Do you believe in God ?

[Kulindahr]

^I would agree with Benvolio on this count. Distinguishing between the perception of sound, and its origin, is simply a more nuanced account and therefore superior.

To say that sound is all one thing, whether a sentience is present to regard it or not, eliminates the more complex role that we play in hearing things.

But sound is all one thing. There's no difference in the sound when a hearer is present to interpret it; there's just a reaction to the sound based on the interpretive algorithm(s) of the hearer.

 

[kallipolis]

If this is true, then there is no free will, because any Creator is just a programmer and we are all slaves.

Historical, and contemporary evidence speaks to the human race making choices, that are contrary to the invitation of The Creator to love one another, as He loves us.

Were all human beings to comply with the primary directive of The Creator to love one another, there would be no crime, or war, or self destructive behaviour.

The history of the human race evidences free will on a scale informing us that human beings easily choose to ignore the invitation of The Creator to love one another.

Were there no choice, no free will homo sapiens would be reduced to a compliant species of drones, slavishly enacting the will of its designer.

- - - Updated - - -

But sound is all one thing. There's no difference in the sound when a hearer is present to interpret it; there's just a reaction to the sound based on the interpretive algorithm(s) of the hearer.

Correct...............

 

[kallipolis]

The statement I put in bold is false -- it has to be, or high-level simulations are useless. The best simulations these days, indeed some of the best software, isn't written by the programmers at all, but developed by the computers themselves. Just as an example, there are robots which are not told at all how to do anything, or even what they are capable of, they merely have feedback built in for the various abilities they have. They learn those abilities, learn what they can do with them, and if issued an instruction generate their own strategies and tactics for achieving it. Some have even learned along the way to do things the designers never imagined for them.

High-level simulations have such AIs built in. The universe in which we live is indistinguishable from such a simulation -- and from any other universe brought into being by a Creator.

All computer simulations are the result of the design created by their designer. That a function of a computer simulation permits flexibility/variable results is the result of its design functions, not of a programmed simulation..of its own volition.... creating functions that were never designed by its designer.

I have already stated that I enjoy viewing, and reading sci fi for its entertainment value.

 

[kallipolis]

Both of you are defining sound as waves in the air and failing to recognize the diferencd between sound waves and sound as we experience it in our minds, which is very different.

No one here is failing to understand the role of perception per the response of the senses.

 

[Benvolio]

No one here is failing to understand the role of perception per the response of the senses.

As far as I can tell from what you are saying, neither of you understands that sound, as we experience is in our minds does not exist outside our minds. Out there, there are only waves in the air. Similarly, light as we experience it does not exist out there; only electro magnetic waves in a totally dark universe.

 

[kallipolis]

^

I understand that the human brain through the medium of the senses processes/transforms all externally, and internally experienced stimuli into intelligible reality.

You are arguing the theory of idealism that states the physical universe is made out of our perceptions, and this necessarily involves arguing theories on electrons and their position relative to ones perception. It's a thrilling field that leads us back to your original proposition that we live in a Matrix. Quantum Mechanics is best left to those with the time, and the imagination to pursue their theories.

On a final note the big question in this thread is reality real, or subjective per ones personal perceptions, processing the stimuli that each of us experiences?

Do we live in a determinate, or indeterminate reality?

The OCD personality might well spend a life time theorising on these issues, while missing out on the reality that daily invites them to celebrate life, rather than speculate on the matter of electrons.

 

[Benvolio]

^

I understand that the human brain through the medium of the senses processes/transforms all externally, and internally experienced stimuli into intelligible reality.

You are arguing the theory of idealism that states the physical universe is made out of our perceptions, and this necessarily involves arguing theories on electrons and their position relative to ones perception. It's a thrilling field that leads us back to your original proposition that we live in a Matrix. Quantum Mechanics is best left to those with the time, and the imagination to pursue their theories.

On a final note the big question in this thread is reality real, or subjective per ones personal perceptions, processing the stimuli that each of us experiences?

Do we live in a determinate, or indeterminate reality?

The OCD personality might well spend a life time theorising on these issues, while missing out on the reality that daily invites them to celebrate life, rather than speculate on the matter of electrons.

You are being far more philosphical than I am. We never did pick up my original question of how the matrix and simulation theories relate to the question of God. Most views of God can be seen as the invisible creator of our experience which may be a simulation with the actual reality being an afterlife. In that connection I pointed out that we demonstrably do live in a simulation created by our own brains, which can be consistent with a larger simulation/marix/heaven.

 

[kallipolis]

^I have deliberately avoided the God issue for fear that the thread might be invaded by the predictables venting their spleens.

The theories that you offer on this thread are always worth a spin.

Our brain simply performs the role of transforming our daily stimuli internal, and external into intelligible understanding of the world around us, and in us. The rest is speculation. I wish you well.

 

[Kulindahr]

Historical, and contemporary evidence speaks to the human race making choices, that are contrary to the invitation of The Creator to love one another, as He loves us.

Were all human beings to comply with the primary directive of The Creator to love one another, there would be no crime, or war, or self destructive behaviour.

The history of the human race evidences free will on a scale informing us that human beings easily choose to ignore the invitation of The Creator to love one another.

Were there no choice, no free will homo sapiens would be reduced to a compliant species of drones, slavishly enacting the will of its designer.

You dodged the issue. If your claim is true, then we are all slaves, because w can't do anything but what the programmer -- the Creator -- wrote into the program.

Fortunately, that's not true either of real programmers of high-level simulations or of the Creator. The fact of the matter is that on scientific grounds there is no way to tell our universe from a high-level simulation.

 

[Kulindahr]

All computer simulations are the result of the design created by their designer. That a function of a computer simulation permits flexibility/variable results is the result of its design functions, not of a programmed simulation..of its own volition.... creating functions that were never designed by its designer.

I have already stated that I enjoy viewing, and reading sci fi for its entertainment value.

I'm not talking about sci-fi, I'm talking about what is actually going on in programming and AI these days. Your view comes from the late 80s, but we've come a long way since then. The video, which was just released earlier this week and made by conservative activist James O'Keefe of Project Veritas, was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation in May of 2015 - one month before Trump's announcement of candidacy. Simulation programming now aims to result in "functions that were never designed by its designer", and self-programming machines more so. Heck, YouTube has a whole batch of videos showing robots doing things that "were never designed by the designer"!

 

[Kulindahr]

As far as I can tell from what you are saying, neither of you understands that sound, as we experience is in our minds does not exist outside our minds. Out there, there are only waves in the air. Similarly, light as we experience it does not exist out there; only electro magnetic waves in a totally dark universe.

I have to ask again if you've ever passed a science course -- seriously.

I also reiterate that you're pulling a Berkeley. Yes, if you define everything as existing only in our own minds you can make a serious disconnect between the real world and our experiences, but science doesn't bear that out. Scientifically, the amazing thing is the high level of correspondence between our perceptions and reality outside our perceptions.

Though really that should be expected; evolution will select for such a correspondence, since correct perception of reality is a survival trait.

 

[kallipolis]

That a computer programmer programs their simulation to obey their commands, is evidence that they command.

Those following commands, are slaves.

In the context of God the response of human life to God's invitation to love one another evidences free will when observing how many human beings choose to oppose God's invitation to love our neighbour.

In simulations the programs do what they are commanded to do, per their designer's programming.

In real life scenarios the human person can say, no to God....and often does thereby evidencing free will is an option granted to human life.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are being far more philosphical than I am. We never did pick up my original question of how the matrix and simulation theories relate to the question of God. Most views of God can be seen as the invisible creator of our experience which may be a simulation with the actual reality being an afterlife. In that connection I pointed out that we demonstrably do live in a simulation created by our own brains, which can be consistent with a larger simulation/marix/heaven.

Actually we did pick up that question. Scientifically, here is no way to tell the difference between the universe being as we believe it to be, or a high-level computer simulation, or something created by a deity (the latter two being logically functionally the same, since the distinction between deity as programmer and non-deity as programmer is meaningless from inside the program). So if this universe can't be confirmed to be anything other than a simulation, logically one may believe in either a Creator or a Programmer as equally valid options.

 

[kallipolis]

I'm not talking about sci-fi, I'm talking about what is actually going on in programming and AI these days. Your view comes from the late 80s, but we've come a long way since then. The video, which was just released earlier this week and made by conservative activist James O'Keefe of Project Veritas, was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation in May of 2015 - one month before Trump's announcement of candidacy. Simulation programming now aims to result in "functions that were never designed by its designer", and self-programming machines more so. Heck, YouTube has a whole batch of videos showing robots doing things that "were never designed by the designer"!

When computer generated simulations can write programs that were never part of their designer's original programming....please let us know, by offering us a link to the research.

AI remains in the sci fi sphere....

 

[Kulindahr]

That a computer programmer programs their simulation to obey their commands, is evidence that they command.

Those following commands, are slaves.

In the context of God the response of human life to God's invitation to love one another evidences free will when observing how many human beings choose to oppose God's invitation to love our neighbour.

In simulations the programs do what they are commanded to do, per their designer's programming.

In real life scenarios the human person can say, no to God....and often does thereby evidencing free will is an option granted to human life.

The error is contained in your first statement. Simulations are not built to "obey commands", they're built to find out what will happen if the elements in the simulation are allowed to act without commands.

High-level simulations (I repeat) require free will. And in real life there is no scientific proof that there is such a thing as free will.

You can stir in a high dose of metaphysics all you want, but it doesn't make up for the fact that your position on simulations and programming is just plain wrong, being three decades out of date. Even when I was doing programming, a major element was how to avoid determinism, meaning how to have free will within the program. Now, that is so important an element that there just is no difference between a programmer with a high-level simulation and a Creator with a creation -- it's a distinction with no functional meaning.

 

[Kulindahr]

When computer generated simulations can write programs that were never part of their designer's original programming....please let us know, by offering us a link to the research.

AI remains in the sci fi sphere....

"In traditional programming, an engineer writes explicit, step-by-step instructions for the computer to follow. With machine learning, programmers don’t encode computers with instructions. They train them. If you want to teach a neural network to recognize a cat, for instance, you don’t tell it to look for whiskers, ears, fur, and eyes. You simply show it thousands and thousands of photos of cats, and eventually it works things out." source

You're stuck talking about traditional programming. But that's not what's going on now; the leading edge is machine learning, machines programming themselves with code that not only wasn't written by the programmer but is often beyond his/her comprehension. In short, machines are being made to be like human beings, learning like human bengs and making choices like human beings.

And I didn't have to hunt for that quote; thousands of similar results popped up in a quick google search. Nor is it talking about research, it's talking about machines actually in use.

AI is with us now. If you're defining that term as from movies such as Terminator, yes it's science fiction, but that's a tautology because you're pulling your definition from science fiction, not from what's actually going on in technology. In actual technology, there are robots who can be shown a picture and told "build this", and they assemble a blueprint, locate and organize the parts to fulfill the blueprint, distribute the necessary tasks among themselves, and complete the building all without anyone ever having written a single line of code for them saying how to do any of that. Those are actual machines; in terms of simulations we already have "machines" that choose their own tasks and complete them -- just as we do as living organisms.

We don't have Asimovian robots yet, but we're actually not all that far off in terms of self-motivation for machines; what is really lacking is self-awareness.

 

[Telstra]

That a computer programmer programs their simulation to obey their commands, is evidence that they command.

Those following commands, are slaves.

In the context of God the response of human life to God's invitation to love one another evidences free will when observing how many human beings choose to oppose God's invitation to love our neighbour.

In simulations the programs do what they are commanded to do, per their designer's programming.

In real life scenarios the human person can say, no to God....and often does thereby evidencing free will is an option granted to human life.

I found an error in your statement.
Every time someone speaks for god, it is an error because how do YOU know god want this god want that ?

 

[zoltanspawn]

But sound is all one thing. There's no difference in the sound when a hearer is present to interpret it; there's just a reaction to the sound based on the interpretive algorithm(s) of the hearer.

Unless there is a perfect congruity, and not merely a high correspondence, between our perceptions and reality outside of our perceptions, then sound is not all one thing, and it is worth noting the differences. There is the sound that is heard, and sounds that are made.

 

[zoltanspawn]

You are arguing the theory of idealism that states the physical universe is made out of our perceptions, and this necessarily involves arguing theories on electrons and their position relative to ones perception. It's a thrilling field that leads us back to your original proposition that we live in a Matrix. Quantum Mechanics is best left to those with the time, and the imagination to pursue their theories.

I understand Benvolio differently. I don't think he's suggesting idealism, that physical states proceed from mental states. Rather, he's saying that our mental states organize our perceptions into qualitative experience--that we assemble a likeness from those perceptions into a subjective impression.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unless there is a perfect congruity, and not merely a high correspondence, between our perceptions and reality outside of our perceptions, then sound is not all one thing, and it is worth noting the differences. There is the sound that is heard, and sounds that are made.

You'll have to define "heard". The sound that strikes the ear is the same as the sound emitted. What reaches our consciousness is a different matter.