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.

[byofrcs]

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.

Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) ?. Stephen Jay Gould certainly suggests this and we must respect this view but on the other hand Dawkins (he's a scientist too) says that the question of God can be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty which is no more than what any scientist says about any theory.

You don't agree with Gould but prefer Dawkins' approach. This is fine. I don't agree with NOMA too but I'm not a scientist.

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.

I can write the symbol for pi and I automatically inherit an infinity of decimal places as pi is a transcendental function. How fine a resolution I move my hand (e.g. rotate around one axis) is not dependent upon the infinite decimal presentation of pi but of the mechanical qualities of my hand. If I use a hydraulic end effector on a robot I get the same analogue effect. So a robot has the same number of infinite choices.

Now because I can't calculate pi to an infinite regression I could in fact just setup a robot to use analog sensors to feedback to where to move the hand. I thus have a closed circuit which can move through an infinite number of positions. Compare this to what machine tools do in which stepping motors are used. They have a finite number of steps.

Same as your examples.

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.

Wrong. As shown my simple automata robot with as much brains as a stuffed toy can be setup to traverse an infinite number of steps. It does not have an infinite amount of information to make that decision but a very simple feedback loop.

Engineering uses analog technology all the time when quantizing effects upset a system. An engine governor (e.g. steam engines) are another example. These are NOT infinitely intelligent. Visit a steam engine show. They are fun.

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.

I think I have clearly shown that systems can be created that can traverse an infinite number of states using quite simple technology which is

Sodium and Chlorine do not understand that when they are together they form an octahedral crystal. This networking effect is an emergent behaviour which it is not clear from looking at sodium or chlorine that this would happen.

Sodium is so much fun to play with and chlorine kills you.

[Undertow]

A few points:

1) Free will is concerning whether I have control over my actions and decisions, not whether or not I can do or choose to do an infinite amount of things. If free will is as you define it, then absolutely no one has free will because, as I say in my next point, we only have unlimited choice in theory. In practice that's not possible.

You say we choose to be aware of a mere selection of an infinite amount of choices? I think that's nonsense - I can't possibly envisage an infinity of anything. My mind isn't capable. Furthermore, merely knowing of the concept of infinity does nothing to assure that I can know an infinite amount of things.

2) We have infinite choice only theoretically. This doesn't mean it's possible to choose to do an infinite number of things nor does it mean it's possible to actually "program" an infinite amount of choices into us. We simply don't have the capacity to do that (give it a go if you don't believe me - try and envisage an infinity of anything - it's impossible), so I don't believe your depiction of the human mind is accurate. Also, an infinite amount of choices would seem to imply that you can do anything, which is obviously wrong. I can't fly, yet infinite choice would mean I can, correct? Impossible.

3) Of course you can create AI - it's an artificial imitation of normal intelligence and has limits in much the same way that normal intelligence has limits.

I think these rebuttals render the rest of your post largely moot.

By the way the superiority complex where someone "takes your hand" and shows you truth, that you have "guidance" or that you feel you are welcoming us all to reason dosen't help your argument.

[Creed]

oh boy.. I'd appreciate your argument if I hadn't proved it wrong on many occasions. The first problem is your misconstruing my reasoning, and you make illogical points by claiming that the impossible is possible. AI is not possible, if you knew anything about programming you would understand how a program works, and if you where a programming guru you would know as a fact you could never create a consciousness in a program.

Now let me rebuttal. Freewill is what I define as your ability to chose what you want to do, I don't care about any other definitions because they won't apply to this conversation. I'm saying that the future is open to whatever you make it with infinite amount of roads you can take and an unlimited amount of ways you can take the roads. The concept of infinity in and of itself can only be used to define something that can be quantified as infinity. I say that you can be aware of as much as you can comprehend, which is a different amount for each person naturally. You can never be truly aware of infinity when making a choice, but you can when contemplating a choice. When you make a choice you can fathom as many variables as you can comprehend, as I can draw a line on a paper any which way I want out of an infinite amount of angles lengths or anything. The problem is that I can't redo an action causing the limitation of infinity due to the conservation of time and the time lost due to choice processing time. And what you can comprehend is separate from other people so yes it could be nonsense to you, but it makes perfect sense to one who is capable of extrapolating meaning and adapting it with reason into fact.

I would like to avoid redundant arguments, whereas I already said that the "holding hands" part was unimportant, means ignore it if it bothers you.

[Undertow]

oh boy.. I'd appreciate your argument if I hadn't proved it wrong on many occasions. The first problem is your misconstruing my reasoning, and you make illogical points by claiming that the impossible is possible. AI is not possible, if you knew anything about programming you would understand how a program works, and if you where a programming guru you would know as a fact you could never create a consciousness in a program.

Where did I claim the impossible is possible? It seems that this is what you're doing, not me - you claimed that we have an infinite amount of choices which I argued was impossible because we can't comprehend an infinity of anything. I haven't seen you rebut this point.

Now let me rebuttal. Freewill is what I define as your ability to chose what you want to do, I don't care about any other definitions because they won't apply to this conversation. I'm saying that the future is open to whatever you make it with infinite amount of roads you can take and an unlimited amount of ways you can take the roads.

As I say, if free will is what we all want to do, then very little people have free will. I'm sure everyone would want to do something yet can't because of the various limitations of life (budget, logistics, physiological limits, etc).

As I say, I don't think that definition is accurate - free will is rather having control over our own actions and choices, whatever they may be.

Again, I said that these 'infinite amount of paths' is a theoretical concept - we simply don't have the capacity to be able to look over an infinite amount of choices and thus in reality we don't have an infinity of choices - my argument is that we're limited to consider a few choices (relative to an infinity of choices), in much the same way as an AI program is. In this sense, I argued that an AI program imitates a real life intelligence in that a real life intelligence is in fact limited in what it can consider. Can you consider an infinity of things or are you limited?

As this is the hinge of your argument (step 1)...

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.

...I think your argument fails.

The concept of infinity in and of itself can only be used to define something that can be quantified as infinity. I say that you can be aware of as much as you can comprehend, which is a different amount for each person naturally. You can never be truly aware of infinity when making a choice, but you can when contemplating a choice.

Can you contemplate an infinity of things? I can't nor do I think that's possible as I've already argued, or can you somehow forego normal brain function like the rest of us and fire an infinity of synapses at the same time (or over however long you want to have to contemplate an infinity of things - it doesn't matter). See also the above response - the ability to make the choice hinges on the ability to contemplate the choice (unless you think we don't control our choices, in which case it would not be a choice, would it?) hence I argued that an inability to contemplate an infinite range of choices in reality limits what we can choose.

When you make a choice you can fathom as many variables as you can comprehend, as I can draw a line on a paper any which way I want out of an infinite amount of angles lengths or anything. The problem is that I can't redo an action causing the limitation of infinity due to the conservation of time and the time lost due to choice processing time. And what you can comprehend is separate from other people so yes it could be nonsense to you, but it makes perfect sense to one who is capable of extrapolating meaning and adapting it with reason into fact.

I would like to avoid redundant arguments, whereas I already said that the "holding hands" part was unimportant, means ignore it if it bothers you.

I don't understand this yet I think I've addressed your argument. I fail to see where you "proved my argument wrong on many occasions". I don't think your argument makes sense as it's self evident to me that I can't possibly contemplate an infinity of choices, therefore, by virtue of being ignorant of most of that infinity, my available range of choice is simply not infinite - it is limited just like an AI's range of choice is.

[McCulloch]

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.

Circles and pi are mathematical abstractions. Infinity is not a number but a mathematical limit, technically the absence of a limit. In the real world, there are no perfect circles. There are degrees of error and limits of accuracy. I would be willing to grant you that there are a very large number of choices, but it is not unlimited. At this point of writing, I am not quite sure where you are going with this but your philosophical basis is not quite sound.

You mention free will. What is it that you mean by free will and are you presuming free will? Have you rejected determinism without proof?

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.

When debating, your choice of words is important to making your point. AI stands for artificial intelligence. You have said that you cannot create artificial intelligence you can only simulate artificial intelligence. I suspect that you mean that we cannot create real intelligence only artificial (simulated) intelligence.

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.

This is where your false assumptions in step 1 get you into trouble. There is no evidence that our choices are infinite and there is no evidence that our consciousness exists anywhere except in our finite brain.

AI is not possible, if you knew anything about programming you would understand how a program works, and if you where a programming guru you would know as a fact you could never create a consciousness in a program.

Define intelligence please. I don't think that your assertion holds up. Read up on the Turing test.

[Creed]

futile attempts at debunking..

so you say you don't have infinite amount of choices? since our argument hinges on this point. not to do so means you would have no free will, instead you would admit to being a randomization program choosing between set paths. you can accept you have free will or deny your humanity, deny that you have the right to chose your destiny. The main point is you can do ANYTHING you want, this constitute infinite amount of choices. Your still using your brain.. not your consciousness to try to comprehend this. Yes I suppose that I mean we can't create real intelligence under those definitions.

You people hear rationalization and you pick it apart saying you need "proof" that you have an unlimited amount of choices, what kind of a question is this? Of course you do. You call it an abstract but thats just an excuse to deny its existence, thats like saying there is and end to the universe. From a single point there are is a infinite amount of angles that something can be from it. There are no perfect circles in existence because we can't understand infinity or create it, also feeding my argument.

At this point I can not help you to understand infinity because you can't use words, just I would ask you to sit there, where you are right now, think of all the things you can do and how many ways you can do it.

[Cathar1950]

I think you should try to sit there and think of all the things can't do and when you are done think of all the things you can't think of.
Each choice limits choices or possibility even if new possibilities are also created. Possiblities are not much until the emerge or happen.

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.

Maybe we are not programs but outputs or outcomes. If we are not programs we don't need a writer.

[upallnite]

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

.
You have not shown a correlation between a circle and freewill. This makes this section a simple assertation. What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

Yes your choices are limited to the ones you are aware of, but you chose to be aware of a certain selection from infinity.

I do not recall making that choice. I have now chosen to be aware of all choices.
...waiting....waiting....nope, I am still not aware of an infinite number of choices.

Debunked this thru testing.

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.

We are working on it, man. Give us a little time, sheesk!

Therefore you can say that you can not create AI, you can only simulate AI.

You have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

Since we have the infinite amount of choices as expressed in step 1

You mean as asserted in step 1. Until you give evidence for step one your whole proof fails.

(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.)

LOL Your argument includes asking others not to point out flaws.

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.

Translation: If you do not agree with me you are a poopyhead! /translation

HAHAHA.. grow up.

And so we approach the subject of God..

Whooa, dude. You are yet to get past the first part.

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.

Now you are stuck in an endless set of creators. Unless of course you are going to make a special plea for God.

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.

For God all you give us is another assertation.

What do I hope of achieving after writing this? nothing much

Good, that is what you achived.

Welcome to reason.

I do not think reason means what you think it means.

[Creed]

that maybe, but if you agree the consciousness is not in our body / mind, then could we also agree we don't lose existence when we die?

lol upallnite creating a consciousness ina a computer is like trying to create perpetual energy, you must see that. And furthermore please read my other posts about free will / choice.