₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: Let's say simply, yes. Does not mean they necessarily came to be for a purpose.



Again, we are machines.

.

And this farfer neither knows what a machine is, nor understands the evident fact that if indeed, we are machines, that in itself will clobber his atheistic philosophy into dirt - by the very definition of what a machine is, as something built for function. And an efficient end.

My word.

These fellas truly ring clinically dumb.

Well. As I said, cattle that you both are, you will be indulged.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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

There is alot of dogmatic foolishness in the propagation of ill understood quantum concepts. Such as that with the arrantly f.oolish contention that virtual particles in a quantum vacuum are evidence that something may arise from nothing - even when it is proven fact that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere - and as such, no "nothing" in the first place.

It is frankly amusing.

Start - "what am I".

Joshthefirst: I do not confuse consciousness for "a thing"
Consciousness is an attribute. I believe its a given attribute.

Ponder "what am I"......

Sums it all.

plaetton: Do you agree that all the above emotions are induced by electro-chemical reactions in the brain, and thus can be artificially induced and manipulated at will?

If you no, then you are too ignorant and ill-informed for this discussion.

If yes, then why do you think such emotions cannot be electrically induced also?

Dumb, dumber and dumbfounded?
Consider that as your new moniker.






WANTED: Intelligent arguments from Deepsight!

Seriously, seriously ,and jokes apart.

I am in shock and awe.

You have contributed nothing intelligent to this thread but scoff, scoff and scoff.

I am tired.

Although Okexyz might be coming from far left field, but at least he is making a sincere effort, for which I commend and respect him.
Have you become so lazy that you cannot even mount a credible rebuttal?

You have fallen below the "silly " threshold.

Until you step up your game from this motor park mental zone, I am going to ignore you, albeit, with a sad and dejected face.

Gosh. As predicted. No disappointment whatsoever.

Well perhaps it misses you that for emotions to be induced, there must first be a person feeling them. Which will not be the case with your robots.

I will indulge you. Once and finally.

But for now, chew on pain, sight, emotion, independent and original thought, discomfort, and the like, and distinguish the simulation from the sensation in each of these cases.

Your turn out here is the most remarkably fo.oolish and ignorant ever.

As I said, I will indulge you.

So much stupidity. Later.

Pain. A hint. Will a robot feel pain. Do Cameras see. Do Chess Computers think. Hints.

Well. Will be back once in front of a laptop.

What is obvious, like I earlier said, is that there is no difference between religious stupidity and atheistic stupidity.

Later.

Deep Sight: Let me even indulge you for a second.

Answer me this simple question.

Do you suppose a machine may sommeday instinctively ponder the question "what am I?"

And in anwsering this question, please do make the elementary distinction between pre programmed simulated effects and actual self thought.

I might give you an example.

Computers play chess. Do the computers engage in thought, in so doing. Question.

jayriginal: Ive praised you too. -----> https://www.nairaland.com/979106/favorite-atheists-theists-nairaland#11320857
So?





Haba, thats extreme na. We have had our well documented differences but thats as far as it goes. We'd probably get along famously off nairaland especially as we both have a tendency towards the black milk bottled by Arthur G.

In fact I am just settling down to a nice bottle with some peppersoup....

Mr Troll: Really man? This does not become you DS.

Anyway, make i just de observe. . .

What? The truth doesnt become me?

Commot dia joor

plaetton: Man, are you also seeing what I am seeing?
How have the mighty fallen?

Our man has fallen from Deepsight to SHORTSIGHT.

I have been lamenting for a while now.
Now I seriously believe that there must be a contagious brain disease slowly decimating our very reserves of thinkers.

Nonsense. Ad hominems can be your only refuge in this matter.

You don't even have the slightest appreciation of what consciousness is, much less self consciousness.

No doubt you will very soon contend that robots may be built which will be capable of emotions such as fear, love, hatred, anger and jealousy.

And worse, in doing so you will hopelessly conflate the simulation of actions portraying these emotions with the actual phenomenon of experiencing those emotions.

Just as hopelessly s.illy as one who makes the elementary mistake of thinking that a programmed Video Camera has sight, or sees anything.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

PhenomenonVFX: I think I get what @Plaetton is saying. He is saying that the creation of artificial consciousness MAY BE possible. That it hasnt been done yet is not a sign that it can never be done. Therefore he refutes any assertion of the impossibility of conscious computers and machines.
I think that is what @DeepSight missed while he was scoffing.
Now whether something has to be living to be conscious is moot. We have to define consciousness scientifically to be sure.
Being someone who has programmed artificial neural networks before, I can say there is nothing "special" about it. Notice how I said 'special'? It is just good at pattern recognition and generalisation and sometimes even completion.
That said, the possibilities are enormous. With advances in neuroscience and quatum computing, we could possibly start seeing conscious computer systems in the not so distance future. Till then, nobody can say for sure.
@Plaetton: it beats me why u dont believe there is God. Because ur beliefs in the possibilities of science are so fringe that they seem religious. Maybe u do believe in the possibilty of there being God but u think He must exist within the laws of physics and u eschew religious BS.

Someone should try reading Xenocide by Scott Orson Card, the same guy who wrote Ender's Game. It is actually the 3rd book in the Ender Series. That book gave me a whole new perspective on the possibilities of life and consciousness. It is fiction and it is a great read.

Let me even indulge you for a second.

Answer me this simple question.

Do you suppose a machine may sommeday instinctively ponder the question "what am I?"

^^^^ Thank you o.

I am only mildly surprised that you waste your energy to explain the glaringly obvious to a willfully deluded old man wallowing in absurd perversity.

Uyi Iredia: You have praised Deep Sight on more than one occasion on different threads.

Really? Lol I think you are mistaken, he only ever had caustic curses for me, but still and always a beloved friend, nonetheless... as is Plaetton.

plaetton: Good.
Then stop the childish behavior, shut up and let others continue the discussion.

Ride on mate.

plaetton: @Deepsight

I am shocked you have posted 3 or 4 times without contributing anything intelligent to the discussion, except taking cheap shots. I always look forward to having robust discussions with you.
But these days, you seem to have nothing to contribute than hit and run sniper shots.
C'mon man, stand up and debate like a man. Lol
The only thing I hear coming from you these days is "impossible". For a guy who calls himself Deepsight, your sights are very short, and getting shorter by the day.
For someone who waxes eloquently about infinity, your imagination is somewhat being retarded by the dogmatic beliefs that hold you hostage.

I not asking to agree with my viewpoints, but please, exercised some imaginative thinking and step out of your box.
There is a much bigger and fantastic universe outside your cocoon.

No thanks.

I certainly will not make a fool of myself by debating this nonsensical proposition. I'll pass.

Edit. Too much said already.

^^^ Dont waste your time. Sometimes some people can make some statements that just show such startling and even perverted density and stupidity, that it becomes in turn genuinely foo.lish to begin to argue against such statements.

It would be like entering an assylum and undertaking a debate with a raving lunatic.

Someday or the other, everyone will experience life, and therefore learn.

There is no point forcing Further Maths on a 2 year old, especially when the 2 year old's issues should be resolved with the elementary arithmetic he well knows already, and is even arrogant about.

plaetton: I do not dwell in absolutes.

The answer is yes.
It is well within the realm of possibility.

plaetton: I swear, whatever you are drinking in that Alpha Omega galaxy system, your brain waves and thinking pattern have been altered.

You are actually grandstanding.
That is all you are doing.
Regression?
What gives.

Give me your best , and stop childish grandstanding.

Ok. So just state it. Do you think a robot can be self conscious or not. Yea or nay. Simple. No long thing.

Think carefully on this question before answering.

It will be the final arbiter of your tractectory in this lifetime.

So all I can say is that there is no difference between religious stupidity and atheistic stupidity. Plaetton, you fall hand big time.

I won't even bother entering a detailed debate on this one

No offense mate, if you think robots experience consciousness, you are prolly on cocaine

plaetton: My dear friend,
It is not a matter of whether this particular robot is fully conscious or not, or meets our criterias or not.
No.
It is about " proof of concept".

Consciousness entails this , entails that, and entails that.
Sure.
The question is about the possibility of an artificial construct having all the above attributes in the future.
And I can you that, you sir, are in no position to say what is scientifically or technologically possible today, or in the near or distant future.

In view of how far humanity has come in just over the past 200yrs, I would urge you , sir, to refrain from making absolute statements about what is possible and what is not possible.

More so, I find it particularly hilarious that people who engage in all sorts of magical thinking(religion) would turn around to make absolute statements about what is scientifically possible and what is not.
That is just laughable.
On what grounds do you make the absolute assertion that there is no such thing as artificial consciousness?

You statement would be a bit palatable if you had added the word "Yet" at the end.

Back in the early 1900s, the head of the U.S patent office recommended that the patent office be closed because , according to him , and I quote,

" Everything that needs to be invented has already been invented."

Can you see how wrong he was 100yrs ago?

If you are following developments in patent applications, you would realize that , technologically, we are still in the dark ages compared to what is in the future.

What you call consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, intelligence, etc are simply unique frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Biological species reach these various stages when the electrical activity in their brains or neural networks reach a unique mathematical threshold of oscillation.

In other words, my friend, your thoughts can be hacked. The technology and the patents currently exists.

I dont know if you have bothered to notice that computers have tended to perform more complex task with the increase in processor speeds.
Have you?

Now, what is the fasted computing speed currently?
Now multiply that by , say, 100 fold.
Now, again, what is the maximum processing speed for a processor?
As afar as we know, infinity.

If computing power continues to increase exponentially for infinity, there would definitely reach a threshold point where it's frequency would attain the frequency threshold of thoughts, consciousness, and self-awareness.
That is almost as certain as the sun sun coming up tomorrow.

" To understand the Universe, you simply need to understand Frequency, all is Frequency" -- Nicholi Telsa

Nobel prize for Grand Stupidity.

plaetton: Still begging you to come back to Earth.

Offer your own viewpoint for analysis and debate rather than snipping.

I think that is what they call trolling.
Abi?

Hmmm. So robots are self conscious? Or even conscious?

Ol boy think this one well wella wellest before you become dafter than the religious folk you so abhor.

okeyxyz: Proof?? Really?? I laugh in dothraki

There's no such thing as artificial consciousness. You rush too quickly and naively to declare the above. The only proof here is your lack of understanding of the world of computing and programming. What the robot in the OP does is simply captures data, identifies/determines patterns in the data and organizes such data to simulate learning(it's actually a trick in it's algorithm, rather than actual learning). Like I said before, there's no such thing as artificial or computer borne consciousness. Consciousness entails self-awareness, self-identity, self-determination(eg: ambition) and self-preservation. How can a computer be any of these. Does this program ever ask itself why it is doing what it is doing? It can't because it is not self-conscious. A conscious entity would be aware that it acts in certain ways either out of pleasure, or the will to survive or dominate in it's environment, etc, in other words self-interest. So what is the self-interest of this program? None!! It's just a robot, just processing what it's programmed to process in order to simulate learning.

Honestly as soon as I read Plaettons comment, I was overcome by a deep sense of shame on his behalf.

I can only hope that he will be well disposed to have honest introspective review of his take on this one, unfettered by the cog of pride or ego.

I dont know what else to say.

chukwudi44: Mr Atheist first and foremost Very Rev Fr Mbaka was not the priest involved and he is definitely not a fraudster get your facts right.Secondary the stampede was caused by chants of fire which sent panic among the tens of thousands making people to run for cover and in the process tample on others.The same thing could have happened even if it occured in broad daylight or a secular gathering.if you don't believe in God allow those who do to worship him in the way it pleases them.

The event was just a tragic accident,I only resent the politicisation by desperadoes.

K.O!

plaetton: Is God a solution or the Problem?

This is a very poignant question in the face of all the senseless tragedies , all the unthinkable wonders that Nigerians are confronted with on regular and consistent basis every fortnight or so.

What almost brings tears to my eyes is that no one is asking the right questions.
No one seems to ever get it. Every is pointing fingers at political figures and trading blames.

So far, I have hardly seen anyone point an accusing finger at the Catholic church or the highly flamboyant Fraudster, Rev. Mbaka for the tragic loss of so many innocent lives.
Why?

No one is asking why, people, thousands of people have what seem to be an inexplicable need to worship god in the middle of the night?.

No one is asking why , in this 21st century ,are people still sooo deeply mired in magical thinking, that presumably sane men and women would deprive themselves and their young children, the joy and benefits of a good night's sleep just to attend a night crusade or night vigil, as they call it, organized by a charismatic fraudster of a descrepit religious institution?.

Why does no one ever ask for an audit of all previous mass prayers, mass crusades and night vigils to verify or ascertain it's much touted efficacy in the alleviation of the many ailments of both our personal and national psyches?

In any civilized society, the organizers of this event would have been in police custody answering questions and possibly facing criminal charges for negligent homicide.

In Nigeria?
Well, it must be the will of god.
So lets give thanks to God almighty!

Can you point out how God comes into this?

@ Bigfrancis, very interesting posts. . . and soothing.

Have you come in contact with the Grail Message, written by Abd Ru Shin?

wiegraf: Most of these 'mad' people are simply, and at best, eccentric. Imaginative and idealistic, and so for the most part simply dancing to their own tunes rather than their respective societal norms. They're usually not actually harming anyone, can give you justifiable, sane reasons for their actions even if they may seem odd on the surface, etc etc.

This sort of madness leads away from religion, not towards it. Would you describe the scientists on that list as religious? Their idiosyncrasies generally pushes them away from religion, etc. Especially blind groupthink. Actually, most of them can be described as iconoclasts. And like all good eccentrics they can give you solid, valid reasons for their actions.

Even the writers/etc on that list, even if they usually like to believe in a sky fairy because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, they don't tend to be traditional religionists, yes? In fact, they often start new religions or have their own version of whatever religion. And they can often give you good (well..) reason for their behavior

Good and proper madness would involve, for instance, believing something patently false to be true. Eg, believing that santa does indeed deliver presents to all good kids yearly, donkeys talk, people walk on water, etc etc. Especially when they unjustifiably cause harm with their crazy

O, yes, no disagreement whatsoever, you are perfectly right. I made my comments as a tangent, and that tangent, of course, was the tangent of the beauty of eccentricity - a madness all its own. Nevertheless we cannot discountenance the place of religion altogether, in keeping society together and "sane" (?) through the ages.

aManFromMars: Oh well, there's 'good' madness and then, there's this kind of madness..
https://i.imgur.com/GzS54AD.jpg

Lol. Indeed that's true.

I prefer, and refer to, good madness, the madness of Einstein, Freud, Darwin, Jackson, Mandela, Fela, Marley, Fawehinmi, Galileo, Copernicus, An Sun Su Kyi, Mahatma, Churchill, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Sankara, Che Guevara, Achebe, Soyinka, Luther, Martin Luther King, Columbus. . . . . a zillion others - and then the greatest of all men, of all time - Leonardo Da Vinci.

plaetton: "It is my greatest fear that one day, I would wake up to discover that all the my sacred gospels, all my sacred precepts, doctrines, rituals and beliefs were concocted and written by mad men".

The above statement was made years ago by one of my inlaws, a seminarian at the time, during one our many discussions on religious belief.

Its seems that now, I may have to ring him up and give him the very bad new that his worst fears have finally come true .

For a quite a long time now, I had noticed and had began to suspect that there might very well exist some kind of causal link between religion and benign forms of mental disorders.
I had noticed that quiet a lot of hyper-religious people also displayed signs of mild , and sometimes, barely noticeable signs of mental disorders.
Does religion lead to mental disorder , or do mental disorders have some kind of affinity with religious thought or irrationality?
These are the questions I often asked myself.

Few weeks ago, I wanted to to open a simple thread to examine and discuss the psychology of religion, mainly the link between religion and schizophrenia and other related schizoids.

Of course, not wanting to make any unsubstantiated claims, I set out to do a bit of research on the subject to find scientific corroboration for my thesis.

Well , my friends, the amount of materials and the information I came across completely blew my mind in no small measure.
In fact, the treasure trove of information that I have come across on this subject has been so mind-boggling, so explosive, so humbling that it is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on religion.

I have , in the process, gathered so much material that how best to set them into a simple and coherent format for easy ready has been my greater challenge over the past weeks.

So here it goes.

The first statement that wish to make, which will also be the bedrock of my thesis is :

No matter how you cut it, no matter how you phrase it, all arrows, all roads lead to evolution as the driving force, not only of biological diversity, biological progression, development of consciousness and intelligence as we know it, but also social progress , and as well, as you are about to discover, our philosophies, Aesthetics, Politics and Most Importantly, Religions.

Yes. It is not a typo.
It is now clearly obvious that Religion and God are , funny enough, the chance by-products of the evolutionary process.

" There is something akin to madness in their overwhelming methods".
The above is a paragraph from chinua Achebe's Things fall Apart in describing the irrationality of the newly emerging christian movement in the fictional village of Obodo.

We atheists have always mocked and derided religious faith as a mild form of mental illness. But even though we really believed it to be so, It had never occurred to me all the while that there were enormous amount of bullet-proof scientific and historical evidence to support that assertion.

Psychologist, psychiatrists , neurologists , historians and anthropologist have long noted and written extensively on the very fact that the primary founders of the worlds most influential religions were people who had personality disorders or various forms of schizoid and or OCDs(obsessive compulsive disorders).

Though for this thread , I shall mostly concern myself with religion, the fascinating thing is that various genetic disorders have been eerily and surreptiously shaping the philosophical, political and religious development of human race.

This is simply befuddling , to say the least, that humanity's march to progress has not only been influenced , but actually guided, and in most cases, spawned by a brain malfunction.
I am I the only in shock, or is everyone with me on this ?

The roll call of well known and widely influential historical figures with known or post-diagnosed genetic disroders is quite impressive, and will shock you.

Prominent among these genetic disorders are:
1.Schizoprenia and it's less evil twin Schizotypal disorder.
2. Various forms of OCD
3. Aspergers Disease
4[b]. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy(TLE)- perhaps , so far, the most influential on the world's major religions. [/b]


Lets start with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy(TLE).

Epilepsy is a common and diverse set of chronic neurological disorders characterized by seizures. It is a paroxysmal behavioral spell generally caused by an excessive disorderly discharge of cortical nerve cells of brain and can range from clinically undetectable (electrographic seizures) to convulsions. Epileptic seizures result from abnormal, excessive or hypersynchronous neuronal activity in the brain.

Mutations in several genes have been linked to several types of epilepsy. Some genes that code for protein sub units of voltage-gated and ligand-gated ion channels have been associated with forms of generalized epilepsy and infantile seizure syndromes.

The oldest known record of epilepsy comes from the Sakikku, a Babylonian cuneiform medical text dating from about 1067BC and recorded on tablets, some of which are conserved at the British Museum. This text describes in surprising detail many manifestations of the different seizure types we recognize today, and it emphasizes the supernatural nature of epilepsy,[88] while the Ayurvedic text of Charaka Samhita (about 400BC), describes epilepsy as "apasmara", i.e., "loss of consciousness.

Historically, the disease was often called in Germanic and Romance languages "falling sickness", "falling ill" or "falling evil.

In the past, epilepsy was associated with religious experiences and even demonic possession. In ancient times, epilepsy was known as the "Sacred Disease" (as described in a 5th-century BC treatise by Hippocrates ) because people thought that epileptic seizures were a form of attack by demons, or that the visions experienced by persons with epilepsy were sent by the gods. Among animist Hmong families, for example, epilepsy was understood as an attack by an evil spirit, but the affected person could become revered as a shaman through these otherworldly experiences. The Greek physician Galen wrote that "the moon governs the periods of epileptic diseases" and hence the epilepsies were, by the Greeks and Latins, called lunatics.

To be continued.
Stay tuned.

I am sure you are aware that religious people for the most part are statistically more sane, happier, healthier, and live longer, than non religious people? Of course, you may call it the placebo effect, but true, nonetheless.

Well you should know very well that mad people are the only people who change and advance the world.

Sane people are quite boring, and form only the foot soldiers in history.

Mad people revolutionize the world all the time.

The world can't do without mad people.

I am proudly mad.

Logicboy03: the model was not thinking about posing [size=20pt]but of[/size] mimicking the photographer....gaddem.

[size=30pt]! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Chei.

kwangi: The mind is immaterial in nature meaning it's not physical thereby beyond matter.
As to the capacity of the mind, that, I don't believe we can be certain of it's extent.
It can create, see, hear, feel that which does not exist or is sensible to/in our present physical reality.

Kwangi, we are finally getting somewhere, and deriving some truth, even if at the barest level, from what this thread set out to discuss. I will certainly be back tomorrow, to discuss further the thoughts that yourself and Kay17 have laid out.

I thank you both for your readiness to engage genuine thoughts.

Kay 17: @deepsight

You can go on. I'm following

Thank you. But can I crave your indulgence first on these -

Deep Sight: Well, too much has been said on the question of subjectivity and what can be known. Anyone interested in that debate can read the posts above.

Let us now focus on the tendergarten excercise set out in the OP, with those who are interested in where it might lead.

Okay, Kay17, let's take your thoughts on the images first.



The words in bold are indeed what the image evokes to anyone, and of course is exactly what it is intended to evoke.

Thought.

Man.

Man and thought.

What is man. And what is thought.

Secondly, most interesting that you said - "The strenuous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks"

I like "strenuous effort of reasoning" -

For this calls up the understanding that a being could deliberately exert itself to place its thoughts through a logical process: and that in itself calls up the fundamental existence of logic as a pillar, perhaps the pillar of reality. One thing moving to the next as a cause or consequence: this would be cardinal in discussing existential reality.

Please give me your thoughts on the above and lets take it further.

We will go to your thoughts on the other images after this - - - if that's cool by you.

And additionally this -

Deep Sight: Yes thank you, again, the spectre of thought.

What do you think thoughts are, by the way?

Do you hear your thoughts in your head, when you think, or sometimes just feel or "see" them in your mind's eye.

"Mind's eye" - what is that by the way? Like you can sit down an form a picture in your mind of a place or person far away. You see that in your mind, no? Where is that. What eye sees that? Or what mind sees that? And how does it do this? Does this say anything about what the mind is, and what capacities it has. Does this give a hint about mind being beyond matter, or is mind just matter. \

Ah - and that question touches on the second pic and your comment on it - - - >



Exactly.

Does this say something about the source of life and the nature of living things as opposed to the nature of matter?

Your thoughts on these, please, if you don't mind, and we shall carry on?

[quote author=O.T.I.S]lol! a lot of them, lemme take one.
jesus had really stepped on the foot of the law not only by declaring himself king but also fomenting tax resistance which is a capital offense in Roman law, he had asked the tax collector (Levi) at work in his tax booth in Capernaum to quit his post, jesus also appears to have influenced Zacchaeus, 'a chief tax collector' in Jericho, which is in Pilate's tax jurisdiction, to resign.
those moves and more evidenced jesus inciting an uprising that could lead to a revolution against Rome(unwritten history) Rome felt the need to hunt down and kill as many non-Pharisaic Jews as they could...... am tied of typing mehn!! go do some research urself.[/quote]Yes, I agree with you. Looks like the tactical elimination of a budding revolutionary.