patrick.net

Automan Empire says

I was highlighting the emergence of human-like behavioral patterns from the simpler minds of animals due to "bios" hardware in common. Overlaying the most complex neocortex, or the best and fastest of AI simulations, on top of this hardware and its functions scales up to supercomputer/superhuman level still defaulting to similar responses to environmental stimuli in certain contexts.

That's the whole question. Can we, from simple rules and mechanisms, end up making a super intelligence?

We don't even know what consciousness is or "self awareness"is. Is it the natural result of computation, OR is it impossible to reproduce computationally?

That's THE question. We try our best to MIMIC life forms, but can we create one - not an organic one, but can we actually create a life form that thinks, feels, has motivations, creativity, thoughts? I thought we'd know by now but we don't. The thing is, if we cannot create it, I think that's strong evidence we have a fundamental understanding of what "life" is. Isn't it interesting we CAN'T do this? We have all the building blocks, we can put it through evolutionary scenarios, we can simulate what we think WE went through over eons - but we're not even close.

We can leapfrog problems, reset the simulation, change conditions to get what we want, inject scenarios to solve for the next hurdle, but we've gotten nowhere. My computer probably has more storage and computational power than my brain does. I do kind of wonder if it can't be programmed for sentience. Storage abilities are phenomenal.

richwicks says

No book or person could possibly help me.

You are right. Only God can help you.

And no, I’m not trying to convert you. It is a fact that pretty much every time I’ve posted a scripture reference or personal belief on any thread, including most of them which were in no way directed at you, you have responded with some form of bs justification of why you are immune to such matters of faith, and essentially engaged in a conversation for which you claim you have no interest in exploring. It is almost like you are trying to convince me because you can’t convince yourself.

PeopleUnited says

It is a fact that pretty much every time I’ve posted a scripture reference or personal belief on any thread, including most of them which were in no way directed at you, you have responded with some form of bs justification of why you are immune to such matters of faith, and essentially engaged in a conversation for which you claim you have no interest in exploring.

Probably, I won't dispute it. Generally I check my comments, and see if there are responses, and if there aren't, I have a tendency to respond anyhow.

I wish to only point out that I have firm reasoning for my conclusion, and that I don't think people who don't already believe in the inerrancy of the bible will consider anything it says as justification for your beliefs.

PeopleUnited says

It is almost like you are trying to convince me because you can’t convince yourself.

I like to have my opinions and conclusions challenged. It's the only way I know to discover when I'm wrong, and I really don't want to remain wrong when I am.

richwicks says

I wish to only point out that I have firm reasoning for my conclusion

Those have been, are and will continue to be famous words, of those that perish.

richwicks says

I don't think people who don't already believe in the inerrancy of the bible will consider anything it says as justification for your beliefs.

I don’t come here to have my beliefs justified, validated or vetted. My beliefs are in the hands of a force more powerful than you or I can begin to comprehend.

richwicks says

I like to have my opinions and conclusions challenged. It's the only way I know to discover when I'm wrong, and I really don't want to remain wrong when I am.

Until you are ready to embrace the Word of God as truth, you will never discover how wrong some of your opinions and conclusions have been.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

I wish to only point out that I have firm reasoning for my conclusion

Those have been, are and will continue to be famous words, of those that perish.

Again, Pascal's wager is nothing but a threat. It sounds practically spiteful. Just because I don't believe in the religion, it's right that I should be tortured for eternity? Seems crazy to worship such a petty vindictive entity.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

I don't think people who don't already believe in the inerrancy of the bible will consider anything it says as justification for your beliefs.

I don’t come here to have my beliefs justified, validated or vetted. My beliefs are in the hands of a force more powerful than you or I can begin to comprehend.

This is why 15 years ago I would have taken you to task. Can you not see the arrogance and absolute certainty you have? It's only because you were raised in a predominately Christian nation that you have it. You were almost certainly indoctrinated into the religion as a child and either never questioned it or were sharply rebuked when you did. If you were born in another nation with another religion, you'd be equally certain about that religion. Can't you see that? Muslims will commit suicide in the name of their religion. Damned few atheists will.

In both religions, it's a sin to question the dogma. I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

Abrahamic religions are also very political. In all them, martyrs are quite common and celebrated

richwicks says

Pascal's wager

Forget about Pascal’s wager. The rich man’s wager already listed above is the real concern. He ignored the law and prophets. This was his choice. He reaped the consequences. It is also a reminder that a rich person can often ignore God because they feel like they don’t need him, but the fact is even the rich will die in their sins if they ignore the law and prophets (Bible).

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

When humans are in charge they trend towards tyranny. When God is in charge there is liberty.
Liberty means the ability to make your own choices, but also the responsibility to accept the consequences. God is the originator of liberty. If some of the people God created have used religion to justify fascism, it is them who are guilty, not the God who gave them liberty. But rest assured, those who promote fascism will not escape the consequences for their choice either.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

When humans are in charge they trend towards tyranny. When God is in charge there is liberty.

The problem I see is that in a hierarchical system, men are always in charge.

PeopleUnited says

Liberty means the ability to make your own choices, but also the responsibility to accept the consequences.

Liberty means having a weak hierarchical system. It's always going to be there. Maybe the war between good and evil is directly analogous to the war between a weak decentralize government with no power - an anarchy and a strong centralized authoritarian government.

PeopleUnited says

rest assured, those who promote fascism will not escape the consequences for their choice either.

I hope there's an ultimate justice, but until I can be certain about that, we have to seek it here. I see that as a moral and civic duty. When I see obvious criminals being given free reign to be criminals by our government, I see that as not only a failure of our government, but by the people it rules over. This is because government, all governments only rule by consent. I'm rather shocked what people are willing to consent to.

If it turns out this vaccine ultimately leads to the early deaths of the recipients, we're going to have a lot more moral government at the end of it because who will be left over will be the people who refused to consent. There will be a lot less obedient sheep willing to put up with bullshit.

richwicks says

Can't you see that? Muslims will commit suicide in the name of their religion. Damned few atheists will.

Ask the 100 million people who died in the 20th century due to government policies in countries that embraced communism. BTW, the communist regimes routinely promote martyrdom ("for the cause" of promoting communism worldwide or defending "motherland"), although the majority of the 100 million deaths took place due to starvation caused by government policies (collectivist communes) that the victims heartily embraced (at least initially, before the starvation began in earnest). Even today, millions of leftists are committing suicide by embracing vaxx-worship on top of government worship. Unfortunately, the majority of a typical human population are not capable of critical independent thinking, but would prefer the certainty of being told, even if they die as a consequence of being lied to. Human history is usually decided by a determined minority.

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

Both the Egyptian Pharoh personality cult (and the bureaucratic state that grew around it) and the even earlier Mesopotamian dictatorships were fascist regimes predating the founding of Abrahamic religions.

Reality says

Unfortunately, the majority of a typical human population are not capable of critical independent thinking, but would prefer the certainty of being told, even if they die as a consequence of being lied to. Human history is usually decided by a determined minority.

I don't think most atheists are actually atheists. They just take on a new but ill defined religion of government worship.

Reality says

richwicks says

I would argue that Abrahamic religions are the original fascist systems.

Both the Egyptian Pharoh personality cult (and the bureaucratic state that grew around it) and the even earlier Mesopotamian dictatorships were fascist regimes predating the founding of Abrahamic religions.

Yahweh is probably the Babylonian god of war. Judaism is just a descendant of those earlier religions.

It's been argued that Jesus is actually based on Hercules.

It's astounding people bet their eternal souls on the outrageous ignorance displayed in these comments. Not only ignorance of the Bible and theology: ignorance of history, the consistent nature of mankind, and a total lack of common sense.

Atheists live in a state of denial toward God. They shake their fist at the sky, proclaiming God doesn't exist. That is their answer to life's most important question. Truly bizarre.

Suggest all you Atheists stop living in denial. Confess repent and do the right thing.

richwicks says

they explained "well, everybody has heard of Jesus - everywhere on all the planet"

When I was 19 and studying German in Austria for the year, I went south to Italy on vacation. I met a Hong Kong Chinese guy in Rome and we saw some of the sights there. I said, "Let's go see the Pope, because he comes out at noon every Sunday on a balcony at the Vatican." He asked me who the Pope was and at first I couldn't believe he didn't know. But he really didn't know. I didn't ask about Jesus.

Waitup says

I hope that people research at least all the major religions (from their sources) before coming to a conclusion. I guess that is the least one can do.

I did that. Tried to read at least some of all the main holy books.

I liked Zoroastrianism. Cool and very old religion, seems pretty coherent. Not taking converts these days. They probably should because they're almost gone.

I also thought Buddhism was pretty coherent, and in its oldest form does not require any faith at all. It's more of a philosophy, seeking insight. Basic idea is that attachment to self is the cause of all our problems. On the other hand, their idea of salvation seems to be non-existence, which is depressing.

Islam is quite coherent too, but extremely violent. Somehow Muslims have no problem with Mohammed robbing caravans, raping and maybe keeping the women, and murdering his enemies, including a woman nursing a baby, and 100 year old man. Then again, Judaism has Abraham agreeing to kill his only son Isaac just because God said so. Anyone who did that these days would rightly be locked up for it.

I could not figure out Hinduism. What are the core beliefs?

Sikhism seems agreeable to me. Basically monotheistic but very tolerant of other religions in theory. I don't know the reality in India. I like the emphasis on self-defense. I think its spread is limited by the turban though. Most men are just not going to wear it.

richwicks says

If it turns out this vaccine ultimately leads to the early deaths of the recipients, we're going to have a lot more moral government at the end of it because who will be left over will be the people who refused to consent. There will be a lot less obedient sheep willing to put up with bullshit.

I think the 150,000 dead from the vaxx in the US so far is not quite enough to swing the politics. So the vaxxers who don't die from it will still refuse to admit how dangerous and unneeded the vaxx is. They will explain the obvious mass injuries from the vaxx in other ways. They are already trying to do that.

To admit they were wrong is probably impossible.

Michael Cooke says

It's astounding people bet their eternal souls on the outrageous ignorance displayed in these comments. Not only ignorance of the Bible and theology: ignorance of history, the consistent nature of mankind, and a total lack of common sense.

Right, an all knowing all powerful eternal god made a fucking Rube Goldberg machine that we rats have to figure out before we're dead, or we end up being eternally tortured if we fail it. This not only depends on our ability to access the history, and the Bible though - oh no, we have to certainly be able to read, and to read in Olde English, (if that's the right version we should be reading) - perhaps the Latin, but the original Aramaic version is lost entirely - maybe we need that.

Hopefully we don't die in infancy, or in some nation where there was no access to the Bible, or in a time where Christianity didn't exist or in an area where religion is banned.

Seems like a reasonable and good plan of the Creator of the Universe. Seems fair!

Michael Cooke says

Atheists live in a state of denial toward God. They shake their fist at the sky, proclaiming God doesn't exist. That is their answer to life's most important question. Truly bizarre.

I think it's actually people DO actually start out believing and then as they go deeper and deeper into it they are like "OK... This is bullshit - somebody is feeding me bullshit". It's like this for me with many things. My particular flavor of religion was just one. All religions are kind of like this.

To me, it's a very convoluted and hard to penetrate web of lies. It's a Gordian Knot of contradictions. My path from good Catholic to agnostic to hard atheist to maybe agnostic parallels many courses in my life - such as "The government wouldn't ever tell an outrageous lie to me (believer)" to "Well, maybe the government WOULD lie to me but when they do there's a good reason for it (agnostic)" to "The government just fucking lies to me all the goddamned time and they don't even have a good reason for it - they just want to see if I have any faith in them (atheist)". I'm at atheist right now.

Michael Cooke says

Suggest all you Atheists stop living in denial. Confess repent and do the right thing.

Augh! This is just another "you're wrong! Stop being wrong stupid wrong person!"

Yeah? HOW am I wrong? Show the error in my thinking. Explain what my logical errors are in this. Explain to me why I should assume a Bible, that literally claims women should marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is right? You tell me why I should think the God depicted in the Bible is the real God of the universe? Tell me how you know this book wasn't written by madmen or just vindictive evil people from a cult? The entire book could be nothing but a bunch of lies. Maybe the "prophecies" in it are nothing more than believers working to bring those prophecies about? Maybe someday, a really religious Christian will feel it's his God Given Duty to unleash nuclear war on the planet because he believes that's what Revelations has commanded.

It's fucking terrifying what people MIGHT do because of an absolute faith.

How do you know what you believe to be true IS true? You don't! It's just an absolute faith, which I envy - but it's envy in like a child really believes their parents when they say "everything will be OK" - I don't have that level of faith anymore, and I've LONG ago lost all my innocent in being able to trust an authority - ANY authority.

When I was 4 years old, if my father MURDERED my mother, and told me not to tell anybody, and what he did was necessary, and that what he did HAD to be done, I would have fucking believed it. I do not have that innocence anymore, and I can NEVER regain it. I need that sort of innocence to ever be a Christian again.

richwicks says

Explain to me why I should assume a Bible, that literally claims women should marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is right?

Here is the text referenced: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

If young men have all read this, they'd be red-pilled and the society would indeed be far better than what we have had for the past atheistic century (a sea of thirsty simps):

1. Marrying a woman is a form of punishment, especially if no divorce is allowed (or so prohibitively expensive that it is practically not allowed);

2. Only a virgin is worth considering marriage;

3. Only if caught . . . i.e. a lot of times young women would enjoy the escapades and then nothing happens after that. i.e. young women can self-identify as whores (under societal brainwashing) before they have even had sex, so leave them be.

Remember, the word "rape" back then meant "rapine"; i.e. taking, pillaging. Virginity was a type of property back then, and "rape" didn't necessarily mean physically forced sex but the taking of the property (from the owner, at the time would be her father; that's why "_they_ are discovered" indicating she was an accomplice in the crime against her father).

Reality says

1. Marrying a woman is a form of punishment, especially if no divorce is allowed (or so prohibitively expensive that it is practically not allowed);

If you watch some of the old movies from the 40s and 50s, there's one where a guy is alone on a Pacific Island, making his own rum and fishing and having a wonderful time.

Then a plane or boat crashes on the Island, with a woman full of kids. He looks at the woman - not the kids - and said, OH CRAP.

Reality says

richwicks says

Explain to me why I should assume a Bible, that literally claims women should marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is right?

Here is the text referenced:

I appreciate your reasoned response and the point of view from where the story was told from.

What about the story of Jephtah who sacrificed his daughter to god to abide by a promise? As a parable, I can see it as a warning not to make sloppy oaths. As literal, it's just monstrous.

I no longer want to needle and pick away at people's beliefs. Generally, Christianity is positive, but the worst of Christians, they are amplified. Just as the worst of homosexuals WERE predominate as well. Our fucking media and government always seeks out to make the most disgusting, awful people, to be made representatives of a group.

Except for groups they support. That's how they push society in a direction. They use a vile awful member of group X to be the supposed "typical" member of X, and the nicest, most benign member of group Y to represent the group they support.

Michael Cooke says

Atheists live in a state of denial toward God. They shake their fist at the sky, proclaiming God doesn't exist.

I think your fundamental misunderstanding about atheists is you imagine them as some strawman OPPOSITE of a religious person, much in the way people mistake hate as the opposite of love.

Love AND hate are both high states of emotional arousal and attention. They are similar and complementary to one another, not opposite. The opposite of BOTH love and hate is INDIFFERENCE, a condition of little to no emotional arousal or attention.

By the same principle, atheists aren't necessarily a complementary opposite of religious people in the manner they're often assumed to be vehement devil worshipers. The actual opposite of the ENTIRE pantheon from God to Devil and every other supernatural entity ever imagined, is a chill indifference toward the entire concept.

Left to my own devices, I do not HATE the concept of god, or worship/fear the devil instead, I just don't CARE. The misbehavior and intrusions of religious people, on the other hand, give plenty to become rightfully angry over. But neither is this to say I dislike people of faith just BECAUSE they believe. I actually respect people who take their faith seriously and do their honest ethical best to walk the walk. Because I KNOW that a lot of people who just talk the talk actually do whatever, rules and standards be damned, when it is expedient. I also recognize that atheists can be assholes about it, but not-believing isn't an affinity group or positive commonality like believing. Therefore, atheists can be more difficult to accurately suss out as to what they're actually like wrt morals, ethics etc. therefore are most accurately judged on their individual merits, because they are NOT a group.

Automan Empire says

I think your fundamental misunderstanding about atheists is you imagine them as some strawman OPPOSITE of a religious person, much in the way people mistake hate as the opposite of love.

Love AND hate are both high states of emotional arousal and attention. They are similar and complementary to one another, not opposite. The opposite of BOTH love and hate is INDIFFERENCE, a condition of little to no emotional arousal or attention.

To Michael Cooke: This ^^^^^^

I do not hate the concept of god, and I may come to accept a concept of god, but it's (very) unlikely to be your concept of god. The more I learn the more I am amazed. I started off in hard sciences, and now I've moved on to what is impossible to be answered by classical scientific methods but I'm not going to go off into the weeds either.

We're all an experiment of one.

I have absolute no animosity toward your religious beliefs although at one point, I confess, I certainly did. I was wrong about that. Fred Phelps railings were crazy and insane, and his nutzo predictions about the future were insane - but he was at least partially right. You no doubt ascribe that to the inerrancy of the Bible - perhaps you're correct. I ascribe it to thousands of years of people relearning the lessons of the past over and over again. Cut out all the religious stuff from the Bible, and yeah, I think it's a useful insight into history, but a very blurry history. It doesn't tell you what happened like when king X ruled over people Y - I think it instead tells you "this shit happened! Don't let this shit happen again! It will be a bad outcome!" and it's wrapped in allegory because it's actually a compilation of tales retold over and over and over again - at least for the old Testament.

I think Fred Phelps was right but kind of for the wrong reasons. He was right about ONE thing maybe more. See? I can learn. I'll listen to the most vile and disgusting people and the best and most celebrated people - everybody has their own genius, and it's incredibly rare I run into somebody who is actually stupid. I have to respect anybody that stands up to the establishment and has conviction, even when I'm certain they are entirely wrong, or even evil. Even Hitler had some good ideas. I think even Pol Pot and Stalin did. Disastrous, entirely inhumane systems can be created, but life is all about trial and error. Our responsibility is to record error. What works, that's WELL recorded. Nobody wants to talk about their fuckups. As a result, we're redoing communism in the US now. There's not enough of a record of what a disaster that was.

richwicks says

The problem I see is that in a hierarchical system, men are always in charge.

If you step back from the situation and examine it from a distance, you have already come to the conclusion that human governments will all have at least some level of corruption. Judas is the prime example, even in Jesus’ small inner circle there was a thief who sold Jesus to the even more corrupt authorities for a bag of silver which apparently he loved more than God. So every evil is evidence of a human choosing something other than God and God’s will.

Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.

richwicks says

I think Fred Phelps was right but kind of for the wrong reasons.

Fred Phelps was running a scam.

He would get towns/counties to shut him down at Military Funerals, and then sue under the 1st Amendment, and profit.