, that perhaps he existed at one point, even during humanities existence and disappeared from existence. Perhaps he was involved with humanity and then as you said started ignoring humanity completely. Another could be he never existed in the first place or even another possible translation could be that society lacks the morals it once did. The OP seems to be referring to more of a physical sense, which tied into computers at one point because we can't really rule out what can be conscious without really understanding what it is or why it exists and what limits if any there are to its existence. Consciousness or "intelligence" isn't part of the definition of life, so theoretically something could have it without fitting our limits of being a living thing, like computers, or I guess in this sense god.

A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs.

It is somewhat against hte rules to randomly rant about something no one said anything about, it seems like some kind of blatant but obviously misguided strawman. If you have actual proof that it's already proven or disproved that AI can have consciousness feel free to share it, otherwise my statements were not opinions. No one in this topic has presented what can be called "proof" or even strong evidence that any existing AI is conscious, nor is there any physical reason for them to have what we would call emotions unless they are specifically programmed in. Correct.

But how could you possibly "predetermine" that info with your method in the first place? A very large flaw, and with still no guarantee whatsoever that the intersecting lines will be even close to the star you want, they will intersect wherever they want regardless of the star you want them to intersect at.

Um....where did I mention anything like that?

Still not safe to assume anything.

The question of weather computers are actually capable of consciousness can't be directly answered, but I will grant you that it cannot be ruled out since we're made from what was formally in-animate matter and atoms, the only difference with computers would be that it's using more metallic elements to sustain consciousness. There was a test called the Turing test where if a computer could trick someone into thinking it was conscious. It was then hypothesized if a computer could do such a thing then it had some level of consciousness. I suppose we'd have to wait until we can perfectly model an intelligent brain and ask it without programming what its response should be. With regards to emotions though, artificial intelligence wouldn't have any of that. It could perhaps have morals such as by analyzing the value of it's own existence and of others, but it would not have nor ever develop on it's own anger, fear, sadness, love, hate, exhilaration, or anything like that. Any "decision" it made would be the result of cognitive reasoning or I suppose possibly randomness.

Ultimately the answer to this is residual actions from evolution. It happened to be that in order to certain animals to survive they needed to be particularly aggressive or hostile to have a better chance of fending off others. Some of it however is involved with culture. Most people are not born extremely violent, but they can be turned that was as a result of their environment.

Or you can just threaten someone's life directly and there's a good chance they will commit an "evil" deed either by killing you or doing whatever evil deed you ask of them. I find you do not need religion to accomplish most if not all of the violent things you suggest religion is responsible for.

Which is almost word for word what I said before your post. It's not "made" to do anything in particular, it's ideas and ways of life people have that get developed into cultures. If anything religion is a philosophy "made" to explain how things came to be and what life's meaning and purpose is and thus how one should conduct their life. And something about the nature of humans and animals in general makes you think there would not have been similar violence without religion? If anything violent tendencies built up and got expressed via religions politics.

What if there is a religion that advocates understanding others like Buddhism or perhaps even Greek Mythology with Athena? Besides, what does that matter even if it is true? It's not true of course, but there was a lot of violence in Europe and the Middle East and people seemed to lack an incentive to stop it. Only problem is that religion has done it's job already and now it's becoming more of a burden in those regions. I've seen you bring that up in another topic, but I haven't seen you mention that problem much in this one, unless that's what you were referring to when you said "hijack's morals". But in any case I know religious people who do not think people without religion cannot have morals, it sounds more like an extremist or "old testament" thing to say that resides mainly in the most biased and/or religious regions And as I said before, not all religious people are crusaders, there are easily religious people who don't like every aspect of the religion they follow or would not seek out violence, those tendencies still come from humans themselves however.

Where is their death? Where they get absorbed by a particle.

You'll have to point it out because I did not notice it while looking through your posts. And? If you do not present enough evidence that a statement is true, you cannot blame them for disbelieving it. So if you simply tell them to take your word for it, it's essentially your word vs theirs which from a logical standpoint rather than a moral one does not solve any problem nor prove anything either way. Again, some people seem to have issues with the relativity of morals. To them it may not be a bad thing to sacrifice outsiders if they think it will keep the village safe, I find malice occurs less often than I previously thought. Is it bad to sacrifice one person for good of many more? Then that's why you are free to disbelieve in god. Specific beliefs themselves can perhaps be disproved, but you can never completely rule out the action of super-natural forces using science, for science only deals with the physical and observable. I'd like to see you do it with god. Though, I used the word "may" for a reason; it is possible someone legitimately believes it because they hallucinated and observed it and did not know they were hallucinating. After all, science based on observation. I would say that was a sidetrack from an even earlier discussing of the difference between general belief and religion, there were even debates about animals having religion vs having superstition. But apparently the topic changes.

100%. Electricity existed before we discovered and harnessed it, and so did almost every other thing in the universe.

This leads back to the relativity I mentioned. All the stories in the bible have a moral, you just refuse to recognize some of them because some are tailored more towards obeying god or having faith. Well, perhaps you were referring to a specific passage in the bible, perhaps you were referring to the story with Isaac which is what immediately comes to my mind when you mention sacrifice and angels along with Sodom and Gomorrah, or perhaps the story with King Nebuchadnezzar where people were thrown into a fire if they did not bow down. I was referring more to Greek and Native American cultures. But in either case, my point still stands. Regardless of if that was physically the case, morals are not physical, so if people believed it was the right thing to do, it doesn't matter if something was not what was physically happening, to them it was still morally the right thing to do. If god did exist perhaps it actually would be considered ethical today for a similar event to happen. You can really only state they were acting immoral according to your own personal standards, because to them it may have been morally good and at times to them it was.

And this has little meaning, that does not make physical sense, our arbitrary definition of a unit of time has no relationship with how the universe functions, reality functions regardless of units of Planck time like for instance in string theory and quantum foam in black holes.

Once again, very bias seeming. I did not state every story in religion or every story in the bible has morals palatable to those who do not believe in a god, nor I did not state every action was an ethically good action either. Obviously human bias got mixed in as well as the stories reflecting the culture of the time. However, that does not mean the stories were not written without moral purposes and does not mean that there are no good morals whatsoever. There are, for example, the ones you seem to have ignored in my earlier post. On top of that, there is a relativity in the defining of morals as well that you do not seem to acknowledge. To some culture, it may be the right thing to do to sacrifice a virgin if it means keeping an entire village safe. If that were realistically the case, it could be considered an ethical action even to other cultures, in fact it was even considered in honor in certain South American cultures.

As I said before religion is adapted from human emotions, feelings and morals, experiences even. With this is mind, it is perfectly sensible that a story in the bible like any other story may provide wisdom even if it is in a religion. I have read the bible, some stories do have moral value. Perhaps one purpose of the story of Sodem was that many cruel, ruthless or heinous actions will bring about one's own demise, which has happened outside of religion, the story of David and Goliath shows that there is more to strength than just physical form, which does not necessarily have to represent prayer but can represent mental prowess or persistence or will. The moral of the tower of Babel was about pride and that it can cause one trouble or lead to one's own demise, another (at one time) religious story called the Odyssey shows this as well, yet it is of a polytheistic religion. Two different religions, a single moral. This happens because religion is based from human feelings and experiences.

No the outside of catholic school or any other strictly religious school it is a composite of stories, it does not guarantee any certainty of what actually happened. While some religious scholars may believe a few tails, many people have found that the stories have a greater moral value than literal value which was the intent. The stories were not necessarily meant to be followed as literal actions but as lessons in life like a great deal of many other stories.

Unfortunately that post does not contribute much to the point at hand. It was already known you could divide or expand time into any quantity you like indefinitely. Planck time is merely the smallest division of time that has any physical meaning.

If you read with any sort of caution, you would see I suggested the opposite. The ten commandments are based off of human actions and emotions and thus their morals as well, this is true for any religion, not just mono-theistic Christian variations. As I said in an earlier post which I am guessing you missed, it is also human to be compassionate and/or be understanding or "good". However, your point is still invalid because it does not rule out the fact that deception and lust for power and violence are also human traits. Yes, very violent actions, just as violent potential as our ancestors which we see in chimps and apes and many other species of animals long before any organized religion. As I said before, religion can merely be manipulated to make these violent tendencies surface more or become more clear. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? No religion involved, but it does show that violent actions surface without religion, very primitive actions. Based on your past remarks, I don't think you have even "begun".

Couldn't it have easily been that whoever created the ten commandments merely wanted an excuse for people to stop stealing and killing from each other and bring about order? This isn't hijackin at all, they are based directly off of basic necessities for an organized society, albeit a specifically religious one. Again, very biased seeming. You seem to have ignored the fact that it is a common trait young the human species to dis-like those that are different and to manipulate people and to seek power, unless you have evidence, religion did not create those traits in humans. Religion at times merely shows those traits more clearly, like politics even. I don't know why you crossed out the hate, both love and hate existed before any organized religion, which should go to show you that religion has even less of an effect than you thought. If people did not use religion to control others they would use politics or threats. While there may have been negative consequences in the religion like going to hell, those negative consequences discouraged localized violence, stealing and lying. If for example in a Christian religion you did not pray on Sunday, it doesn't mean you aren't human, it merely to them may mean you may be possessed by something, and ethically wouldn't it be better to sacrifice one person to protect the rest of the village? The problem with that is that it was manipulated by people for personal gain as well as a lack of much evidence in trials, if I remember correctly there was some kind of mold contamination of the food supply involved in the Salem whitch trials. What? You didn't understand me? Every point you make must be invalid and you must be a heretic!