Spoken Into Existence

[Trurl]

I was just thinking tonight that We are made in God’s image according to the Bible. And He spoke the World into existence. He spoke. I does not say he thought the World into existence. So as we have a mind that thinks and decides what to say, it seems he functions the same way.

 

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

[Sensei]

55 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I was just thinking tonight that We are made in God’s image according to the Bible. And He spoke the World into existence. He spoke. I does not say he thought the World into existence. So as we have a mind that thinks and decides what to say, it seems he functions the same way.

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

The God of programmers (and anything else) calls it recursion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(computer_science)

 

 

Quote

Spoken Into Existence

..programmers make code..

 

If ChatGPT knows all of quantum physics, then say "create a software simulation of the entire Universe"..

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128282-chatgpt-logic

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Sensei

[Genady]

6 hours ago, Trurl said:

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

No, I would not, because there is no logical relation between us building AI and the history of life on Earth.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

Why would I?

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

 

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

By which I assume you mean, because we tried to create what we accidentally created; that's like saying I spoke it to someone and then it magically happened.

So no, "tis a silly place".

 

[Lorentz Jr]

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

Theological creation means creation of the universe from nothing, or from a state where it didn't exist. "Creation" of AI is only a matter of organizing and rearranging things that already exist in the universe.

Or, to look at it another way, are you saying you think human beings can do what the Creator does?

Edited December 14, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

Even if something like this caused me to reevaluate whether or not a god exists, it would not change my conclusions about creationism. I find NOTHING intelligent about the idea that this god made the Earth a few thousand years ago but in a way that it appears much, much older. It's one of the most absurd religious teachings among many absurd religious teachings. 

[Trurl]

Man had advanced over the years. So a group of scientists agreed to challenge God to show that they can build a man out of dirt. The scientist giggled at the idea because it was so easy. Then as they started, God called out, “Hey, that is my dirt.”

[Bufofrog]

On 12/13/2022 at 11:15 PM, Trurl said:

My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

No, why would it?

29 minutes ago, Trurl said:

So a group of scientists agreed to challenge God to show that they can build a man out of dirt.

That is a really odd thought experiment.  First that presupposes that the scientist believe in god.  Secondly what sentient being in their right mind would challenge the creator of the universe?

[FullMoon]

Hi!

imho

the fact that humans, after millions of years of evolution, have been capable of "creating" an Artificial Intelligence, in itself is an evidence of everything having a Creator.

Too bad google defines as follows:

""cre·a·tion·ism

/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/

noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.""

    

   apparently the definition in itself assumes that there is no evolution. 

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, FullMoon said:

the fact that humans, after millions of years of evolution, have been capable of "creating" an Artificial Intelligence, in itself is an evidence of everything having a Creator.

We've created a LOT of tools since we created the first ones. Nothing supernatural about any of them.

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, FullMoon said:

apparently the definition in itself assumes that there is no evolution

No, it does not.

[FullMoon]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We've created a LOT of tools since we created the first ones. Nothing supernatural about any of them.

correct, creation of tools is not supernatural from this vantage point that we have come at. AI is a culmination of the knowledge acquired by humans to be able to device another "intelligence" which basically is a well written program.

Hi

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, it does not.

I assumed (from google) that creationism denies evolution

[Genady]

35 minutes ago, FullMoon said:

I assumed (from google) that creationism denies evolution

But the definition of creationism does not assume that there is no evolution, contrary to this:

1 hour ago, FullMoon said:

apparently the definition in itself assumes that there is no evolution

 

[iNow]

Some cdesign proponentsists deny evolution, but creationism itself speaks only to abiogenesis, not evolution. 

[Trurl]

Well in evolution if a cell is designing an evolved self isn’t there instructions or nucleus that is designing this evolution? Something has to take place to “design” something new. What else would cause such a unique and specific change?

 

Also why are plants considered living? Do they have a conscious that moves their bodies to light? Or is the plant just made out of reactions to its environment?

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, Trurl said:

a cell is designing an evolved self

My professors and textbooks in classes on evolution have never mentioned anything like this. What does it mean?

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Trurl said:

Also why are plants considered living?

That's a strange question. You seem to have no understanding of the word, to ask that. Living is nothing to do with consciousness, it's the ability to grow and reproduce from organic matter in the environment. Conscious animals are just a tiny fraction of the living world. 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

What else would cause such a unique and specific change?

Gene mutation and environmental inputs. 

[Trurl]

Quote

On 1/10/2023 at 7:59 PM, mistermack said:

Conscious animals are just a tiny fraction of the living world. 

 

That is a biological definition. But with ai, robots and computers wouldn’t different definitions of living apply.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Trurl said:

That is a biological definition. But with ai, robots and computers wouldn’t different definitions of living apply.

Ai, robots, computers, automobiles, dishwashers, typewriters, bicycles, steam engines have equal effect on definition of life.

[Trurl]

Quote

Gene mutation and environmental inputs.

What causes these to work together? I am not saying evolution doesn’t occur. But creation scientists argue the fact we don’t see evolution occurring in that way in the present.

I am concerned with the final result. Are you saying the interaction between a living being and its environment lead to a new changed living being? And without the need of a creator.

 

[iNow]

Just now, Trurl said:

What causes these to work together?

Physics. Chemistry. The usual. 

1 minute ago, Trurl said:

But creation scientists argue the fact we don’t see evolution occurring in that way in the present.

Bc they’re idiots who don’t care about being correct. 

2 minutes ago, Trurl said:

without the need of a creator.

This part I agree with. 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

But creation scientists argue the fact we don’t see evolution occurring in that way in the present.

It's not a "fact" that evolution doesn't work the same today, in fact that's completely wrong. Creation "scientists" also use arguments with no testable hypotheses, and insist on solutions that are outside of what we observe in nature. Long before any of the Abrahamic religions messed with early humans we were experiencing a huge surge in genetic diversity due to successful populations all over the globe. It's been that way for 10,000 years at least, and our modern world is even more populous and diverse. If I were you, I'd never use "fact" and "creationism" in the same argument.

[Trurl]

The original theme of this thread was to see if we can create life as humans. You know, recursion. We are in agreement we definitely modify it.

 

But it almost sounds that most of you feel a designer would be a bad thing. I view it as a creator whose creations are meant to create and enjoy those creations. I don’t think it would take away from what we call science.

 

Is there any definition of life that would define life as a conscious being? If the mind of a man is ever duplicated with computers, we couldn’t rely on the biological definition. Who knows what is going on when a computer processor is in recursion.

 

Also how do you explain the water cycle or trees turning co2 into oxygen?

 

In high school I did a college level paper on creativity. In the research the was sources that believed that humans couldn’t create. They argued that everything of our human knowledge could be done by a computer if given the proper input. Does anyone believe that rubbish? So if you don’t believe humans can create life, do you still believe we can be creative?