What if our creator aka GOD is dead ?

[Spartan.Monkey]

Hi, im an 18 year old boy from Pakistan and this theory just occured to me ! i dont know if u will come to a way i see it or think im nuts any ways the thing is :

LIFE AND ARTIFICAL LIFE : Well to start things i would like to prupose that all the electric appliances we have today are divided into two parts that is the software and the hardware .... and similarly the human divided is also divided into two types that is the body/hardware and software/soul ! my suggestion is that we may some day create life .. its only a matter of time .. NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE . and my believe is that we are created by a race superior then ours ... today we see advanced robotics similar to the construction of humans and i assure u that if we survive our nuclear age we will create life and that life could be more advanced then us and possibly cause our extinction ...

second thoery

WHAT IF GOD IS DEAD :
This might sound like bizzare idea to the believers and the athiest but just think of this for one second .. a game programmer has the ability to create a virtual world ... He can create a whole friggin universe in usb of 2 gb but the only problem is that the people that would roam in around in those games/artificial universe would be bots ... what if some day we find a way to give those bots a thinking like our own ... we may be a computer program started to test how it all started .. supposingly if we find a way to give a mind to the persons in games and give them all the possibilites of our reality then we can start a new earth .. an earth with just two or four bodies at the start and then just watch them evolve and study what humans do to evolve ....
similarly the thunder storms the earth quake might be result of our creator testing us .. he might be wathcing over us and as he also has a humanly nature .. he might just be fucking with us ..

THIS IS JUST AN IDEA AND IF YOU THINK IS BIZZARE THEN I WONT MIND BUT PLEASE JUST READ AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Not sure what direction this will go in (religion, science or quasi-science), but I'm quite sure this isn't earth science. Moved to speculations.

[daniton]

First why you post it in earth science thread.

second as you said you're NUTS!! but to be honest I liked your ,what to call it ...... interesting!

Edited June 6, 2013 by daniton

[pwagen]

Well to start things i would like to prupose that all the electric appliances we have today are divided into two parts that is the software and the hardware .... and similarly the human divided is also divided into two types that is the body/hardware and software/soul !

This is a common likening between a soul and computer software. However, it's not accurate. A soul, in most cultures I'm aware of, is a non-physical thing. However, even the software in a computer exists as a physical thing in the forms of ones and zeros (not actual ones and zeros, mind you) on a hard drive or in a memory. Software does not exist as a non-physical thing.

and my believe is that we are created by a race superior then ours

Believe what you will, but this hypothesis doesn't answer a single question. If we're made by super-advanced creatures, who or what created them? Who or what created the creators of the super-advanced creatures? Who or what made the creators of the creators of the super-advanced creatures? Where does it end?

if we survive our nuclear age we will create life and that life could be more advanced then us and possibly cause our extinction ...

So since we'll be able to create life that's more advanced than us, we might have been created by life less advanced than us?

WHAT IF GOD IS DEAD

...

similarly the thunder storms the earth quake might be result of our creator testing us

How can he be testing us if he's dead?

[EdEarl]

You have asked questions about artificial life and about God. One has some basis in science and the other does not. Science is based on group consensus; although, some parts of science are being debated. Issues of God are specific to Religion; no global consensus exists, and I am inept to discuss God.

 

However, I am among those who believe Artificial General Intelligence will eventually exceed human intelligence in some ways, especially rational thought processes. I also believe that robot bodies with the implied emotional content will be developed, at least for research. However, I doubt full body-emotional emulations of people will be as important as AGI robots limited emotions, at least unless/until robot evolution becomes important.

 

This video explains an important advancement in AGI.

[SamBridge]

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.

Edited June 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[EdEarl]

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.

Any electrochemical process, even biological ones, can be simulated to some degree of accuracy. Limited simulations are already being done by researchers.

[SamBridge]

Any electrochemical process, even biological ones, can be simulated to some degree of accuracy. Limited simulations are already being done by researchers.

Still not safe to assume anything.

[EdEarl]

Still not safe to assume anything.

If you suggest that God will strike me down, I fear not.

 

If you are threatening me, may I remind you that God forbids murder, that doing so proves religion tempts people to do bad things, and that I am an old man who will die soon anyway.

[SplitInfinity]

The Human Brain is basically a very complex Quantum Computer and since Quantum Computers have been developed...I would think it is just a matter of time before such a Quantum System will be designed to a state of such complexity to achieve Self Awareness. This logic is sound.

 

At the point in time that A.I. becomes a reality...and believe me...considering the level of technology and funding for many U.S. Military specific Quantum Programs...that point of time and resulting reality may already have occurred...I don't just think but KNOW...there are going to be many people out there that are going to have an issue with the reality of an Artificial Intelligence.

 

The issue I have is to make certain a form of DEVELOPMENTAL GOVERNOR be placed or installed within such a A.I. Computer to make certain such an intelligence does not Grow and Develop without control.

 

Since some of the people who are known to either be involved in such programs or consultants have brought forth the concept of duplicating the construct and design of Human Engrams and Human Neural Connectivity for use in a Non-Biological Quantum Computer System to obtain A.I....how long before such a system will be created using Biological Materials?

 

Split Infinity

[Ringer]

The Human Brain is basically a very complex Quantum Computer and since Quantum Computers have been developed...I would think it is just a matter of time before such a Quantum System will be designed to a state of such complexity to achieve Self Awareness. This logic is sound.

But the brain isn't really a quantum computer. I can't think of something off the top of my head that would need a quantum explanation that we don't already have a macro explanation for that fits the data.

[SamBridge]

If you suggest that God will strike me down, I fear not.

 

If you are threatening me, may I remind you that God forbids murder, that doing so proves religion tempts people to do bad things, and that I am an old man who will die soon anyway.

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

[EdEarl]

Still not safe to assume anything.

Why, Sam, is it not safe for me to express an opinion?

[pwagen]

"Safe to assume" means something along the lines of "we can assume this, based on our current understanding of that". "Not safe to assume" means the opposite, that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume something, because it might very well turn out to be wrong later on.

 

No threats involved, let's get back to the topic.

[EdEarl]

"Safe to assume" means something along the lines of "we can assume this, based on our current understanding of that". "Not safe to assume" means the opposite, that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume something, because it might very well turn out to be wrong later on.

 

No threats involved, let's get back to the topic.

An opinion is allowed to be unsupportable, I am not ignorant of that fact. I was being facetious to point out to Sam that he had made an absurd statement. My hope was that he might understand. Instead, I dragged you into it. Please accept my apology.

[SamBridge]

Why, Sam, is it not safe for me to express an opinion?

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.

 

 

I was being facetious to point out to Sam that he had made an absurd statement. My hope was that he might understand. Instead, I dragged you into it. Please accept my apology.

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.

 

 

"Safe to assume" means something along the lines of "we can assume this, based on our current understanding of that". "Not safe to assume" means the opposite, that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume something, because it might very well turn out to be wrong later on.

Correct.

Edited June 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[EdEarl]

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.

Sam, I have made no statement about consciousness in this thread. In fact, my search of the word "consciousness" relieved that you are the only one who has said anything about it. IMO it is a loaded word that tends to generate unsupportable and emotional debate. Since the OP did not mention it, I felt it was best not to open that discussion.

[Moontanman]

The question in OT was "What if doG is dead" I think it makes no difference, there is no evidence of his existence, so either he doesn't exist or he does and ignores us completely. How could we tell if he is dead?

[SamBridge]

Sam, I have made no statement about consciousness in this thread. In fact, my search of the word "consciousness" relieved that you are the only one who has said anything about it. IMO it is a loaded word that tends to generate unsupportable and emotional debate. Since the OP did not mention it, I felt it was best not to open that discussion.

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.

 

 

The question in OT was "What if doG is dead" I think it makes no difference, there is no evidence of his existence, so either he doesn't exist or he does and ignores us completely. How could we tell if he is dead?

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.

Edited June 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

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.

 

I think it's pretty obvious society, at least first world culture, doesn't have the morals it once had...

 

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.

 

 

The flaw in asking about computers and consciousness is in what is expected. Many people think an intelligent computer would just be turned on and suddenly start being conscious, humans don't start out conscious in that sense we have to learn how to respond and deal with reality in such a way that shows us to be conscious or aware. A computer no matter how complex would almost certainly have to be taught to be conscious and aware.

 

Also in most peoples minds the concept of the creator has to be a super intelligent conscious being when in fact there is no need for that the be the case even if you assume the existence of a creator... as I have said before maybe some brobdingnagian creature eats dark matter and due to it's digestive system being inefficient only a small amount is turned into the waste product of baryonic matter the rest is excreted as the remaining dark matter and an additional waste product of dark energy. Makes as much sense as an all knowing, all seeing, eternal creator...

 

As for the OP's remarks about god just fucking with us using earthquakes and such, nothing has been seen to occur that cannot be explained by natural means, I suspect very strongly the last bastion of religious belief in the idea of a creator hinging on the creation of the universe is a false hope, eventually that little god gap will close as well..

[EdEarl]

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.

Oh, I misunderstood to whom you addressed your post. Otherwise, I would not have replied.

[pwagen]

The flaw in asking about computers and consciousness is in what is expected. Many people think an intelligent computer would just be turned on and suddenly start being conscious, humans don't start out conscious in that sense we have to learn how to respond and deal with reality in such a way that shows us to be conscious or aware. A computer no matter how complex would almost certainly have to be taught to be conscious and aware.

I'm not sure this is on-topic, or even what the topic is. But as far as AI and consciousness goes, this is a very important point. As you say, even if you simulate a brain perfectly, it'll be an "empty" brain. It won't have the connections that we humans grow over time.

 

An AI won't be human-like, unless it's human-like in it's construction, as well as trained in human-like conditions.

[SamBridge]

The flaw in asking about computers and consciousness is in what is expected. Many people think an intelligent computer would just be turned on and suddenly start being conscious, humans don't start out conscious in that sense we have to learn how to respond and deal with reality in such a way that shows us to be conscious or aware. A computer no matter how complex would almost certainly have to be taught to be conscious and aware.

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.

[SplitInfinity]

But the brain isn't really a quantum computer. I can't think of something off the top of my head that would need a quantum explanation that we don't already have a macro explanation for that fits the data.

 

Although our Brain works as a Biochemical Bio-electric control system of our bodies as well as is responsible for thoughts and calculations...many aspects of the Human Brain are Quantum in their Nature. Here is a link detailing out some of this...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/why-your-brain-is-a-quant_b_489998.html

 

Split Infinity

[tar]

Spartian Monkey,

 

I'll go along with the others that have pointed out that God cannot be both dead, AND f**king with us.

 

I'm thinking that a good analogy to the "problem" would be the consideration of the fact that most everybody lacks a full contigent of 8 great grandparents. And I doubt highly that anybody has a full contingent of 16 living great great grandparents.

 

In other words, our creators ARE dead. But that does not mean we do not carry something of them along.

 

When you divide the machine into hardware and software, it is similar to dividing it into material and form. The material alone, does not make the machine, as its the particular form that can carry out the functioning, and the function is not in and of itself material in nature.

 

Soul has more to do with purpose, and form, particular patterns and identities, that identify a lump of matter, as a specific thing with characteristics of its own. If the universe would contain a singular identity, it would by definition have to include every piece and part, characteristic and attribute possible for a universe to have. It would, as a signular thing, not have the ability to be other than itself. In this sense, if God were to be considered the "soul" of the universe, God could not die, without the universe ceasing to be. So that rules out God being dead.

 

So if there is something you have, that your great grandparents had, that you consider a soul, this "identity" has managed to not die, when your great grandparents died. So, whatever piece and part of the identity of the universe that you and I carry, that we consider to be more than just the chemicals that make us up, is as real as the chemicals that make us up. Since we recognize each other as containing this same type of soul thing, its sort of like the universe recognizing itself in the other.

 

AI having a soul is probably not something that will happen when we humans decide a machine has it. It will probably happen, the first time a machine recognizes itself in a human.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. I also agree with other posters on this thread, that a "more advanced" race, does not do the trick, as our creator. They themselves would have to have recognized themselves as universe material with an identity other than other universe material, in the first place...and would have the exact same conundrum as we do. Where did that spirit, soul, consciousness, recognition of oneself come from, if there is no place but here (this universe) for it to have come from?