Belief... or lack thereof

[PRmerger]

Lol, please, stop making me smile.

But I was aware of the parallel that could be made between Evolutionary Computing and the assertion that the world as we see it operate under rules set in place by something with intentionality. I’m totally fine with that.

Really? You’re “totally fine with that”?

How do you reconcile that with atheism then?

 

[Bradski]

Otherwise, what?

You don’t get evolution with computer intelligence?

Short answer is no. But it depends on your definition of intelligence. If you believe it’s just computing power, the ability to crunch larger and larger numbers, then we have been left far behind already. My IPhone is smarter than I am in that regard.

Intelligence, to me, requires forethought. Not how do I do this, but why am I doing it. You have to tell a computer what result you want. Why it is doing what you want it to. It’s as dumb as a box of rocks in that regard.

Until such time that we reach a point where a computer can be said to have a preference of its own, then there is no intelligence. If and when we get there, we might be in trouble. Then there may well be machine evolution.

Google ‘Singularity’ for what people are worried about in that regard. Or read ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ for a more optimistic view.

 

[PRmerger]

Short answer is no. But it depends on your definition of intelligence. If you believe it’s just computing power, the ability to crunch larger and larger numbers, then we have been left far behind already. My IPhone is smarter than I am in that regard.

Intelligence, to me, requires forethought. Not how do I do this, but why am I doing it. You have to tell a computer what result you want. Why it is doing what you want it to. It’s as dumb as a box of rocks in that regard.

Until such time that we reach a point where a computer can be said to have a preference of its own, then there is no intelligence. If and when we get there, we might be in trouble. Then there may well be machine evolution.

Google ‘Singularity’ for what people are worried about in that regard. Or read ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ for a more optimistic view.

Oh, I agree with you.

But your point seems to contrast mightily with Thinking Sapien.

 

[Bradski]

Oh, I agree with you.

But your point seems to contrast mightily with Thinking Sapien.

I don’t think so. TS talks about programmes that ‘evolve’ randomly. There is no teleology. Let’s just start it and see what happens. That equates to my understanding of nature. It evolves, but randomly.

So no personal God. But still room for deism if you are that way inclined. Although most Christians would, whilst agreeing that it appears random, insist that it is being guided. But then we head off into ID territory (Hey, if it LOOKS designed…!).

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think so. TS talks about programmes that ‘evolve’ randomly.

This may be his point now, but I don’t think it was originally.

He was responding to a point Jerry. Jerry was refuting poca.

Poca said: Our “software” seems to have evolved. From simple principles such as avoid danger & get food & breed, through social behaviors like those found in wolf packs or hyenas, to us.

So this means that TS was agreeing that our software evolves…in a NON-RANDOM manner.

For that was poca’s point, was it not?

 

[Bradski]

So this means that TS was agreeing that our software evolves…in a NON-RANDOM manner.

For that was poca’s point, was it not?

I don’t think it’s helpful to compare the two. One needs a purpose. The other has none. Yet both are non random.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think it’s helpful to compare the two. One needs a purpose. The other has none. Yet both are non random.

Yes. Both are non-random.

So poca, TS, and now you are all asserting that computer intelligence can evolve in a non-random manner.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Really? You’re “totally fine with that”?

How do you reconcile that with atheism then?

Addressing potential ambiguity or misunderstanding for readers. You are asking how I reconcile not being convinced of any one’s God-concept which is a bit different from someone reconciling a certain assertion that I’ve never made (which is the positive assertion that “There are no gods” or “there is no God”). And I’ve got no problem saying that it’s not impossible that there’s some entity that willful created our Universe. (I’ve said it before).

If a sentient entity existed that create Universe without any other knowledge on such an entity there’s not a whole lot to infer. This is the stance of some deist. In not making a lot of assumptions about such an entity people that are convinced that it exists are not necessarily convinced that the entity cares or does not care about what humans are doing. There’s not much to say about the possible emotional states or feelings that this thus far nebulously defined entity may have, assuming that it even has states and reactions that we might label as “feelings” and “emotions.”

I’m trying to imagine what type of conflicts might exists about this between people that are deistic and atheistic. I can’t think of any. A deistic person isn’t necessarily convinced that the entity in question will interact with us and an atheistic person isn’t convinced that there is an entity might have similar conclusions on what their current stances obligate them to do for/because of this entity. Could there be enough disagreement between these to positions to hold a debate? Are there any conflicts between these positions to be reconciled? If not then there’s not anything that I can identify for myself to reconcile. Neither case necessarily includes an entity issuing obligations.

This isn’t a problem for discussion though. I’m happy for the sake of discussion to grant that such an entity exists and treat it as provisionally true. But to get from there to one of the religious stances there are some additional attributes of which one would need to be convinced about this entity. The collection of these attributes could be referred to as a God-concept. Leading someone from a deistic perspective to convincing that each of the attributes of a specific God-concept are true is it’s own challenge.

There are other things that could be said about why one might not infer a God because of the role of the “divine programmer” in the above discussion on evolutionary computing. Establishing that the divine programmer is perfectly isomorphic to the world in which we lives is one. For now seems to work as an illustration of some concepts.

 

[PRmerger]

Addressing potential ambiguity or misunderstanding for readers. You are asking how I reconcile not being convinced of any one’s God-concept which is a bit different from someone reconciling a certain assertion that I’ve never made (which is the positive assertion that “There are no gods” or “there is no God”). And I’ve got no problem saying that it’s not impossible that there’s some entity that willful created our Universe. (I’ve said it before).

Excellent.

If a sentient entity existed that create Universe without any other knowledge on such an entity there’s not a whole lot to infer.

I don’t understand what you’re saying.

This is the stance of some deist. In not making a lot of assumptions about such an entity people that are convinced that it exists are not necessarily convinced that the entity cares or does not care about what humans are doing. There’s not much to say about the possible emotional states or feelings that this thus far nebulously defined entity may have, assuming that it even has states and reactions that we might label as “feelings” and “emotions.”

Sure. I accept the arguments from deists.

I’m trying to imagine what type of conflicts might exists about this between people that are deistic and atheistic. I can’t think of any.

I can think of one: the fact that an entity exists which is immaterial, transcendent, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient.

#thatsaprettybigone

I’m happy for the sake of discussion to grant that such an entity exists and treat it as provisionally true. But to get from there to one of the religious stances there are some additional attributes of which one would need to be convinced about this entity. The collection of these attributes could be referred to as a God-concept.

Excellent.

So since you’re on a Catholic forum we should talk about the Catholic God-concept.

What objections do you have regarding the Incarnation?

 

[Bradski]

Yes. Both are non-random.

So poca, TS, and now you are all asserting that computer intelligence can evolve in a non-random manner.

No. You’ve switched from computer programmes to computer intelligence. They are not the same. See my earlier post.

 

[PRmerger]

No. You’ve switched from computer programmes to computer intelligence. They are not the same. See my earlier post.

What? You’re asserting that computer programs are random/non-random?

 

[Bradski]

What? You’re asserting that computer programs are random/non-random?

They can be set up to run either way.

I can write a programme that will do a given job for me. It will follow specific paths. Collect information, if this, then do that etc. That’s non random. It serves a particular purpose which I have decided in advance.

Or I can write a simple formula and include a piece of code that generates a random number. In that case, with a few if-then and conditional functions you can sit back and watch to see what happens. That’s random. It serves no purpose (unless you want to argue that the purpose is to produce randomness).

A rider to that…I don’t know enough about programming to be able to produce a truly random number, although it’s random enough for almost all requirements. TS might know how to do that.

 

[Darryl_B]

No, it is faulty.
Can you perfectly recall every single instant of your life? no? not perfect, then. I know there are claims of a few people who can… (maybe that’s just in fiction?)

I compare with the computer up to the point where thoughts are, in a way, like the joint currents flowing through the computer’s memory, processor, buses, screen, etc.

The assembly of the human brain is apparently different from the assembly of the computer… Perhaps the computer is inspired by Nature?

Please ditch that narrow track mindedness of black&white. Things have more subtleties than we usually consider.

No, it is NOT faulty. I am blessed by the fact that I cannot recall every single event in my life. All you have described is a “constraint” not a “fault”. If I had recollection I would spend all the present dwelling on the past. I would spend all my time watching old reruns, never furthering myself beyond the black and white.

Do you actually know how computers work? I am struggling to see it. Man is far more complex than that.

 

[Darryl_B]

This may be his point now, but I don’t think it was originally.

He was responding to a point Jerry. Jerry was refuting poca.

Poca said: Our “software” seems to have evolved. From simple principles such as avoid danger & get food & breed, through social behaviors like those found in wolf packs or hyenas, to us.

So this means that TS was agreeing that our software evolves…in a NON-RANDOM manner.

For that was poca’s point, was it not?

Except “poca” is wrong in thinking we operate like wolves or hyenas. To compare/equate the psyche of the man to pack animals is just simply incorrect. I think it is probably that very simplistic and old theory of the alpha-male mentality that produces the inapt comparison.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t know enough about programming to be able to produce a truly random number, although it’s random enough for almost all requirements.

Computers cannot produce purely random numbers because that requires invention. Computers cannot invent. Rnd() Rand() functions are never truly what they claim. Try Eton Statistical Tables. It has a Random number section and was written on paper by someone.

 

[pocaracas]

No, it is NOT faulty. I am blessed by the fact that I cannot recall every single event in my life. All you have described is a “constraint” not a “fault”. If I had recollection I would spend all the present dwelling on the past. I would spend all my time watching old reruns, never furthering myself beyond the black and white.

Do you actually know how computers work? I am struggling to see it. Man is far more complex than that.

And yet, sometimes, it would be very useful to have a far better recall. Say, high-school tests? Police investigations? Job interviews?

I can’t be certain, but, if I had perfect recall, I’d be able to recall every single instant from my life, while still living in the present… Life would still go on and I’d have to live it. Failure would lead to death.

The you have all the people with mental problems, from the seemingly standard depression to autism to schizophrenia… Those are very faulty brains.

Not to mention all the faulty wiring (laryngeal nerve), faulty part location (allow me to use the old "waste disposal system right next to a recreation center"as an example ) in the rest of the body.

Do I know how computers work?
Computers, networks of computers with MPI; FPGAs, networks of FPGAs… Perhaps these last ones would resemble a brain a bit better than the standard microprocessor unit… With a self-learning artificial-neural-network encoded in each FPGA… that could work.
But, just like their processing stops when no current is flowing… the human brain seems to stop processing when the bio-current stops flowing.

 

[pocaracas]

Except “poca” is wrong in thinking we operate like wolves or hyenas. To compare/equate the psyche of the man to pack animals is just simply incorrect.

That why I didn’t do such a thing.

I said our social behavior has evolved, passing through the one we see today in wolves and hyenas, and evolving further until what we have today in humans.

I apologize if I said it in such a short manner that you mistook it for “human morality is like that of wolves and hyenas”.

 

[pocaracas]

Computers cannot produce purely random numbers because that requires invention. Computers cannot invent. Rnd() Rand() functions are never truly what they claim. Try Eton Statistical Tables. It has a Random number section and was written on paper by someone.

That’s right… all computer algorithms that I know are only “pseudo-random”. They are periodic, but the period is so long that, to us, they seem random.
Even if you use one random number generator to initialize another, you’ll just get a larger period…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A rider to that…I don’t know enough about programming to be able to produce a truly random number, although it’s random enough for almost all requirements. TS might know how to do that.

Producing a “truly random number” can be difficult with code alone. One can come up with algorithms that produce sequences of numbers that are difficult to predict. But these algorithms have to be seeded with a value (sometimes derived from the current time, sometimes from something unique about the computer on which it is running like the processor serial number or network card ID) but if someone else is able to discover those parameters and knows the algorithm then the same sequence of numbers could be generated.

The task has been taken up by some processor manufacturers and other hardware vendors. Some have relied on thermal noise and quantum phenomenon to generate random numbers, though if someone cools the hardware there’s less entropy and the sequence becomes less random.

There’s practical application for random number generators in computer security and cryptography. I won’t got into a lot of detail here though.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I can think of one: the fact that an entity exists which is immaterial, transcendent, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient.

#thatsaprettybigone

It’s disagreement without conflict. Neither position is convinced of a god interacting in our lives and neither is compelled to take action because of the presence or absence of a deistic god.

What objections do you have regarding the Incarnation?

I don’t object to it. I’m just not yet convinced by the discussion that has occurred on the topic. But learning about the Catholic God-concept has been helpful in understanding certain stories I sometimes encounter for which there’s a religiously motivated conflict.