Does all this debate have any real value

[painted wolf]

But PolyHedral there must be a supernatural God, all the hearsay miracles are living proof of it.:bible:
It is a pleasure to read your posts!

I do neither supernatural gods nor miracles.

Apparently "God" only applies to Abrahamic/Western theology. :faint:

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you know the greater universe truly doesn't have intent?

What would it have intent towards? As far as anyone can tell, it is an entirely self-contained system. It does not receive input from anything, or send output anywhere.

And this is your view.... one that doesn't seen to accommodate non-western God concepts.

There isn't such a thing as a non-western God concept, because non-western people do not call their deity(/ies) "God."

More seriously, the concept of God, being imagined as an intelligent entity, is far too open to be useful. For instance, some evidence might fit the stereotypical idea of the wise man with a beard in the sky, but that exact same evidence fits what I call the "sky people." Almost all the evidence that people can cite of God is also evidence of supertechnological, superintelligent alien beings, and it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the difference the more supertechnological they are. However, very few people consider advanced technology "divine" when explained in that way, which seems to me to be cognitive dissonance about the nature of God. (or, at least, dissonance in how God is rationally believed in.)

But that doesn't rule out other possibilities. Indeed, computers are quickly approaching that level and may reach it within this new century.
Earth is not the entire universe.

But anything pervading the universe would necessarily pervade Earth.

More generally, I don't think it's possible for a computing machine to exist at scales smaller than that of molecules or larger than that of solar systems. In the former case, because the "atom" (i.e. the smallest possible part you can compose the machine from) is too large. The latter is not quite provably impossible, but it would certainly be astronomically sorry1 difficult, because of the speed of light delay, and the fact that the objects involved are so tiny compared to the distances involved. (Besides, a "god" whose neurons are composed of solar systems isn't a particular relevant one from humans' POV.) If no organized computer can exist larger/smaller than that, nothing that can be ascribed "intent" can be larger/smaller than that.

It may be, but that doesn't change the reality that a "sunset" is more than the physical nature of the event. Even if it is simply a personal or culturally subscribed meaning.... it still is there and simultaneously a part of and beyond the person having the experience.

Why is it beyond the person having the experience?

 

[painted wolf]

What would it have intent towards? As far as anyone can tell, it is an entirely self-contained system. It does not receive input from anything, or send output anywhere.

How should I know, I'm limited to a tiny speck living on a tiny speck in the unfashionable arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

There isn't such a thing as a non-western God concept, because non-western people do not call their deity(/ies) "God."

Pointlessly semantic.

More seriously, the concept of God, being imagined as an intelligent entity, is far too open to be useful. For instance, some evidence might fit the stereotypical idea of the wise man with a beard in the sky, but that exact same evidence fits what I call the "sky people." Almost all the evidence that people can cite of God is also evidence of supertechnological, superintelligent alien beings, and it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the difference the more supertechnological they are. However, very few people consider advanced technology "divine" when explained in that way, which seems to me to be cognitive dissonance about the nature of God. (or, at least, dissonance in how God is rationally believed in.)

When did I say God had to be an intelligent entity? What is intelligent?
I have said that IMHO "god" is an emergent property of the universe (or the other way round).
I've certainly discounted the "sky daddy" concept.

But anything pervading the universe would necessarily pervade Earth.

absolutely, but when looking at the Earth you are looking at an extremely mico scale.

More generally, I don't think it's possible for a computing machine to exist at scales smaller than that of molecules or larger than that of solar systems. In the former case, because the "atom" (i.e. the smallest possible part you can compose the machine from) is too large. The latter is not quite provably impossible, but it would certainly be astronomically sorry1 difficult, because of the speed of light delay, and the fact that the objects involved are so tiny compared to the distances involved. (Besides, a "god" whose neurons are composed of solar systems isn't a particular relevant one from humans' POV.) If no organized computer can exist larger/smaller than that, nothing that can be ascribed "intent" can be larger/smaller than that.

Your opinion is noted.
The idea that "gods" neurons are solar systems is pretty interesting.... would "god" need neurons or anything like them?
We do, certainly... but we are a product of our evolution and our evolution was as a hodge-podge of communal cells struggling for a reasonably efficient division of labor.

Why is it beyond the person having the experience?

Because it is also a cultural experience. The precise meanings of a sunset are not simply up to the individual but to the culture and time they live.

What a sunset means to us is not the same as it was to our ancestors. I see a sunset and view it far differently than an Ancient Egyptian or Aztec did. The sunsets meaning has an existence beyond my personal experience.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I too enjoy a hearty discussion, but are we really accomplishing anything here?

Oh yes we are. Tertulian failed to recognize the gifts of questioning. True faith and true knowledge can only be obtained by relentless questioning and inquiry.

 

[waitasec]

Oh yes we are. Tertulian failed to recognize the gifts of questioning. True faith and true knowledge can only be obtained by relentless questioning and inquiry.

:clap
that's what children do ...

 

[PolyHedral]

How should I know, I'm limited to a tiny speck living on a tiny speck in the unfashionable arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

Conversations of that particular form aren't the most helpful.

When did I say God had to be an intelligent entity? What is intelligent?

You didn't, but in what sense is it God if it's not intelligent?

I have said that IMHO "god" is an emergent property of the universe (or the other way round).

Which particular emergent property? It's inaccurate to call something a mystery when you know the exact mechanisms behind it.

absolutely, but when looking at the Earth you are looking at an extremely mico scale.

Not really. We've looked at it on every scale from the wavelength of electrons to the size of continents.

The idea that "gods" neurons are solar systems is pretty interesting.... would "god" need neurons or anything like them?

An intelligent God would need a computing medium of some sort, but the practicalities of such a thing are a different kettle of fish. A "brain" that used stars as neurons would think of the life and deaths of generations of stars as faster than a blink of an eye.

Because it is also a cultural experience. The precise meanings of a sunset are not simply up to the individual but to the culture and time they live.

What a sunset means to us is not the same as it was to our ancestors. I see a sunset and view it far differently than an Ancient Egyptian or Aztec did. The sunsets meaning has an existence beyond my personal experience.

wa:do

It seems silly to say that a culture exists outside the people who make it up.

 

[Skeptisch]

I do neither supernatural gods nor miracles.

Didn’t we agree that many of us are either wired for reason and others for faith and that migrating from one to the other does not seem desirable for either?

 

[painted wolf]

Conversations of that particular form aren't the most helpful.

Yes, but they can serve as the starting point for more in depth thought and discussion.

You didn't, but in what sense is it God if it's not intelligent?

Why does god need to be "intelligent"? A volcano is no more impressive for being unintelligent.
Besides IMHO there isn't a real definition of "intelligence" or a significant measure of it.

Which particular emergent property? It's inaccurate to call something a mystery when you know the exact mechanisms behind it.

There are lot's of emergent properties we don't know the exact mechanisms behind.... most or all of them in fact. We don't know the exact mechanisms behind consciousness for example.

Not really. We've looked at it on every scale from the wavelength of electrons to the size of continents.

And the size of continents is microscopic compared to the size of the universe.

An intelligent God would need a computing medium of some sort, but the practicalities of such a thing are a different kettle of fish. A "brain" that used stars as neurons would think of the life and deaths of generations of stars as faster than a blink of an eye.

Why? You are assuming on the basis of your own biology.

It seems silly to say that a culture exists outside the people who make it up.

Why?
Memes are a perfect example of this.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Didn’t we agree that many of us are either wired for reason and others for faith and that migrating from one to the other does not seem desirable for either?

Faith does not always mean a belief in the supernatural or miracles.

Also, religious behavior exists on a spectrum, like all human behaviors and almost all genetic traits.

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, but they can serve as the starting point for more in depth thought and discussion.

Only if we can produce a better response than "Dunno." If we can't construct a test for our idea, we can't work out if it matches reality, and so it isn't useful. (At least, if we want a practically useful idea. If we're composing the idea for some other reason, i.e. explicit fiction, it being untestable is fine.)

Why does god need to be "intelligent"? A volcano is no more impressive for being unintelligent.

Impressive stems from a lot of different sources, only one of which is intelligence.

Besides IMHO there isn't a real definition of "intelligence" or a significant measure of it.

There's not a definition of "heap of sand" either. That's just because English is vague. You can look for a specific behavior and use that as a measure of "intelligence."

There are lot's of emergent properties we don't know the exact mechanisms behind.... most or all of them in fact. We don't know the exact mechanisms behind consciousness for example.

True, but we do know the exact mechanisms behind that. (or again, behind those.) We're reasonably close to knowing the foundation of the entire universe, and working that upwards is a lot easier than working from the most holistic ideas down.

And the size of continents is microscopic compared to the size of the universe.

We've also looked at galactic superclusters, (which are hundreds of millions of lightyears across) but I misinterpreted you the first time around, so it's not really relevant.

Why? You are assuming on the basis of your own biology.

I'm assuming on the basis of computational theory. Intelligence requires computation, which requires a computer of some sort, and I can't imagine how a computer can exist without "hardware" of some sort.

Why?
Memes are a perfect example of this.

I suppose so. But an individual experiences a sunset isn't external to that individual. We can't communicate experience perfectly.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't conceive of any form of God that is not at least minimally intelligent. Or that lacks a will. Seems to me that the word loses all meaning without those two attributes.

 

[atanu]

Oh yes we are. Tertulian failed to recognize the gifts of questioning. True faith and true knowledge can only be obtained by relentless questioning and inquiry.

I agree. Brahma Sutra begins with the following.

Atha atah brahma-jijnasa. Therefore auspicious enquiry into the truth.

However, the enquiry should reveal the following:

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
- Albert Einstein

One cannot really enquire into one's self with one's own mind.

 

[painted wolf]

Only if we can produce a better response than "Dunno." If we can't construct a test for our idea, we can't work out if it matches reality, and so it isn't useful. (At least, if we want a practically useful idea. If we're composing the idea for some other reason, i.e. explicit fiction, it being untestable is fine.)

Isn't that what we are trying to do? Produce better responses?

Impressive stems from a lot of different sources, only one of which is intelligence.

my point exactly.

There's not a definition of "heap of sand" either. That's just because English is vague. You can look for a specific behavior and use that as a measure of "intelligence."

And any such metric will be biased and thus unreliable. Is tool use intelligent? Are animals that don't use tools unintelligent?

True, but we do know the exact mechanisms behind that. (or again, behind those.) We're reasonably close to knowing the foundation of the entire universe, and working that upwards is a lot easier than working from the most holistic ideas down.

Not really. We have some hypotheses and broad concepts.

We've also looked at galactic superclusters, (which are hundreds of millions of lightyears across) but I misinterpreted you the first time around, so it's not really relevant.

which is rather like looking at a 17th century drawing of a forest and saying you understand trees. We have snapshots from ages past, we learn a lot from them, but it's still highly limited.

I'm assuming on the basis of computational theory. Intelligence requires computation, which requires a computer of some sort, and I can't imagine how a computer can exist without "hardware" of some sort.

You're assuming computation must take a form you are familiar with.
It's rather like the medieval notion that all swans are white.

I suppose so. But an individual experiences a sunset isn't external to that individual. We can't communicate experience perfectly.

Sure it is... it isn't experienced by a single individual and that individual is influenced by the time and culture they live in. The experience is both internal and external to the individual.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I can't conceive of any form of God that is not at least minimally intelligent. Or that lacks a will. Seems to me that the word loses all meaning without those two attributes.

Define intelligent and then tell me why a God concept has to conform to your conceptions.

The problem is, people want to define God as they would like it to be, rather than what others may think. It is a bias of the self.

wa:do

 

[leedan]

Are we social animals that must cooperate for survival? Our complex relationships require debate to reach solutions. The future may be tremendously fruitful if we all could agree.

 

[McBell]

The future may be tremendously fruitful if we all could agree.

Until we stagnate and die off.

 

[leedan]

I believe the result would be more positive. More emphasis on living rather than preoccupation with death.

 

[McBell]

I believe the result would be more positive. More emphasis on living rather than preoccupation with death.

I don't.
Mainly because if we were to just stand around in total agreement, not much would get done.

 

[leedan]

Might we agree on working to understand the unknown?

 

[McBell]

Might we agree on working to understand the unknown?

Yes.
But how much do you want to bet that we will disagree on the best way to go about it?