How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Sargonski]

View attachment 92445

What total BS

What you have done is push your ignorant opinion. Nothing more, nothing less so bigging yourself up is just a childish reaction to tha fact not everyone bows down to you.

posting silly pictures and crying out "ignorant ignorant" followed by personal invective is not an argument for much. Asking you to define your terms "Magic" so that we can understand what you are talking about is not a request for worship - although if you feel complelled I will not complain .. nor is asking you to define your terms a childish reaction to someone who can't manage aught but playground antics and name calling in case you were searching for a log

Now before you hurt yourself with those face palms .. tell us about this Magic thing you don't believe in .. define magic .. or do you believe that Aliens had a hand in the creation of man

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the differences between AI - as predicted by those experts dealing with this apparently - and humans, is that an advanced AI might know all that is able to be known, whether physical or not (which is probably not possible for any human), and given this, it is possible that such an AI might be able to understand or figure out if existence came into being without some Creator.

Well, here is one problem of knowing that you know. If a computer know everything it can know, then it knows its own processes as physical, but that is physical and thus it must know that those also. But that is also physical so you get an infinite regress of knowing knowning knowning and so on, as it is all physical and thus knowable.

As for epistemology and in effect the evil demon by Descartes, you have to explain how an AI is any different than a human for that problem.

 

[ChristineM]

posting silly pictures and crying out "ignorant ignorant" followed by personal invective is not an argument for much. Asking you to define your terms "Magic" so that we can understand what you are talking about is not a request for worship - although if you feel complelled I will not complain .. nor is asking you to define your terms a childish reaction to someone who can't manage aught but playground antics and name calling in case you were searching for a log

Now before you hurt yourself with those face palms .. tell us about this Magic thing you don't believe in .. define magic .. or do you believe that Aliens had a hand in the creation of man

When you show ignorence and aggression what do you expect?

Goodbye

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

The proof of God is Evolution if you define "Magic" and define "GOD" properly ..

Well, yes, in a sense for the formal notion of proof. But even that has a limit.

 

[PureX]

People who believe in one of them will disagree with you.

What people believe is irrelevant to anyone but them. It's a philosophical question. Logically those are all the same proposition.

If you don't need your beliefs to be
useful, go right ahead. I prefer science.

Truth is not determined by usefulness. It's why science isn't about pursuing truth. It's about determining functionality.

That's a very odd response.

Nevertheless.

 

[PureX]

But the differences between AI - as predicted by those experts dealing with this apparently - and humans, is that an advanced AI might know all that is able to be known, whether physical or not (which is probably not possible for any human), and given this, it is possible that such an AI might be able to understand or figure out if existence came into being without some Creator.

Coming from humans, I am extremely skeptical. You have a human that has no idea what or how much there is to be known predicting that a machine he built will somehow figure it all out ... not likely.

 

[PureX]

A viable possibility would be something that has evidence and can be demonstrated to be real / plausible.
Just because you can dream something up, doesn't make it viable or possible in any way.

How do you know what is not a viable possibility when you have no idea what the source being contemplated, is? Or even how to find out.

This is something you need to learn to understand.

What I understand is that you aren't smart enough for this conversation.

The same way I know that the people in the TV can't see me.


No, just a rational critical thinker.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No, just a rational critical thinker.

What is your evidence that you are a rational critical thinker?
To me that is different cogntive schemata.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know what is not a viable possibility

You're changing the language.
The point isn't about what is NOT viable.
It is about your claim about what IS viable.

We don't know what is (or is not) viable in advance. The point exactly.
Viability or non-viability is something that requires demonstration / evidence.

YOU claimed a certain thing is "viable". So it's upto you to defend that proposition.
If all you have is a bare claim, then I will simply dismiss it at face value.

Because what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for playing, in any case.

when you have no idea what the source being contemplated, is? Or even how to find out.

As I said multiple times already: when we don't know then you should just say that we don't know. And let's get to work to try and find out.
Instead of making some random bare claim and declare it to be a "viable possibility".

What I understand is that you aren't smart enough for this conversation.

Your ad hominim is noted.
When you are ready for a mature conversation, I'm here for you

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're changing the language.
The point isn't about what is NOT viable.
It is about your claim about what IS viable.

We don't know what is (or is not) viable in advance. The point exactly.
Viability or non-viability is something that requires demonstration / evidence.

YOU claimed a certain thing is "viable". So it's upto you to defend that proposition.
If all you have is a bare claim, then I will simply dismiss it at face value.

Because what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for playing, in any case.



As I said multiple times already: when we don't know then you should just say that we don't know. And let's get to work to try and find out.
Instead of making some random bare claim and declare it to be a "viable possibility".


Your ad hominim is noted.
When you are ready for a mature conversation, I'm here for you

Well, there is no evidence for the computer in front of you being real, so that can be dismissed.
We are doing philosophy, not methodological naturalism.
And we don't know what is in the strong sense objectively real.
So people use different beliefs about what objective reality in itself is.

 

[PureX]

You're changing the language.
The point isn't about what is NOT viable.
It is about your claim about what IS viable.

We don't know what is (or is not) viable in advance. The point exactly.
Viability or non-viability is something that requires demonstration / evidence.

YOU claimed a certain thing is "viable". So it's upto you to defend that proposition.
If all you have is a bare claim, then I will simply dismiss it at face value.

Because what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for playing, in any case.



As I said multiple times already: when we don't know then you should just say that we don't know. And let's get to work to try and find out.
Instead of making some random bare claim and declare it to be a "viable possibility".


Your ad hominim is noted.
When you are ready for a mature conversation, I'm here for you

You want to fight instead of think. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want to fight instead of think. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Fight? I replied directly to your points...

And YOU were the one that just called me "not smart enough" for the conversation, remember?
Another irony meter bites the dust.

Oh well. Carry on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, there is no evidence for the computer in front of you being real, so that can be dismissed.

 

[Brian2]

Yes and the onion genome is five times as large ~16 billion base pairs and there is a fern that is 50 times as large ~160 billion base pairs.

What you are presenting is known as the argument from incredulity, also known as the divine fallacy.
I refer you to my prior reading suggestion.
Evolution 101

It's not really a logical fallacy unless someone is wanting to make it into a logical argument that proves that there is a creator.
Otherwise it is one of the many things in life that can turn us to consider the possibility of a creator.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, since it is well known that living organisms change, and not always in conformity with other living organisms, and given that we also know that there have been billions of years of change going on, what would be much more surprising than the complexity we see before us is that such complexity didn't exist -- that there were very few, very simple, organisms.

So how do you explain that such simplicity does not exist?

What is to explain?

 

[Brian2]

If you say so. I am convinced by the evidence but it is your prerogative to not be convinced due to incredulity.

The evidence does not tell us that a creator is not needed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, here is one problem of knowing that you know. If a computer know everything it can know, then it knows its own processes as physical, but that is physical and thus it must know that those also. But that is also physical so you get an infinite regress of knowing knowning knowning and so on, as it is all physical and thus knowable.

No idea as to what any future AI will make of existence - its own and in general.

As for epistemology and in effect the evil demon by Descartes, you have to explain how an AI is any different than a human for that problem.

I can't answer this last since even the experts are not likely to be able to answer this either, but the consensus seems to be that an advanced AGI will likely make humans look remarkably ignorant as to what they are capable of comprehending - given very few humans are capable of being experts in all the fields of science (but AI might be), let alone all that occurs in the religious and spiritual areas. I have to wonder how any future AGI will deal with religious beliefs and claims - as to simply accepting them (being human beliefs) or perhaps devising various processes and/or experiments so as to eliminate or prove any of the various claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No idea as to what any future AI will make of existence - its own and in general.

I can't answer this last since even the experts are not likely to be able to answer this either, but the consensus seems to be that an advanced AGI will likely make humans look remarkably ignorant as to what they are capable of comprehending - given very few humans are capable of being experts in all the fields of science (but AI might be), let alone all that occurs in the religious and spiritual areas. I have to wonder how any future AGI will deal with religious beliefs and claims - as to simply accepting them (being human beliefs) or perhaps devising various processes and/or experiments so as to eliminate or prove any of these the various claims.

Yeah, it is you speculatiing and me doing the same in a different sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Coming from humans, I am extremely skeptical. You have a human that has no idea what or how much there is to be known predicting that a machine he built will somehow figure it all out ... not likely.

But unfortunately - as HHGTTG predicted - future AI will likely be produced by earlier AI, and even then we might not be able to comprehend why any AI does this, such that at some stage what AI produces might be beyond our comprehension - and much like creating a God figure.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, it is you speculatiing and me doing the same in a different sense.

Well I have at least looked at the predictions for AI.