The Debate of God.

[apophenia]

I'm actually willing to say that computers are aware. Probably the first thread I started in philosophy.

There you go ... thank you for underlining my point.

In other words you have a theory which has no support.

I'm not saying that your hunch must be wrong by the way.

I am saying that your theory 'emerges' from the need to fill the gaping hole between biological (or electronic) complexity and sentience, being-awareness.

We know all the processes from you viewing something to it registering in your eye then gets turned into data that is sent to the brain and then the brain stores it. We know how the brain works and are uncovering so much and it always always points to a material process.

Admit it Idav - a digital camera connected to a computer is similarly understood, but it is only wild speculation of the Matrix kind that suggests your camera is sentient.

Or would the sentience be in the computer ? Or on the hard drive ? Or in the electricity ?

BTW ... I also became fascinated with this issue in 1978 which drove me to becoming a software engineer to explore it further.

I understand the temptation to equate complexity with sentience, because we have nothing else to go on ... but the absence of a real explanation does not make sheer speculative fiction true.

It makes no difference how well we understand the visual cortex - that does not explain the fact of sentience.

This has been my only point for pages now ... what I think has been made clear is that many people who explain everything with current scientific paradigms simply cannot bear the fact that a major mystery remains.

Some, like yourself, persist in relabelling sentience with emergent behaviour and pretend to understand that way; others like Outhouse merely get wound up and insulting whenever faced with anyone who points out that they do not understand Reality in its entirety.

Scientific fundamentalism does not further science, it merely apes religious ignorance .

There is no dishonour in not intellectually understanding the mystery of Being.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Ok, I believe in the supreme eternal infinite consciousness that pervades everything,,,, any questions.

 

[outhouse]

There you go ... thank you for underlining my point.

LOL :biglaugh:

computers are not aware, this is 100% imagination to even begin to go there.

others like Outhouse merely get wound up and insulting whenever faced with anyone who points out that they do not understand Reality in its entirety.

Oh trust me im not wound up at all


this is just getting good now that were making head way LOL

Now I see why you cannot explain your position clearly :foot:







What is understood is this is really getting comical :slap:

 

[apophenia]

LOL :biglaugh:

computers are not aware, this is 100% imagination to even begin to go there.

:slap:

You just proved your stupendous lack of reading comprehension on this point.

It is Idav who is suggesting that computers may be 'aware'.I have been referring to that popular 'Matrix-style' view in my argument, but not affirming it by any means. Just the opposite in fact.

You are so busy mocking me you have not clearly understood a single post I have made, and you are arguing against an imaginary proposition construed from your failure to comprehend what I've actually written.

But it is pointless telling you that, because you have arguments against the 'phantom theory' you falsely attribute to me, and no sensible response to what I actually have said.

I have asked you 3 times to state what is the theory you think I'm proposing, and you have never had the integrity to answer that - because your consistent personal attacks rely on putting your ideas in my mouth.

So for a 4th time let me ask you -

What is the theory you think I am proposing ?

 

[outhouse]

You just proved your stupendous lack of reading comprehension on this point.

It is Idav who is suggesting that computers may be 'aware'.I have been referring to that popular 'Matrix-style' view in my argument, but not affirming it by any means. Just the opposite in fact.

You are so busy mocking me you have not clearly understood a single post I have made, and you are arguing against an imaginary proposition construed from your failure to comprehend what I've actually written.

But it is pointless telling you that, because you have arguments against the 'phantom theory' you falsely attribute to me, and no sensible response to what I actually have said.

I have asked you 3 times to state what is the theory you think I'm proposing, and you have never had the integrity to answer that - because your consistent personal attacks rely on putting your ideas in my mouth.

So for a 4th time let me ask you -

What is the theory you think I am proposing ?

it is you not following. you missed the boat completely

you claim it takes and I quote

I am saying that your theory 'emerges' from the need to fill the gaping hole between biological (or electronic) complexity and sentience, being-awareness.

and im saying that it takes imagination ONLY.

What is the theory you think I am proposing ?

why do I have to play your game, no merit in your response ?


im not playing your game, make a point if you have one. So far you have a lack of.


this isnt a guessing game, make a point.

 

[apophenia]

why do I have to play yout game, no merit in your response ?


im not playing your game, make a point if you have one. So far you have a lack of.

Thank you for making it clear that you have know idea what I am actually saying, and no answer when I ask you what you think my 'imaginitive theory' is.

And note that you are so completely out of touch here that you are guffawing about me believing that computers are sentient, which is the exact opposite of what I have been saying.

Since you are not able to answer the question of what this supposed theory of mine is, you should stop claiming that I'm proposing one.

It makes you appear very dishonest.

 

[apophenia]

Anyway folks, this is my last post on this thread. I did want to continue with further ideas relating religious and mystical ideas to our experience of being-awareness but since it is only resulting in arrogant flamebaiting and deliberate obfuscation from Outhouse, there is no point in my continuing this line of thought here.

 

[outhouse]

Thank you for making it clear that you have know idea what I am actually saying, and no answer when I ask you what you think my 'imaginitive theory' is.

who can guess ones imagination?

you are guffawing about me believing that computers are sentient, which is the exact opposite of what I have been saying.

wrong i put my statement into context.

YOU are dealing with people not electronics, but your using the analogy to explain your point.

what this supposed theory of mine is

You dont even have a poor hypothesis let alone a theory.

you should stop claiming that I'm proposing one.

dancing around imagination and not cutting to the chase of imagination doesnt shall we say cut it, in a debate.


and its off topic

It makes you appear very dishonest.

so far ive only claimed your making false claims against what we know. you have been wrong every step and not provided a single shred of anything backing up youir statements.

Ive also siad your using imagination because your purposely being so vague, imagination is all you have provided.



I would love to see more of this magical awareness you dont speak of

 

[outhouse]

Anyway folks, this is my last post on this thread. I did want to continue with further ideas relating religious and mystical ideas to our experience of being-awareness but since it is only resulting in arrogant flamebaiting and deliberate obfuscation from Outhouse, there is no point in my continuing this line of thought here.

I understand, cant back it and run. its typical here with personal unbacked off topic opinions.

 

[outhouse]

religious and mystical ideas to our experience of being-awareness

:biglaugh:

I didnt know conscious was mystical

 

[idav]

There you go ... thank you for underlining my point.

I said I got your point. Gave an example.

In other words you have a theory which has no support.

No, I gave you evidence but you haven't responded to it.

I'm not saying that your hunch must be wrong by the way.

I am saying that your theory 'emerges' from the need to fill the gaping hole between biological (or electronic) complexity and sentience, being-awareness.

Actually I'm basing it on whatever evidence I have.

Admit it Idav - a digital camera connected to a computer is similarly understood, but it is only wild speculation of the Matrix kind that suggests your camera is sentient.

Or would the sentience be in the computer ? Or on the hard drive ? Or in the electricity ?

BTW ... I also became fascinated with this issue in 1978 which drove me to becoming a software engineer to explore it further.

I understand the temptation to equate complexity with sentience, because we have nothing else to go on ... but the absence of a real explanation does not make sheer speculative fiction true.

It makes no difference how well we understand the visual cortex - that does not explain the fact of sentience.

This has been my only point for pages now ... what I think has been made clear is that many people who explain everything with current scientific paradigms simply cannot bear the fact that a major mystery remains.

Some, like yourself, persist in relabelling sentience with emergent behaviour and pretend to understand that way; others like Outhouse merely get wound up and insulting whenever faced with anyone who points out that they do not understand Reality in its entirety.

Scientific fundamentalism does not further science, it merely apes religious ignorance .

There is no dishonour in not intellectually understanding the mystery of Being.

I'm glad you understand the topic we are discussing. I haven't found that I've been insulting. Please revisit the examples I gave of emergent awareness. I am very interested in delving in to this huge mystery you say exists but will need specifics. What about awareness are we not able to replicate? What is it about an animals brain that still a huge mystery?

 

[idav]

computers are not aware, this is 100% imagination to even begin to go there.

Define aware.

 

[outhouse]

Define aware.

something a computer isnt for 1000 alex


in what context, machine or human?


Human's, its a part of conscious thought we are all born with, a survival trait.

Machines, have none. They compute what we tell them to.

 

[Daviso452]

then provide facts to back up your statements.

Didn't say you were wrong. Just that you were an annoying troll. Just because you know something doesn't mean you have to be an annoying dick about it just because some one is wrong. Otherwise you are actually going to hurt your cause. Apparently if you force someone to change their beliefs then they will rebound even more deeply rooted. You're hurting our cause dude. Just because people are unreasonable does not mean you have to be a dick to them.

 

[outhouse]

Didn't say you were wrong. Just that you were an annoying troll. Just because you know something doesn't mean you have to be an annoying dick about it just because some one is wrong. Otherwise you are actually going to hurt your cause. Apparently if you force someone to change their beliefs then they will rebound even more deeply rooted. You're hurting our cause dude. Just because people are unreasonable does not mean you have to be a dick to them.

first this is a educational religious DEBATE forum, personal attacks such as yours above are not tolerated.

second, if you spout of some trash, your going to get called on it.

third, if you make some imaginitive claim, be prepared to back it up with more then more imagination.

forth if you cant handle a debate, you may want to try the same faith section

 

[Daviso452]

first this is a educational religious DEBATE forum, personal attacks such as yours above are not tolerated.

second, if you spout of some trash, your going to get called on it.

third, if you make some imaginitive claim, be prepared to back it up with more then more imagination.

forth if you cant handle a debate, you may want to try the same faith section

There is a difference between debate and trolling. And FYI we are both atheists.

Debate: a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
Debate | Define Debate at Dictionary.com

I understand that people can be incredibly retarded and make the most stupid mistakes. I understand that they should be called for their ********.

However, Outhouse what you have done on many occasions done as such:

LOL :biglaugh:

computers are not aware, this is 100% imagination to even begin to go there.

Oh trust me im not wound up at all

this is just getting good now that were making head way LOL

Now I see why you cannot explain your position clearly :foot:

What is understood is this is really getting comical :slap:

First is the "lol" and laughing smily. You did not try and reason with Apophenia. You did not try and understand his statement, or his belief. I agree that computers are not aware, however I do not know everything.

You, Outhouse, are being close-minded. If you had attempted to understand why Apophenia believed this, researched the basis for his belief, concluded the position was still false, and then explain why it is false, then you would be a good debater.

However instead you felt that you knew enough of the subject prior to the discussion and immediately denied merit to what Apophenia said. You did not even attempt to explain why he was wrong.

And thus brings me to my final point. On many occasions you just say some one is wrong without saying why they are wrong. Although it may be obvious to you, it must not be to the other person if they believed it. If they believe in something imaginary then explain what separates it from reality. However I don't see how you can seeing as you never ask anyone about why they believe something.

However, I am not attempting to say you have never made a comment worthy of frubals, such as this:

you might want to look into the disciples and who and what they were. Theres a god chance there were more then two, even though only so many were recorded or better yet, writings that survived.

Now compare that statement of yours to this:

this doesnt make a bit of sense at all. fact is we know it happened just the opposite of your statement.

know or being is a perception based on knowledge gained from birth.

this is a biological feature of a mammal, so your wrong it is accounted for.

false.

it is a brain function you dont understand.

Again, instead of describe these things you just say they are there. You just say there is a brain function without describing what it is. You say it is a biological feature (true) however you add no detail and again say the person is wrong.

That is not a debate my friend. They are facts and statements without reasoning and conclusions followed by a flat-out denial of the person's belief without attempt to understand what and why the person believes it.

You commented on me not being able to handle a debate. I can handle a debate Outhouse. The difference is that I back up my statements, am understanding of others, and am open to other ideas and beliefs.

 

[idav]

Evolution is evidence of emergence.

No argument.

If you take a simple computer simulation of emergent behaviour, something like the famous program Life, you can observe how this process can operate with no awareness whatsoever.

You seem to be taking the position that because I don't think science has an explanation for awareness, therefore I am attacking the credibility of science.

Not at all.

Science has no complete explanation for lots of things, gravity for instance.
That does not mean that the science involving observed facts about gravity is wrong. The Newtonian equations work, whether we have an understanding of the mechanism of gravity or not. So we have an isomorphic mapping of our model and observable behaviour, which gives us a useful tool.
The Higgs boson may turn out to be what science is looking for there, but that doesn't alter my point for now. My point is that up to this point it has been true to say that we don't know what gravity is.
By saying that, I am neither denigrating science nor suggesting 'imaginary theories', I am simply stating that there is a hole in scientific knowledge there.

Science has not explained awareness either.

You continue to make the error that because we have emergent behaviour to explain some features of biological life, we therefore have an 'explanation' for awareness, but you still have not grasped that such emergent behaviour can be modelled in systems which noone considers sentient, unless they have been smoking weed while watching 'Matrix'.

In other words, there is still no reason to equate emergent behaviour with awareness, because we can demonstrate emergent behaviour in the absence of awareness.

You and Outhouse continue to argue against a point I am not making !

My only point here is that science has not demonstrated a connection between complexity and sentience.

You have decided to translate awareness ONLY as emergent stimulus-response behaviour, but that does nothing to explain sentience, since emergent stimulus response behaviour can be programmed into a piece of silicon.

So unless you seriously want to propose that the silicon is aware, sentient, self-knowing, then it's time to admit that you are not answering my point, which is that we do not have a material explanation for sentience.

Our human construct of awareness is an illusion. Smoke and mirrors of various forms of cause and effect. We can't find awareness because it exists as a combination of trillions of aware cells. When we look at the cellular level, saying a human is a conscious being is equivalent to calling a bee hive a being in itself. We see the emergence when networking occurs between various organisms or individual cells of multicellular organisms. If there isn't any awareness factor to find and it is simply complexity then machines should have no problem getting there when we can make them powerful enough, I know they will certainly be more efficient than anything done by random in nature.

 

[idav]

something a computer isnt for 1000 alex


in what context, machine or human?


Human's, its a part of conscious thought we are all born with, a survival trait.

Machines, have none. They compute what we tell them to.

You agreed earlier with my statement regarding evolution showing emergence of awareness. If we are already replicating things like sight, hearing, memory and recall, what exactly is missing as far as response to stimuli? What is special about awareness that the complexity cannot be also be done by a machine. I would normally think that people who believe in some sort of spirit would be the ones having a problem with machines being aware.

 

[outhouse]

However, I am not attempting to say you have never made a comment worthy of frubals, such as this:

and if you look at the statement I was replying to, he was sensible.


Sensible statements get my best foot foward.

I understand that they should be called for their ********.

and with this statement you contradict yourself. because thats what I did.


there is no need to waiste time debating someone claiming santa is real that is serious. the guy was running on imagination and was ducking every question Idav through at him.


for me, Everyone gets a fair shake amd I try to take people on a individual basis, its why im not treating you the same as the other gentleman.

do you see my doing this to idav?

 

[outhouse]

You agreed earlier with my statement regarding evolution showing emergence of awareness.

yes but we are talking a time when life first began, not a progression in mammals

. If we are already replicating things like sight, hearing, memory and recall, what exactly is missing as far as response to stimuli?

Im not sure. is there anything missing with that list?

What is special about awareness that the complexity cannot be also be done by a machine.

they dont have a brain. They have a processor that takes information fed to it, it them computes what it is told exactly and nothing more.

your trying to put life into something that doesnt have 1 piece in it that is a mytstery.

I would normally think that people who believe in some sort of spirit would be the ones having a problem with machines being aware.

but your question isnt one of theism, religion or not makes no difference on this one.


computers are dead but. they have no counscious. The best fastest computer in the world like the one used in Jepardy that beat the people. Had to be programmed to think like us and still falters at questions that require certain thinking skills a child can figure out.