Science vs Science

[Creed]

I was so sick and tired of scientists talking about the impossible to prove God did not exist, so I thought, they're using fire so why can't I? This thought process was developed by me during a period of meditation and constant reasoning. My thoughts started to wander by them selfs, like someone took my hand and was showing me the truth, unimportant. I will use metaphors that you can easily understand so i can get my point across quickly, I have to write a paper tonight. Here I go.. proving God exists in 1000 words or less.

The first concept you must understand is that through freewill you have an unlimited amount of choices. Do to the amount of degrees in a circle and the number of pi, we can conclude an unlimited amount of choices we have to move our hand at any one time. To accept this one fact is to accept that you have an unlimited amount of choices. Yes your choices are limited to the ones you are aware of, but you chose to be aware of a certain selection from infinity.

Where does this go you may ask? Luckily I had some guidance..

Now the metaphor.. Your brain is like a computers hard drive in that it has a finite amount of storage capacity before it reaches full. Now to understand this you have to understand how a computer works. A computer has information.. choices.. but a finite amount of them.. and would be impossible to program infinite amount of choices into a finite object as each choice programed would require room and compile to infinity. Therefore you can say that you can not create AI, you can only simulate AI. Since we have the infinite amount of choices as expressed in step 1 we can conclude that our consciousness does not exist within our body, but rather I would suggest it exists in a form that coincides with the universe simply because there is an infinite amount of space. (Please don't argue there is an end to the universe because you could not describe it, vi save there cant be nothing outside of it.) At this point in my article it is futile to describe to you where the consciousness lies, but I can assure you I have proven it is not in your body, to contradict this reasoning is to be just as ignorant as atheists argue Christians are.

And so we approach the subject of God..
How do I know he exists? The answer is simple, a program can not write itself. -the writer must of understood infinity and could define it.

What is he? A consciousness that understands and can define infinity. If you could understand infinity within the confines of your consciousness I believe you could break reality and mold it.

What do I hope of achieving after writing this? nothing much, just really really needa start my essay so I gotta stop typing. I will leave you here, accept reason or not, the choice is now on your end of the table.

Welcome to reason.

[Creed]

No I'm not: Using my analogue driven end effector with analogue feedback with shot noise my robot can choose any one angle out of an infinity of angles. No one in the world can predict what it is. The robot decides this angle no different from a human deciding when to start or stop rotating their hand.

You really do need to understand the difference between analogue and digital systems and why you use one or the other because it is clear you are mixing these up.

Yes it is impossible to store any arbitrary angle as a digital value without error and this is why with some systems you keep analogue data as analogue rather than using a ADC with processing and then use a DAC.

If I used a stepping motor then the discrete steps would cog the hand. I would also be limited in resolution of my DAC/ADC and maths. This is why I have specified analogue throughout rather than digital. Humans have a lot of analogue components too.

So answer my question or say why this robot is impossible to make.

I hate being able to answer this shortly, but your robot can not move a degree equal to pi such as 3.14... degrees. Humans however could arbitrarily move this angle, but the likelihood of chosing this number is infinite, but there could be other angles out there such as this one that can not be chosen. Your robot can not move an irrational angle, but we can.

in response to #1, no it can't your lying and there is no way to backup the argument without saying the impossible exists.

care to venture a guess as to why? sure thing.. if you let a computer program chose a decimal from a coordinate plane of existence then it can only chose a number that is within its own memory compacity, i.e. each decimal place would take up room, therefor if a computer was to chose an angle, it could never chose an angle with more decimal places then its memory can hold. We can do this however, its called free will even if we are unaware of exactly the number of the angle we chose, we still chose it.

We chose a a number, but we don't know what number it is? Care to elaborate on that?

Sure thing my friend, The true value of an angle you chose is unmeasurable because you can't measure anything perfectly. Therefor you are unaware of what the angle is, all you know is that you chose to go there.

Subconsciously you think of the angle you want, but can never truly define. This however is irrelevant do to the fact that the angle does exist.

I think you may be mistaking the "angle" as a "concept", with the attempt to physically measure an angle. The concept can be in both the human's and the computer's memory, and it will be perfect in both. Physically, the computer will always have a more accurate measurement. If you're arguing that the computer doesn't recognize the "concept" as "abstract", that's a different matter, but for all intents and purposes, it doesn't have to.

Always another way of looking at the same question. But there is always another way to look at the answer as well. We do not measure the angle we simply chose it. And a computer will never move an irrational amount of degrees.

[Beto]

Always another way of looking at the same question. But there is always another way to look at the answer as well. We do not measure the angle we simply chose it. And a computer will never move an irrational amount of degrees.

Humans can't perform anything "irrational" outside their minds. Hence, "irrational". And of course, neither can computers.

[Creed]

Always another way of looking at the same question. But there is always another way to look at the answer as well. We do not measure the angle we simply chose it. And a computer will never move an irrational amount of degrees.

Humans can't perform anything "irrational" outside their minds. Hence, "irrational". And of course, neither can computers.

Irrationality exists, but you just can't measure it. You can come close but you can never determine the true value. Pi is the greatest of irrational numbers so I like to use it. Logically you can determine that an angle is irrational, but you can not purely define it. That is why if your body moved at this angle it can not be copied by a self deciding computer.

[Goat]

lol Goat, this requires a higher level of thinking than simply "this rock is hard." If you are proven to have unlimited choices then it is proven that your consciousness can not exists within your body, according to our argument thus far I am correct. That alone is a breakthrough is it not? I'm current;y working on arguing the first step in the thought process, it leads to God later.

Perhaps it is not that it requires a 'higher understanding' but the 'insight' you have is not meaningful. I notice you have not answered at all the criticisms of some of your premises.. and not only that, even if you were right, and they were wrong, it is not proof of god at all.

[Beto]

Always another way of looking at the same question. But there is always another way to look at the answer as well. We do not measure the angle we simply chose it. And a computer will never move an irrational amount of degrees.

Humans can't perform anything "irrational" outside their minds. Hence, "irrational". And of course, neither can computers.

Irrationality exists, but you just can't measure it.

You can come close but you can never determine the true value. Pi is the greatest of irrational numbers so I like to use it.

But the thing is, you can't choose "Pi". It exists as a concept, an idea, unmeasurable, and of no practical use for a computer (or maybe there is). All we have are representations of "Pi". It's impossible to accidently move your arm "Pi" degrees, because "Pi" can never be achieved, since the number is infinite (infinity is a concept). But your arm is actually there, so it moved a concrete angle. You may think the most accurate number achievable on this measurement is infinite, but there's no reason to assume this, and in all likelihood, the universe has a fundamental level at which things cannot get smaller.

[Creed]

Did I not just say this is step one in the logic set?

Oh and enlighten me on what I have not adressed if you would be so kind.

[Creed]

But the thing is, you can't choose "Pi". It exists as a concept, an idea, unmeasurable, and of no practical use for a computer (or maybe there is). All we have are representations of "Pi". It's impossible to accidently move your arm "Pi" degrees, because "Pi" can never be achieved, since the number is infinite (infinity is a concept). But your arm is actually there, so it moved a concrete angle. You may think the most accurate number achievable on this measurement is infinite, but there's no reason to assume this, and in all likelihood, the universe has a fundamental level at which things cannot get smaller.

hmm, I would ask you Beto to help me better define my own definition. I thought of another way to approach the difference between a computer and human consciousness. A computer can very well devide 1 by 3 and get .333...3334, but it has to round the decimal somewhere because it does not have the compacity to define what exactly 1/3 is. In your own mind however you know that 1/3 is 1/3 of 1 and you can divide 1 by 3 and multiply it by 3 to get 1, but if you gave a computer the code to do this equation (1/3)*3 the computer will spit out 1.00...01 because of the rounding, you howver know that the same equation is in fact 1, no more, no less.

The point of that statement is that we can understand what infinity is, while a computer can't.

[Beto]

But the thing is, you can't choose "Pi". It exists as a concept, an idea, unmeasurable, and of no practical use for a computer (or maybe there is). All we have are representations of "Pi". It's impossible to accidently move your arm "Pi" degrees, because "Pi" can never be achieved, since the number is infinite (infinity is a concept). But your arm is actually there, so it moved a concrete angle. You may think the most accurate number achievable on this measurement is infinite, but there's no reason to assume this, and in all likelihood, the universe has a fundamental level at which things cannot get smaller.

hmm, I would ask you Beto to help me better define my own definition. I thought of another way to approach the difference between a computer and human consciousness. A computer can very well devide 1 by 3 and get .333...3334, but it has to round the decimal somewhere because it does not have the compacity to define what exactly 1/3 is. In your own mind however you know that 1/3 is 1/3 of 1 and you can divide 1 by 3 and multiply it by 3 to get 1, but if you gave a computer the code to do this equation (1/3)*3 the computer will spit out 1.00...01 because of the rounding, you howver know that the same equation is in fact 1, no more, no less.

The point of that statement is that we can understand what infinity is, while a computer can't.

I'm not going to argue with you that consciousness can be explained from a computational approach, because I don't think it can. I only had an issue with the use of abstract values in "real" situations, such as "I can move my arm π degrees".

As for consciousness, I currently subscribe to the Penrose-Hameroff model of "orchestrated objective reduction" (Orch OR). It tries to fill the gap between quantum consciousness theory and the biological mechanism that supports it. I like this theory because it addresses issues that are otherwise explained as "it just happens".

In my opinion, only the advent of the quantum computer may bring true AI to the scene.

[McCulloch]

hmm, I would ask you Beto to help me better define my own definition. I thought of another way to approach the difference between a computer and human consciousness. A computer can very well devide 1 by 3 and get .333...3334, but it has to round the decimal somewhere because it does not have the compacity to define what exactly 1/3 is. In your own mind however you know that 1/3 is 1/3 of 1 and you can divide 1 by 3 and multiply it by 3 to get 1, but if you gave a computer the code to do this equation (1/3)*3 the computer will spit out 1.00...01 because of the rounding, you howver know that the same equation is in fact 1, no more, no less.

Actually you can engineer a computer to understand what 1/3 is. Simply define a class of numbers called the Rational Numbers, which have an integer numerator and integer denominator. Properly defined, (1/3)*3 on such a system will yield 1.

Pi however is irrational. No computer can store an accurate value of Pi. But neither can a human.

The point of that statement is that we can understand what infinity is, while a computer can't.

Do you understand what infinity is? Why is this understanding beyond a computer and not beyond a human? Can infinity be understood by the finite? If not, why not?

[Creed]

hmm, I would ask you Beto to help me better define my own definition. I thought of another way to approach the difference between a computer and human consciousness. A computer can very well devide 1 by 3 and get .333...3334, but it has to round the decimal somewhere because it does not have the compacity to define what exactly 1/3 is. In your own mind however you know that 1/3 is 1/3 of 1 and you can divide 1 by 3 and multiply it by 3 to get 1, but if you gave a computer the code to do this equation (1/3)*3 the computer will spit out 1.00...01 because of the rounding, you howver know that the same equation is in fact 1, no more, no less.

Actually you can engineer a computer to understand what 1/3 is. Simply define a class of numbers called the Rational Numbers, which have an integer numerator and integer denominator. Properly defined, (1/3)*3 on such a system will yield 1.

Pi however is irrational. No computer can store an accurate value of Pi. But neither can a human.

The point of that statement is that we can understand what infinity is, while a computer can't.

Do you understand what infinity is? Why is this understanding beyond a computer and not beyond a human? Can infinity be understood by the finite? If not, why not?

We can comprehend something not having an end, a computer can not understand what not having a end is, it can keep track of time yes, time is infinite, but the computer doesn't understand that it goes on forever, it just counts, it doesn't understand what it is counting.

I think that if you told a computer to divide 1 by 3 you would get 0.33...334 no matter what computer you use it will never tell you 0.333...333..., then if you told it to multiply the result of 1/3 by 3 you would not get one.