What if our creator aka GOD is dead ?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Here's the simple form of the argument.

 

Programmer creates program.

Program becomes sentient.

Programmer dies.

The creator is dead.

 

But then again, the term life is in and of itself arguable. The line between living and dead is not clearly distinguished.

 

You can actually use the same argument to logically prove the existence of leprechauns.

[SplitInfinity]

Here's the simple form of the argument.

 

Programmer creates program.

Program becomes sentient.

Programmer dies.

The creator is dead.

 

But then again, the term life is in and of itself arguable. The line between living and dead is not clearly distinguished.

 

You can actually use the same argument to logically prove the existence of leprechauns.

 

Pop...here is the thing.

 

There is no rational or logic that would provide even the smallest line of reasoning for why there must exist a Creator.

 

Not only is there not even the tiniest shred of proof for this but as well...even if there actually did exist SOMETHING that was responsible for the Universe and possible Multiversal existence...and this includes being responsible for our existence...that SOMETHING would have ZERO support from available logic, data or observation to be thought to be SENTIENT OR AN ENTITY.

 

What could be responsible for our existence could simply be a mechanism of the natural order and development of our Universe or Multiverse.

 

Split Infinity

[Popcorn Sutton]

I believe that for what we can observe, we need only the repulsive force. Depending on the size of the repulsive proximity, it should provide the force necessary for all things observable to exist. I agree that there is no evidence for a creator, but if there is any shred of evidence to support it, then it comes from the life sciences. As I have said before though, the line between alive and dead is not clear scientifically. I saw a guy give life to a bubble of oil by using soap, it may take years for it to develop knowledge, and it will have no recollection of its creator, and it doesn't necessarily need an embodied creator, but the question is still there, unfortunately I'm not convinced that it has any merit in science. It's faith for the most part. But like I said, if it had any scientific basis, it most likely comes from computer science.

 

I also doubt that the military has the artificial intelligence that I envision.

[Ringer]

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

That link makes a whole lot of claims with no backing. There is next to no way the brain would be able to entangle and reentangle particles at a rate that would make it more efficient than just having things act at the macro level. Entanglement isn't something that is conserved forever.

[SplitInfinity]

That link makes a whole lot of claims with no backing. There is next to no way the brain would be able to entangle and reentangle particles at a rate that would make it more efficient than just having things act at the macro level. Entanglement isn't something that is conserved forever.

 

There are aspects of the Human Brain and certain states and capabilities of Human Beings and one of these states would be CONSCIOUSNESS...that are indicative of a Quantum System.

 

The capability of the Human Brain as far as at the moment a choice must be made...not only are many many considerations being cross referenced and calculated but this detriment/benefit based decision making of what is a choice takes into consideration past, present and future states as well as the states of others then these are cross referenced and given their own detriment/threat levels as well as considerations based upon subconscious based data.

 

There is no Macro Level Computer existing or that will ever exist that can access and make a choice in such short time using such a great number of variables and what is more this choice happens on an almost unconscious level instantly.

 

As far as Gravity...Einstein was the first to label Gravity an EFFECT due to Space/Time curvature.

 

Split Infinity

[Ringer]

There are aspects of the Human Brain and certain states and capabilities of Human Beings and one of these states would be CONSCIOUSNESS...that are indicative of a Quantum System.

No it's not, it's not even defined well enough to be indicative of anything.

The capability of the Human Brain as far as at the moment a choice must be made...not only are many many considerations being cross referenced and calculated but this detriment/benefit based decision making of what is a choice takes into consideration past, present and future states as well as the states of others then these are cross referenced and given their own detriment/threat levels as well as considerations based upon subconscious based data.

It's not all that fast, at least not fast enough to need faster than light communication.

There is no Macro Level Computer existing or that will ever exist that can access and make a choice in such short time using such a great number of variables and what is more this choice happens on an almost unconscious level instantly.

Really? So, let's say, if we played a super computer programmed to play chess we should be able to dominate due to the faster processing speed?

 

More than that, the brain isn't a computer so the comparison doesn't really work.

As far as Gravity...Einstein was the first to label Gravity an EFFECT due to Space/Time curvature.

 

Split Infinity

What?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ringer, there is a technique used to observe the calcium in brain cells, by doing that you can see that at times, multiple cells fire almost explosively, and they do so simultaneously. That is physical evidence for neurocalcified entanglement, which is quantum. You can also observe the brain making computations using the same technique. Knowledge is in there somewhere, and the brain has to calculate it somehow. That is technically synonomous to computation. Patterns of neurological activity are patterns, and patterns are computable.

[SplitInfinity]

No it's not, it's not even defined well enough to be indicative of anything.

It's not all that fast, at least not fast enough to need faster than light communication.

Really? So, let's say, if we played a super computer programmed to play chess we should be able to dominate due to the faster processing speed?

 

More than that, the brain isn't a computer so the comparison doesn't really work.What?

 

You are confusing a Non-Quantum Computers calculative ability which is dependent upon it's programming and inputted data to determine an ANSWER or it's ability to provide an answer based upon it's preset or predetermined abilities...with a persons Brain determining a course of action or response based upon it's ability to UNDERSTAND AND PRESENT IT'S SELF WITH A CHOICE.

 

Quantum Systems have the ability to go beyond zero's and one's and in a Macro Computation VALUES ARE PRESET.

 

In a Quantum System VALUES ARE INDETERMINATE until observed.

 

This is the way the Human Brain creates and determines a CHOICE.

 

Split Infinity

[Popcorn Sutton]

Adding to what split said, computers that are designed to play chess have every parameter maximized for any specific occurrence, which is not impossible for humans imo, but highly improbable that someone would want to go about memorizing every possibility. It would probably make the game extremely slow, unless that was all the person knew.

[EdEarl]

computers [programs] that are designed to play chess have every parameter maximized for any specific occurrence,

What do you mean by "every parameter maximized for any specific occurrence"?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I guess I'll start by defining exactly what I mean with every term that I used. I've researched and contributed a lot of thought into ideas of artificial intelligence and computational neuroscience so I'll have to explain clearly and I'll try to make citations for you.

 

First I'll show you what I mean by "parameter". A parameter can be minimal, or it can be maximal. What our brains[minds] do naturally is maximize parameters, or, in other words, they take input, and they tend to maximize it in the following way.

 

Imagine this, there are two monkeys and one gorilla, they are tribe-like in the sense that they are sitting around a fire and beating on drums and dancing. In the background there are 5 birds chirping on a branch to the beat.

 

Ok, if your brain has maximized this information, it will not take only the words at face value, it will have made a mental imagery of the described occurrence, and hence, the words that I have wrote are not maximal. This is because of the process of accumulating knowledge, or conceptualizing. The brain will take sensory information, and conflate it to tiny packets of promptable information that is associated with specifiable knowledge contained within the input. Decision theory makes use of this process in a "hierarchical" fashion. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDecision_theory&ei=lTS2UZWHAc3yyAHIhICgDg&usg=AFQjCNEZyEtQrLoW4EjIhHE1qMKXhFnCQw&sig2=Y9GN0BDHyeEI8KBOw1788A&bvm=bv.47534661,d.aWc

 

The maximal parameter is EVERYTHING that you have thought about in relation to the original occurrence whereas the minimal parameter is something that a newborn would recognize from the input such as the sound "g". In a program designed to play chess, it is designed for a particular outcome, or it is "goal-oriented" in the sense that it wants checkmate. So, in relation to my example, lets say that given your initial move[input], there are approximately 200k set parameters that the game can play out, and out of those 200k different alternatives, 10k of them are most desirable for checkmate given one single move in response to the initial stimulus. So, the computer will take that move, and by doing so, it will reduce the likelihood of failure by a factor of 10. Originally, there were (approximately) 200k maximal parameters that the computer was designed to compute in response to one initial input, the one you made. These are all linear, but by making it goal oriented, it has the appearance of being hierarchical, and it becomes much more efficient by making it hierarchical because then it doesn't compute irrelevant information. The point is that the program does not compute one occurrence at a time and make one single prediction, and neither does our brain (as split mentioned). It takes into account EVERY KNOWN PARAMETER that is MAXIMAL and RELEVANT to any specifiable occurrence, and if it has a goal, then it will deliberately, and very efficiently, take the steps necessary to achieve the desired outcome, at least to the extent that the outcome is within the knowledge and probable given a set of alternatives to achieve it, the outcome being the set parameter (in this case, checkmate).

 

See also

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics

[EdEarl]

OK. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-beta_pruning