My point was/is that 'nature endowed intelligence that we have' and 'human created software' are two different classes altogether.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution has never been observed
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
My point was/is that 'nature endowed intelligence that we have' and 'human created software' are two different classes altogether.
Ok, but asking if we have developed AI doesn't change the fact that we are pre-programmed. And no, computers have designers unlike humans.
I agree. They are. Because in one case, nature is the result and in the other design is the result.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
:yes:
Yoy. I am waiting for a WIKI leak.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Why do you need a wiki link?
Photonic
Ad astra!
I think he wants proof it's possible. Not sure exactly what he wants though...
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It's always nice to cite a source for your information. I must admit I'm curious about the idea of non-programmed software myself. I know about evolving software, but that's about the limit of my computer expertise. (ie... I'm very nearly a Luddite 
)
wa:do
)wa:do
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It doesn't count as evolution if you don't define the goal, does it? Nanopond: A Very Tiny Artificial Life VM
Nanopond: A Very Tiny Artificial Life VMSo would empirical evidence account for the bible stating that is the word of God, that is how we know it is the word of God?
If not, then please answer how perception of a physical self is able to 'test' for existence of a physical world?
IOW, this is not objective, and it is 'empirical' in the way everything that has circular reasoning is 'empirical' but it is not objective. My main emphasis has always been on 'objective.'
Not all thoughts are perceptions. While all perceptions are thoughts.
We are transferring and translating the data before it becomes a thought that we are aware of.
Organisms are the creator. Could be also said as, organisms are creators. Organisms are both THE creator and creators. So, yes, organisms are reproducing fine as (intelligently designed, and intelligently designing) creators.
We have tons of evidence that software occurs naturally. I think your assertion is a category error and fails on level of 'what is natural.' So, please stop making false assertions.
And that transferring and translating is governed by thought.
Plausible to be aware of it as it is occurring, and is partially what meditation is for.
No, perceiving precedes thought. Perception is the receiving of the data and the thought is the analysis of the data after it is received and translated. It is possible that your thoughts could be analyzing corrupted data.
How is the data transmitted?
It doesn't count as evolution if you don't define the goal, does it?
Since when 'Artificial' became 'uncreated'.
I am sure of that of course. And so what about data free-thought free state?