wiegraf:

Nature does not have a conscious intent. Blindly doing its thing through time.

The bolded is correct. Who said anything about god??

So according to your bible man uses energy to attain a goal. Exactly what is a machine again?

O sharrap, you daftling, who cannot even explain the simplest thing in nature, and yet make bold, intoxicared on the wine of a liitle learning, to speak the place of nature. . .

wiegraf:

Who says I'm agnostic? Don't use that dirty word to describe me. I've already told you who "built" humans.

Olodo. Night. Gat strippers to attend to. Conscious ones.

O glory.

wiegraf:

Nature does not have a conscious intent. Blindly doing its thing through time.

The bolded is correct. Who said anything about god??

So according to your bible man uses energy to attain a goal. Exactly what is a machine again?

for petes sake?

1. If your unconscious god(nature) does not have a conscious intent, how does it create machines as you claim, that have an intent to perform an action and cannot but fulfil programming?

Machine:
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

2. You just acknowledged that machines do not have freewill.
This shows that man is not a machine as he has freewill. You're contrsdicting yourself.
You cannot state that man does not have freewill, or else he would not be responsible for his actions. Or else the law(even human law) would bear no weight. And there would be lawlessness. Men truly becoming animals. This is what you get by teaching children that they're animals or machines that don't have freewill. They start to act like animals and create a scenario in which they aren't morally responsible for anything, since they are programmed as it were.

Joshthefirst: for petes sake?

1. If your unconscious god(nature) does not have a conscious intent, how does it create machines as you claim, that have an intent to perform an action and cannot but fulfil programming?

Machine:
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

2. You just acknowledged that machines do not have freewill.
This shows that man is not a machine as he has freewill. You're contrsdicting yourself.
You cannot state that man does not have freewill, or else he would not be responsible for his actions. Or else the law(even human law) would bear no weight. And there would be lawlessness. Men truly becoming animals. This is what you get by teaching children that they're animals or machines that don't have freewill. They start to act like animals and create a scenario in which they aren't morally responsible for anything, since they are programmed as it were.

Lawd knows *hic*

Deep Sight:

Lawd knows *hic*

Goodnight sir.

Deep Sight:

Such s.illiness. of course the sensation of pain is a sure component of consciousness even when the loss of the sensation surely does not connote loss of consciousness.

This is so elementary, it is the reason new born bsbies are pinched to cry.

Drunk, I am, no doubt. We shall see on the morrow, and do present yourself for the duel. Do not shrink, for I shall be there .... waiting. ... conscious.... and even self conscious. ...

U see ur life?
Now u are saying ability to respond to stimulus is a sign of consciousness right? What about plants that can feel touch and maybe pain but are not conscious?
If the foregoing is true then we can eliminate pain as a component of consciousness.
Maybe u think plants are conscious.

Guy u be get sense pass like this before o. I dont know what happened to u. Hubris, I guess. Some halfwit sang ur praise and u believed him too much.

@bolded: Spoken like one who loves to hear the sound of his own voice in his head. U might impress sheeple like @Joshthefirst but u will need smarter arguments to persuade the rest of us.
Bring those sound arguments quickly.

Joshthefirst: for petes sake?

1. If your unconscious god(nature) does not have a conscious intent, how does it create machines as you claim, that have an intent to perform an action and cannot but fulfil programming?

Blindly.

The sun shining just happens to perform a function beneficial to us, it now is a machine to us, no? But it, along with the trillions of stars in this universe, weren't exactly built or planned, no? Hope you don't think this ginormous universe was specially custom-built just for special us?

Joshthefirst:
Machine:
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

2. You just acknowledged that machines do not have freewill.
This shows that man is not a machine as he has freewill. You're contrsdicting yourself.
You cannot state that man does not have freewill, or else he would not be responsible for his actions. Or else the law(even human law) would bear no weight. And there would be lawlessness. Men truly becoming animals. This is what you get by teaching children that they're animals or machines that don't have freewill. They start to act like animals and create a scenario in which they aren't morally responsible for anything, since they are programmed as it were.

Do you have problem reading simple sentences. I clearly stated man has no freewill.

Man is an animal.

No there won't be lawlessness, nor is there any reason to believe there would be. There isn't lawlessness now, is there?

Joshthefirst:
Goodnight sir.

Goodmorning sir.

God exists, the earth is a school, but your religion is quite something else

On that merry note. . Hurrah.!

^^^
Strippers don't pay themselves. Get to it

Come to think of it, do those in these country claim they're using it to pay for uni as well? Ask them abeg

wiegraf: ^^^
Strippers don't pay themselves. Get to it

Come to think of it, do those in these country claim they're using it to pay for uni as well? Ask them abeg

Lol, abeg na joke o.

wiegraf: ^^^
Strippers don't pay themselves. Get to it

Come to think of it, do those in these country claim they're using it to pay for uni as well? Ask them abeg

I don't think his strippers are conscious.

Deep Sight:

Lol, abeg na joke o.

lol I know oga

[s]And not because I once scoured the land in search of these creatures of lore. I would have had better luck finding mami water methinks. Though this was years ago.[/s]

Deepsight reminds me of blackberry stock. Once a a valuable high flyer, but now fallen in value because the company has simply exhausted it's imaginative and innovative potentials.

My advice?
Sell and avoid until intrinsic value is restored.

Deep Sight:

Goodmorning sir.

God exists, the earth is a school, but your religion is quite something else

On that merry note. . Hurrah.!

you mean christianity?
I believe its something else. Its out of this world. Its genius.

I'm sure all questions and problems you have with it can and will be taken care of.

How can you say man is a machine who does not have freewill and still say this notion will not promote lawlessness?

Why will you subject a man under the law when he is not responsible for his actions as he does not have freewill.

If a man kills, blame nature's haphazard programming?
If a man lies or rapes, blame nature's haphazard programming?
Humans are not responsible for their actions anymore, since they are only programmed to do so?

I believe man has freewill, created by God, God who had a will and intent in creating man. I believe there's a law written in our hearts, our consciousness, our conscience. Only a lawgiver gives these laws.
I believe that though man has freewill, he's responsible for his actions and will be punished if he breaks the law.

I believe man will only find true satisfaction when he chooses to fulfill his creator's intent.

Lol.

PhenomenonVFX:

okay I didnt see this before my first reply to u.
Let me break things down further.
There is something called Run-time game playing or so. I cant remember exactly now. This is when a computer actually learns the rules for interaction with opponents after the game has started. Now it is about a computer learning whatsoever rule a game is working with by using techniques far beyond statistical AI.

#This is misleading, bordering on a lie. No known computer system today is capable of learning anything beyond it's programming. The illustration you used above in the game of chess is just a computer mapping inputs(from the opposing player) to all possible outcomes, then making decisions based on several preprogrammed parameters. Again, to the ordinary, untrained mind this looks like some personality or awareness exhibited by the computer but it's all preprogrammed set of actions. This is simulated learning.

Now back to preprogrammed computers. The day a preprogrammed computer begins to function beyond the limits of its programming and probably possess an ability to reprogram itself, that will be the day.
Now I consider the above in the realm of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is bizzare and almost "spiritual" to some people. In that realm of physics, it is said that even the human mind can affect the outcome. It provides us with even a higher probability of computers running beyond the limits of their programming.

#Again, another misleading information. It is true that the observing human mind can influence the behaviour of subatomic particles. The key here is the human mind, but you are already assuming that there is an artificial mind(again with no evidence whatsoever) to exercise the same influence as a human. Please tell us, where has any instance of an artificial mind been observed/documented?? absolutely Nowhere, yet you come here declaring that computers will do this and do that on their own accord without human influence.

Lets look at evolution for instance. It can be argued that evolution is just another way whereby living organisms run beyond the limits of their "program" in order to survive. They improvise new genetic codes and adaptation for continuity.

#Oh please!!! Nowhere has DNA been observed to mutate or evolve. Every known instance of DNA recoding has all been human induced.

Imagine the future where we have computers running on giga or tera-qubits of processing power. Also using stochastic and non-deterministic execution techniques unlike the computers of nowadays. Would it be possible for them to run beyond the limits of their programming which has quantum possibilities, reprogram themselves and suddenly be possible for the machines to come alive and say "corgito, ergo sum!!!"? Well I dont know. But some scientists seem to think so. They even believe it will be possible to transfer human consciousness into machines.

#Mehn!! I'm already tired of reading this arguments. You seem to be plucking concepts from fantasy but presenting them as science facts. I'm beginning to feel I'd wasted precious time with the attention I'd already devoted to this article alone. Oh well, I'm at the end, so I might just as well round it up.

U really should try reading Xenocide. It gives a mind-boggling treatise about how consciousness can be formed in an artificial network connection.

#I talk am You really are hanging all your bets on fictional characters, events and concepts.

plaetton:

Thanks again.
After engaging with these guys for a while, I begin to question my own sanity.
With your posts so far,Ii am convinced that I am indeed the sane one talking to a bunch of deaf and dumb.


I have stated it before on this forum that in Quantum Physics, the line between science and spirituality becomes increasingly blurred.
Phenomena was once termed spiritual may now be explained in purely Quantum mechanical terminology.

Even in the human brain, thoughts and consciousness, are now being looked as arising from quantum mechanical processes in the brain.
So if computers begin to Quantum compute, then viola, conscious computers may now be conceptually probable.

That is is just extrapolation from simple common sense.

One delusion validating another delusion

You obviously have no technical background, that's why you are jumping and applauding another man's fantasies.

PhenomenonVFX: Personally, the day I will stop believing in the possibility of "conscious" computers is the day we build computers that perfectly replicate the human brain and then nothing comes of it and the computers just remain good old electronic chips.
But even if we manage to create "conscious" computers inadvertently or otherwise, it still wont still stop me from believing in God though.

Look, I might be able to agree with you that there is consciousness in inanimate objects but that'd be taking it on the level of religion and spirituality. But you trying to hinge this on science?? Bros, you are on your own.

okeyxyz:

#This is misleading, bordering on a lie. No known computer system today is capable of learning anything beyond it's programming. The illustration you used above in the game of chess is just a computer mapping inputs(from the opposing player) to all possible outcomes, then making decisions based on several preprogrammed parameters. Again, to the ordinary, untrained mind this looks like some personality or awareness exhibited by the computer but it's all preprogrammed set of actions. This is simulated learning.

THere is no where I claimed computers nowadays can work beyond the limits of their programming. U obvious have comprehension problems

okeyxyz:
#Again, another misleading information. It is true that the observing human mind can influence the behaviour of subatomic particles. The key here is the human mind, but you are already assuming that there is an artificial mind(again with no evidence whatsoever) to exercise the same influence as a human. Please tell us, where has any instance of an artificial mind been observed/documented?? absolutely Nowhere, yet you come here declaring that computers will do this and do that on their own accord without human influence.

Dude, are u sure it is what I wrote u are replying to?

okeyxyz:
#Oh please!!! Nowhere has DNA been observed to mutate or evolve. Every known instance of DNA recoding has all been human induced.

where did I say DNA mutate and evolve? I said organisms do. And the mutations occur in their DNA. Dude are u ok? Maybe u want to tell us there is no evolution at all

okeyxyz:
#Mehn!! I'm already tired of reading this arguments. You seem to be plucking concepts from fantasy but presenting them as science facts. I'm beginning to feel I'd wasted precious time with the attention I'd already devoted to this article alone. Oh well, I'm at the end, so I might just as well round it up.

I guess in ur haste to say something "smart", u missed the part where I said it MAY BE possible not that it is possible.

okeyxyz:
#I talk am You really are hanging all your bets on fictional characters, events and concepts.

shows u didnt read what I wrote at all

Dude u just succeeded in replying in the wrong way.
Everything I have said here has bases in sound science u should read more. google is ur friend. I have always talked of the possibilites. Not that they are happening now. Take time to read before u reply. This is not ur bible that u just read senselessly and call it "faith".
Now since I know u to be another religious sheeple, I dont expect u to believe it.
If u want to argue ur religious beliefs, do. Just dont claim it is science

okeyxyz:

Look, I might be able to agree with you that there is consciousness in inanimate objects but that'd be taking it on the level of religion and spirituality. But you trying to hinge this on science?? Bros, you are on your own.

Dont agree with me because I never said there is consciousness in inanimate objects. Stop putting words in my mouth dude. U obviously didnt get the gist of my arguments at all.

What I said is this; listen carefully so u wont start replying another thing and say u are replying what I said.
I said there are no conscious machines now. But in the future, it MIGHT be possible. Might. Get it?
I also said that the day we see computers operating beyond the limits of their programming is the day we get one step closer to conscious computers.
With advancement in quantum computing, the possibilities become almost limitless. There are scientists actively studying how to transfer human consciousness to computers, and if it is possible at all, as we speak. What are u going to call them, metaphysicists?
Dude I have told u that science is not ur bible that doesnt change. Science and advancement go hand in hand. Dont expect the science of now to be the science of the future.
This is the gist: I dont know if we will ever have conscious computers ever. But it hasnt been proved impossible yet so it will remain an active area of research until then.
Now unless u have serious scientific arguements for the impossibility of conscious computers, dont expect me to dump sound science for ur inconsequential opinion.

PS: Dude make sure u read this three times before replying. I am beginning to wonder if u are reading what I wrote from a braille or something.

plaetton: Deepsight reminds me of blackberry stock. Once a a valuable high flyer, but now fallen in value because the company has simply exhausted it's imaginative and innovative potentials.

My advice?
Sell and avoid until intrinsic value is restored.

Odd fella. You must really think I earn my livelihood based on how highly I am thought of on Nairaland.

You should know very well I do not give a hoot about how smart or d.aft you or any one else may think I am.

I don't trade such pitiful stock, sorry.

PhenomenonVFX:

Dont agree with me because I never said there is consciousness in inanimate objects. Stop putting words in my mouth dude. U obviously didnt get the gist of my arguments at all.

What I said is this; listen carefully so u wont start replying another thing and say u are replying what I said.
I said there are no conscious machines now. But in the future, it MIGHT be possible. Might. Get it?
I also said that the day we see computers operating beyond the limits of their programming is the day we get one step closer to conscious computers.
With advancement in quantum computing, the possibilities become almost limitless. There are scientists actively studying how to transfer human consciousness to computers, and if it is possible at all, as we speak. What are u going to call them, metaphysicists?
Dude I have told u that science is not ur bible that doesnt change. Science and advancement go hand in hand. Dont expect the science of now to be the science of the future.
This is the gist: I dont know if we will ever have conscious computers ever. But it hasnt been proved impossible yet so it will remain an active area of research until then.
Now unless u have serious scientific arguements for the impossibility of conscious computers, dont expect me to dump sound science for ur inconsequential opinion.

PS: Dude make sure u read this three times before replying. I am beginning to wonder if u are reading what I wrote from a braille or something.

Alright you.

I asked you a question, perhaps I missed your answer. The "What am I" question. What did you say on that one.

Now, can I kick-start my discussion with you with 2 additional questions -

1. What is Consciousness

2. What is self-consciousness - and how does it differ - if at all - from consciousness

Thanks.

Kay 17:

Considering the fact that Consciousness is an intrinsic fact, a fact only avail able to the Conscious being itself; wouldn't it be beyond you to claim absolutely that there isn't artificial consciousness?!

This question has already been hacked before it was concluded. Who the heck are the two jokers who liked this post?? I'm guessing @plaeteon was one.

We may not be able to pinpoint the intrinsic consciousness of another entity but it's consciousness is very evident in that every living thing responds to stimuli, whether hostile or friendly(read my response to @plaetton's question on virus). Now we know the difference between a dead body from a living one in that the living one responds to stimuli. The dead body cannot respond because it's consciousness has been separated from it.

So we may not know what another entity might be thinking but we can be sure it is alive and thus conscious. GBAM!!!

PhenomenonVFX:

Interesting question.
Personally I do not really know what God is. But I am sure it is not the bull crap fed to me in sunday school.
I like to see God as the Source. That inexplicable point from which all life and beauty flows. Personally for me, we humans could just be different parts of God expressing itself in limitless ways. I just like to believe that something started this whole thing we call the physical world and that thing is what I call God. I just like to think all this cant be meaningless nothingness no matter how I rationalise it.
Not that I can prove it though.

Like you also read my mind.
I often think that the right god(or whatever that setup life) is more complicated than we think.
I have also come to think that religion is also part of the development. As man becomes more and more intelligent, it needs something to ply on its subconscious for honesty. The only problem is that i think religious books are written by the wrong people at the wrong time with stupid stories.
No one makes a brain, so intelligent, and will not allow it to think. Then what is it for? I think we are heading to a position where the clause "you cannot know because god did it" will no longer be safe to use. Its why newer things will never stop evolving.
#We are all learning.

Deep Sight:

Are you a christian?
I will like to know your sect

nwuyag:

Are you a christian?
I will like to know your sect

Why?

Anyhow, if by Christian you mean one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ on love of God and fellow man, and as enunciated within the beatitudes, then I am more than proud to call myself a christian.

But if by Christian you mean one who believes that Jesus is God, the only begotten Son of God, Divine, was born of a virgin, died a ritual sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind, was resurrected, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, is coming again to Judge the world, then no, sir, I am not a Christian.

Why do you ask for a "sect". . . sounds scarily cultish to me . . .

.

Deep Sight:

Why?

Anyhow, if by Christian you mean one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ on love of God and fellow man, and as enunciated within the beatitudes, then I am more than proud to call myself a christian.

But if by Christian you mean one who believes that Jesus is God, the only begotten Son of God, Divine, was born of a virgin, died a ritual sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind, was resurrected, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, is coming again to Judge the world, then no, sir, I am not a Christian.

Why do you ask for a "sect". . . sounds scarily cultish to me . . .

Interesting. Waiting for josh's response to him. Please indulge him.

*make i go find my popcorn*

Deep Sight:

Why?

Anyhow, if by Christian you mean one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ on love of God and fellow man, and as enunciated within the beatitudes, then I am more than proud to call myself a christian.

But if by Christian you mean one who believes that Jesus is God, the only begotten Son of God, Divine, was born of a virgin, died a ritual sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind, was resurrected, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, is coming again to Judge the world, then no, sir, I am not a Christian.

Why do you ask for a "sect". . . sounds scarily cultish to me . . .

do you believe everything Jesus taught and said? Do you believe who he was who he claimed to be?

Deep Sight:

Why?

Anyhow, if by Christian you mean one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ on love of God and fellow man, and as enunciated within the beatitudes, then I am more than proud to call myself a christian.

But if by Christian you mean one who believes that Jesus is God, the only begotten Son of God, Divine, was born of a virgin, died a ritual sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind, was resurrected, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, is coming again to Judge the world, then no, sir, I am not a Christian.

Why do you ask for a "sect". . . sounds scarily cultish to me . . .

I wanted to say religion, but I also wanted to avoid "my religion is not a religion" argument. I hope you got it
Anyway, thank you very much for your reply.
I often say that religious books made a very big mistake. why?, cos they were written by the wrong set of people, at the wrong time.
I followed some of your posts, so I did not know if I should call you a deist or something else, so I asked.
I am in full suport of your views, because it does no bring any harm. No (intellectual)disadvantages, (moral) advantages. I even tried reading the bible the way you did. But its not possible for a lot of people. I believe that there wouldnt have been many atheist converts if that was the only thing the bible taught. I wonder how you do it. Do you think you are wrong? I am in an agnostic position.

double post