Gitsnik said:
Which is pretty well how our discussion is going to go down. I've spent too much time in the field to be comfortable with someone saying 20Q is AI, and you're convinced it is. Neither of us is likely to shake our arguments.
Okay, for the sake of the conversation, I'm willing to consider it. In
my definition, an AI is a program, that can gather data, process that data and using logic, and it can arrive to a certain conclusion and make a decision that is not pre-programmed (hardcoded "switch"), on it's own, based on experience. Okay, there are gaps in this definition the size of the Moon, but that's what I consider AI. You might be some master of AIs, I don't know, and I'm not gonna argue with you on this one, just saying that differing definitions are not the end of the world, just a base for conversation
There is really no empirical right or wrong in a topic like this, just different perspectives.
Similarities are not what I was getting at. I was driving towards what encompasses a soul, how is it that a human goes to heaven but an animal can't when the animal doesn't take religion - BUT the animal obviously loves because of its reactions to a good master etc and love is the main point every priest, rabbi, leader and pastor I have ever spoken with has used. Then we go into things like why is it a human with the soul, why can't a machine have one and so on and so forth. Which was the exercise I was trying to get you to perform above.
Religious debates are ultimately futile, either because you are a non-believer, who doesn't believe there is a all-powerful supernatural being (with very human traits, nonetheless) reigning over us, or because you are believer, who considers me a disgusting pagan devilspawn, who will burn in the tormenting fires of Hell for all eternity for my sins. That's why I hate churches and religion with a passion. Not the people in them, just the system. Because instead of uniting people, it segregates and divides people even further, and creates gaps the size of the Grand Canyon between the different religious groups and non-believers. More people died for and because of religion than any other cause of death in human history. For some reason, the different Gods of the religions all hate each other and every religion and church promises
the only way to salvation and solace. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against spiritualism and philosophy, and maybe there is a God, I don't know, nobody knows. But churches and religions are causing more suffering than good.
Where did the universe come from
What was around to create the big bang. What was it in when the items collided to cause said big bang. Einstein used physics to prove the existence of a God, why should we question him so.
Because its in our nature to question things, it is the primary advancing force of science. No knowledge is eternal and for granted, just a stage. If we didn't question so called "facts", we would still believe Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around Earth. Nobody knows how our universe came to existence, not even Einstein. He was a very smart man, but even he couldn't know everything. We can formulate hypothesizes, and we can theorize about what and how it happened, but since not one of us was there, we can't know for sure. Some people believe there was a big bang, some believe there were multiple big bangs, some believe the universe is actually contracting and not expanding, some believe God created it. Who knows...
Maybe none of them are right, maybe all of them are.
But one thing is certain, questioning things is a good thing. To be proven wrong shouldn't be seen as a failure, it should be celebrated, because it takes us to a new level of understanding.
Just because I can't yet detect, say, ghosts, doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. There is a reason normal people are afraid of the dark. It might just be throwback to having to stave off lions in the night, but it might not be too.
This is exactly what I said, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The God concept and the supernatural, IMHO, is not a factual substitution, just a way to fill the void, a wildcard if you will. A placeholder for future knowledge. Our ancient ancestors thought lightning was the wrath of gods, they thought aurora borealis is where Nirvana is, they thought the weather can be influenced by dancing, singing or sacrifices. Sure, now we know better, but for the lack of knowledge, they substituted these with gods and supernatural. Just take the Bible for example, and it's interpretations through the ages. As centuries passed, the interpretations changed from unified literal to factual and from that to philosophical, and it got divided into different versions. The now we know, that no deities speak to us from flaming bushes, epilepsy is not demonic possession, sacrificing lamb won't make our lives better, and while Jesus said many very true and good things, he probably never existed. The philosophical teachings of the Bible are very good things, like we shouldn't kill and steal from each other, that we should treat other people as we want ourselves to be treated...etc. But some people sadly can't think and see the these things, and instead they take it literally. The churches and organized religion fucked up the whole picture with pre-determined interpretations of the book, that all believers should follow to the letter. It's bad, very bad, because knowledge is emergent and not factual, as we gather new information, as we start to understand more and more things about the world around us, interpretations of old "facts"
have to change, that's how we move forward, that's how we evolve.
Not so much an escape route here. The joke is in reference to the top minds in the field being unable to produce anything even close to AI - these are some of the smartest people available. Thus, "There must be a God!".
Not
yet anyway. It will change in time, I'm sure
