Jump to content

Question For Religious People


Recommended Posts

why is it that calling it something different from you means redefining it? is there a chance you are trying to redefine my understanding of it? is there a chance that i have a better understanding of it than you?
The theory of evolution is a very specific scientific theory, and it describes nothing more (and nothing less) than the speciation of animal life on this planet, through a process of random mutation, 'survival of the fittest,' and genetic consistency (meaning that a baby animal is likely to carry the specific traits of its individual parents). Anything about technology, solar systems, or anything else would by definition fall outside of the theory of evolution. That's why it is nonsensical for you to continue to say that your 'understanding of evolution' could be correct and/or much broader than the general understanding of it. That's why you need a different word. You could call it your world-view or universal-view or happy bird view (that one is obviously the most catchy), but calling it evolution is simply a mistake. The theory of evolution just isn't that broad, and trying to broaden it while using the same word makes it seem like you don't understand what the word (or theory) actually says.EDIT: I see that vb said kind of the same thing.
do you believe man will eventually create self-replicating intelligent technology?
not anything approaching us, no.
Crow I don't know how old you are, but if you are under 40 then I think there is a reasonable chance you will live to be proven wrong on that.
science has scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future.
fypThe scientific method is never wrong, or else it is always and has always been wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just don't know why else you would make that assertion. You made it previously in a different thread. This accusation is especially amusing coming from someone who is arguably one of the all-time least successful users of fake/joke accounts.
LOL... I wasn't aware that there was an award for Best User of a Fake Account, or the BUFA as we say in the business.The difference is that I don't pretend my joke accounts are anything other than what they are... some people use their accounts to make it seem as though they have support for their own views.You see... there are actually only about 7 people who ever use this forum... all of which have multiple accounts.And you are incorrect...I have never made that assertion to this fake account which makes you tied with me in the category of Least Successful Users of Fake Accounts.Thanks for playing though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The theory of evolution is a very specific scientific theory, and it describes nothing more (and nothing less) than the speciation of animal life on this planet, through a process of random mutation, 'survival of the fittest,' and genetic consistency (meaning that a baby animal is likely to carry the specific traits of its individual parents). Anything about technology, solar systems, or anything else would by definition fall outside of the theory of evolution. That's why it is nonsensical for you to continue to say that your 'understanding of evolution' could be correct and/or much broader than the general understanding of it.
you can't see technological evolution as an extent of biological evolution? humans are in no way an especially unique species except that we are well adapted for pattern recognition, complex verbal language, and we do a great job of controlling our own environment. our ancestors ability to formulate tools had a direct impact on our biological evolution. language evolution itself is a techonology that's important to our biological evolution. we still see all sorts of species adapting to use their environment as "tools." even today we see cockroaches are becoming more adept and immune to the poisons we use to kill them. they are evolving along with our technology and thus i have difficulty separating their biological evolution from our technological evolution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Crow I don't know how old you are, but if you are under 40 then I think there is a reasonable chance you will live to be proven wrong on that.
something simpler certainly, but an artificial human-like brain/consciousness that can self-replicate with variationin my lifetime? no chance :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
you can't see technological evolution as an extent of biological evolution? humans are in no way an especially unique species except that we are well adapted for pattern recognition, complex verbal language, and we do a great job of controlling our own environment. our ancestors ability to formulate tools had a direct impact on our biological evolution. language evolution itself is a techonology that's important to our biological evolution. we still see all sorts of species adapting to use their environment as "tools." even today we see cockroaches are becoming more adept and immune to the poisons we use to kill them. they are evolving along with our technology and thus i have difficulty separating their biological evolution from our technological evolution.
Well I think you and Spade and vb all touched on it a bit last page, but part of the problem lies in the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution is one thing, but it's also not incorrect to talk about the evolution of music, the evolution of languages, the evolution of internet poker, etc etc. But those things have nothing to do with the evolutionary theory as it pertains to speciation - and speciation is the only thing that that theory does pertain to. Honestly I don't know how technology and humanity's reach to nearly every inch of the planet has and will affect the evolution of life here, and if or how cybernetic organisms would fit into that, and I do think it's a very interesting thing to discuss/read about. I do think it's silly though when people say that humanity has put a halt to evolution, or that our species is done evolving (not that you are saying that, but it's often said). Human society has only been around for a few thousand years, which is an immeasurably small amount of time on the evolutionary scale. Unfortunately we ourselves won't be able to swing on back in a million years and see how things have gone. I'm not really sure if that really refers to what you're asking or not =\.
something simpler certainly, but an artificial human-like brain/consciousness that can self-replicate with variationin my lifetime? no chance :club:
You added the bolded - it wasn't in navy's post or mine :ts.Also though I'm not sure how much need there is for any self-replication in a cybernetic organism, since it would conceivably be able to "live" much much longer than a human, and certainly would be able to learn and adapt and increase its own intelligence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The scientific method is never wrong, or else it is always and has always been wrong.
science is always wrong in that there has never been a constant outside of mathematics where our understanding and modeling of it hasn't improved over time.
something simpler certainly, but an artificial human-like brain/consciousness that can self-replicate with variationin my lifetime? no chance :club:
it's irresponsible for me to give my limited understanding of the future, but to say "no chance" seems like nay-saying the wright brothers or edison.if you'd like me to point you to sources showing how i believe it's going to happen i'd be more than happy to do so.
Link to post
Share on other sites
something simpler certainly, but an artificial human-like brain/consciousness that can self-replicate with variationin my lifetime? no chance :club:
That doesn't sound like a normal Crow response.... being scientifically minded, I wouldn't think "no chance" would be a phrase you used often.
Link to post
Share on other sites
science is always wrong in that there has never been a constant outside of mathematics where our understanding and modeling of it hasn't improved over time.
Science is always wrong indeed, in the sense that scientific theories exist to be changed and improved. But the scientific method perseveres as an effective method of generating successful knowledge.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't sound like a normal Crow response.... being scientifically minded, I wouldn't think "no chance" would be a phrase you used often.
I sympathize with Crow's position on this. Simulating a complete human intelligence is a nearly intractable problem. The human brain by several metrics is the most complex object in the known universe. Not that we won't get there, just that the time required is probably longer than many people imagine.
Link to post
Share on other sites
and speciation is the only thing that that theory does pertain to.
you mean biological evolution?
I do think it's silly though when people say that humanity has put a halt to evolution
if anything we're speeding it up exponentially.
You added that - it wasn't in navy's post or mine :club:.
also with human computational technologies we see a much cleaner transfer of information than we see with DNA. it equals much less variation.does it help if you start out visualizing humans becoming more and more like their technologies? it started out with two rocks against each other and now we are adding prosthetic limbs, using someone's own cells to cure cancer, adding phones directly into our ears, identifying with our cars, etc., etc., etc.? how much technology have you "become" in the first 15 years of the internet? could you have foreseen that? how much could you become in the next 15 years?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is always wrong indeed, in the sense that scientific theories exist to be changed and improved. But the scientific method perseveres as an effective method of generating successful knowledge.
Science is truly often wrong.Science can not answer the question of evolution since the basic Law of Conservation of Matter says that matter cannot be created or destroyed... ergo matter always was?How can that be true...scientifically speaking?
Link to post
Share on other sites
But the scientific method perseveres as an effective method of generating successful knowledge.
but is it the optimal method? i would speculate that it's not even close.
The human brain by several metrics is the most complex object in the known universe. Not that we won't get there, just that the time required is probably longer than many people imagine.
um... the human brain is an object within humans so humans would then become the most complex object in the universe. we can understand the liver and a whole lot of other systems. the next system is aging and then the brain. :)actually many people imagine that the time is much longer than it actually is. evolution as well as technology (going by your definitions with separations) has an exponential growth curve not a linear one.the period of success of species is becoming shorter. our lives are changing more rapidly at an ever increasing pace.
the basic Law of Conservation of Matter says that matter cannot be created or destroyed... ergo matter always was?How can that be true...scientifically speaking?
my definition of evolution is increasing complexity and order. it has nothing to do with conservation of matter.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't sound like a normal Crow response.... being scientifically minded, I wouldn't think "no chance" would be a phrase you used often.
by "no chance" i just mean improbable enough that i'd be happy to bet on it : )
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's irresponsible for me to give my limited understanding of the future, but to say "no chance" seems like nay-saying the wright brothers or edison.
hu? i never said it was irresponsible for you to express an opinion about the future of artificial intelligence. obviously you're doingso based on objective evidence.all i said was a theory postulating some purpose or intent underlying the universe or biological evolution isirrelevant without evidence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You added the bolded - it wasn't in navy's post or mine :club:.
i thought it was implied since we were arguing over the semantics of evolution.
Also though I'm not sure how much need there is for any self-replication in a cybernetic organism, since it would conceivably be able to "live" much much longer than a human, and certainly would be able to learn and adapt and increase its own intelligence.
true, but you're talking about different mechanisms.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is truly often wrong.
nothing that has been universally accepted as modern scientific consensus (such as evolution or the age of the earth) hasever been proven wrong.
Science can not answer the question of evolution since the basic Law of Conservation of Matter says that matter cannot be created or destroyed... ergo matter always was?How can that be true...scientifically speaking?
your finite humanity and limited perspective is biasing your view of that subject. there's no reason to think matter/energy hasn't "always" existed in some sense.
Link to post
Share on other sites
hu? i never said it was irresponsible for you to express an opinion about the future of artificial intelligence.
i believe it's irresponsible. if i start talking too much about reversing the aging process it's liable to freak people out. our future will be shaped by our perception and if i give a brief view into too broad of a picture i will make it seem scarier than it will actually be and make the future a worse place.i am using what i feel is objective evidence. i feel it's better for interested parties to discover that evidence on their own so that they are capable of realizing it to a peaceful fruition as opposed to just providing what seems like the "bad" half of the good/bad future equation.
all i said was a theory postulating some purpose or intent underlying the universe or biological evolution isirrelevant without evidence.
the purpose of all species seems to be procreation. in a way i suppose sexual intercourse (the ultimate human experience) could be our god. our lives an attempt to procreate as best we can.maybe i'm just stretching now. i don't know. i've been up for a long time. i liked it better when i was debating with questions instead of statements.
nothing that has been universally accepted as modern scientific consensus (such as evolution or the age of the earth) hasever been proven wrong.
the age of the earth is math. today's understanding of evolution will be proven incomplete in a year. i leap to say we are wrong in believing that we understand evolution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
nothing that has been universally accepted as modern scientific consensus (such as evolution or the age of the earth) hasever been proven wrong. your finite humanity and limited perspective is biasing your view of that subject. there's no reason to think matter/energy hasn't "always" existed in some sense.
True...but if I apply science, it contradicts that theory.To me... saying matter has always existed is just as silly as saying God created everything to you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is truly often wrong.Science can not answer the question of evolution since the basic Law of Conservation of Matter says that matter cannot be created or destroyed... ergo matter always was?How can that be true...scientifically speaking?
The Law of Conservation of Matter is not incompatible with evolution at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter.
um... the human brain is an object within humans so humans would then become the most complex object in the universe. we can understand the liver and a whole lot of other systems. the next system is aging and then the brain. :club:
Well this is actually a good example of my point since the liver is much simpler than the brain. The brain has about 100,000,000,000 neurons and they each have thousands of connections with other neurons. The organization of the brain is orders of magnitude more complex than that of the liver. Consider that liver anatomy has not changed much over the course of evolution -- a chicken liver works pretty much how a human liver works. The brain, however, has continued to increase in complexity.edit: I have some amazing pictures of some new advances in neuroanatomy that I will post in the amazing pictures thread in OT, will link here when I do that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Law of Conservation of Matter is not incompatible with evolution at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter. Well this is actually a good example of my point since the liver is much simpler than the brain. The brain has about 100,000,000,000 neurons and they each have thousands of connections with other neurons. The organization of the brain is orders of magnitude more complex than that of the liver. Consider that liver anatomy has not changed much over the course of evolution -- a chicken liver works pretty much how a human liver works. The brain, however, has continued to increase in complexity.
I disagree.... for anything to "evolve" ... it had to exist. The idea is that life evolved and changed in an effort to survive..... it adapted. Where did "it" start?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The brain has about 100,000,000,000 neurons and they each have thousands of connections with other neurons.
don't most of those neurons seem to be the same complex pattern repeated?wouldn't that mean we need only figure out a few different patterns?
The brain, however, has continued to increase in complexity.
very very minutely relative to a chicken from the larger sense. if we could reverse engineer a perfect chicken brain how far away do you think a human brain would be?
Where did "it" start?
a current scientific hypothesis might be that it started in proteins that increased complexity, evolved into DNA, and eventually into bacteria. from there it was off to the races.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i am using what i feel is objective evidence.
for your god hypothesis? if you did i missed it. so far i've seen you talk about artificial intelligence in terms of evidence and god in terms of wishful thinking.
i feel it's better for interested parties to discover that evidence on their own so that they are capable of realizing it to a peaceful fruition as opposed to just providing what seems like the "bad" half of the good/bad future equation.
it would be easier for you to just say people should believe whatever makes them happy.
i liked it better when i was debating with questions instead of statements.
you're original question was pretty vague.
today's understanding of evolution will be proven incomplete in a year. i leap to say we are wrong in believing that we understand evolution.
i've never heard any scientist say our understanding of evolution is complete so there's nothing to prove.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...