LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 204 29.69%
Deist 21 3.06%
Theist 26 3.78%
Agnostic 135 19.65%
Atheist 301 43.81%
Voters: 687. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-06-2016, 10:31 AM   #7096
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,323

Rep: Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337

Where among all this, is the Immortal Soul? IMHO Religion or Spirituality can't even come close to what is truly as awe inspiring as what we now know and also know as mystery. This is Magnificent Grandeur and it's real.

-- We Are a Multitude and a Spaceship --
 
Old 09-06-2016, 10:39 AM   #7097
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,666

Rep: Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492
Quote:
what do you think that is?
Natural law.
 
Old 09-06-2016, 10:43 AM   #7098
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,666

Rep: Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492
Quote:
I am singularly unconvinced of "invisible soul or spirit"
That is not my care either. Any one can define his psychological circumstances he chooses best for him.
 
Old 09-06-2016, 10:51 AM   #7099
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,666

Rep: Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492
Quote:
There's the fact that if you follow many "religions" to the tee, you'll hate we...
Jam I beg exclusion to that 'you'. I don't follow religion to the tee and I don't hate any one nor "we" that is, on account of non-alignment of religion or non-belief. Yes you have reasons to say it. But it is not me. And I only wish to manifest that point before the pre-trial concludes.

Each one to his own. It is a matter of right in every human being.

.
 
Old 09-06-2016, 11:52 AM   #7100
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,777
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285
If you follow science to the tee then most things are questionable, as should be... if you don't follow your religion to it, you're evolving!

Add, eg: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=worst+thing+the+bible+says+to+do

Last edited by jamison20000e; 09-09-2016 at 02:58 AM.
 
Old 09-06-2016, 12:12 PM   #7101
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,277

Rep: Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Since we are on the verge of actually having a machine pass the Turing Test...
So what? The test is a red herring: you can't deduce mechanism from functionality. Think of the concept of a "black box".
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

Quote:
Vitalism has been entirely discredited
No. It's just been rejected by the sort of person who writes wikipedia articles.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/
 
Old 09-06-2016, 10:38 PM   #7102
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,323

Rep: Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337
Well, David McCann, it seems I'm talking apples and you're quoting pomegranates. Both of your links are to a site, though at least bearing some semblance of a scholarly effort, lie entirely under the heading in the title - Philosophy, not Science. The paper quotes Descartes which although imaginatively impressive given his era, is hardly someone with an understanding of where AI is today and how fast it is growing/advancing and what will be possible very soon. It also has an entire sub-section on "The Theological Objection". just maybe a wee bit biased and one of assumptions (and musings) as opposed to axioms and critical thought.

Wikipedia, being community driven, has far more than one kind of writer. I used it because that particular article seemed objective and sensible (displayed evidence and controversy) and sported numerous references and has an extensive bibliography and is available to everyone. I could have chosen Science Magazine but it requires various levels of subscriptions and likely few here have any. By contrast, though appearing scholarly in language and from association with a highly respected Institution , The link you posted is much like a Philosophy Blog and the last link for Vitalism quotes a novel no less than four times as the header of sections! So would I seem more accurate to you if I quoted Roger Ebert instead of Wikipedia?

I do agree with Stephen Hawking that computer viruses bear all the qualifications for a lifeform as well as the hundreds of movers, shakers and thinkers including Mr. Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak that think true AI is just around the corner and capable of eclipsing human thought at a rapid pace. The Turing Test is just the tip of the iceberg. Descartes was a truly brilliant man but he was born to a time that could not possibly imagine real AI as more than a hypothetical exercise any more than the above mentioned Hundreds could have just 20 or 30 years ago.

Although unsuccessful yet at modeling a complete human brain, Henry Markram in just 12 years fully modeled the communication between neurons in a rat brain and successfully combined many of those models in a massive computer gaining billions in grant money. He has since suffered some substantial setbacks but the fact remains that major steps have already been accomplished as of 2015 and the work is ongoing. It is highly likely that a complete human brain will be modeled in the next 20-30 years no matter what philosophers and Vitalism thinks.

I deal in odds and bet with the house when it comes to predictions, whether I like the results or not. I work hard to avoid wishful thinking. Not everyone does. I don't know you well enough to make sufficient odds for any solid conclusions but there is some evidence that you may have a few "sacred cows" skewing your conclusions. If you choose to view my dedication to the principles of logic and reason as similar skewing, that's your prerogative. Naturally, I would disagree based on evidence.

Last edited by enorbet; 09-06-2016 at 10:41 PM.
 
Old 09-07-2016, 08:26 AM   #7103
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,494

Rep: Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789Reputation: 1789
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Since we are on the verge of actually having a machine pass the Turing Test,
Are we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmustaq View Post
Natural law.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Quote:
Vitalism has been entirely discredited
No. It's just been rejected by the sort of person who writes wikipedia articles.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/
Not sure how this link is relevant. It only references vitalism tangentially, in a historical context.
 
Old 09-07-2016, 09:53 AM   #7104
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,666

Rep: Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492
Quote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, examples?
Honesty, am not sure either what you are soliciting? Are we on the same channel frequency?
 
Old 09-07-2016, 10:13 AM   #7105
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,323

Rep: Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
Since we are on the verge of actually having a machine pass the Turing Test,
Are we?
Don't take my word for it. Internet search "Ray Kurzweil" who has an incredibly high success rate with short term predictions even specified by date and he predicts the Turing Test will be passed by 2029, just a few years from now.

One example -----

--- Ray Kurzweil Predictions ---

He is by no means alone and a few predict it by no later than 2018. One thing to consider is the cheap availability of computing power. In 2003, a supercomputer was built for under $50,000.00 USD utilizing PS2 gaming consoles. One supercomputer by 2007 built on 8 x PS3s (roughly costing $5000.00 USD) was capable of handling gravity wave predictions around Black Holes. By 2010 the cost was less than half for slightly greater power. That same year the US Air Force built a supercomputer from 1,760 PS3s which in ther period between 2010 and 20112 wa heralded as the 33rd most powerful supercomputer in existence.

Sony who at first cooperated with such efforts "put the kaibash on it" later in 2010 by disabling the ability to run any OpSys on their units other than their own but as proof of concept it remains fact and Moore's Law is still in effect though as predicted beginning to slow from 2 years to 2.5 years for doubling of power but will likely all but halt by 2022. Nevertheless as price will always drop with adoption, the ability to parallel more with less cost will continue well beyond 2022.

Here's an update from MIT written in 2016

--- MIT on AI Advances via Hardware ---

Edit: Fixed typo for discrepancy between 2020 and 2029, once it was kindly pointed out. Thank you.

Last edited by enorbet; 09-09-2016 at 05:03 PM.
 
Old 09-07-2016, 10:45 AM   #7106
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,277

Rep: Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Well, David McCann, it seems I'm talking apples and you're quoting pomegranates. Both of your links are to a site, though at least bearing some semblance of a scholarly effort, lie entirely under the heading in the title - Philosophy, not Science.
I quite agree. You are evidently either an advocate of scientism, or don't see the difference between scientism and science. Of philosophy, I suspect you know nothing. I regard science as a useful source of knowledge on a fairly limited range of topics, but ultimately irrational since, unlike philosophy, it cannot examine its own foundations. Not much chance of a rapprochement!
 
Old 09-07-2016, 11:49 AM   #7107
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,777
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285
Everything's made up as we go but there's still real and fairy tail... belive it or not.

Last edited by jamison20000e; 09-08-2016 at 12:25 PM. Reason: changed d to l
 
Old 09-08-2016, 06:19 AM   #7108
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,323

Rep: Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
I quite agree. You are evidently either an advocate of scientism, or don't see the difference between scientism and science. Of philosophy, I suspect you know nothing. I regard science as a useful source of knowledge on a fairly limited range of topics, but ultimately irrational since, unlike philosophy, it cannot examine its own foundations. Not much chance of a rapprochement!
Actually I am well aware of the difference and while one has to be careful about the definitions since scientism is quite often used as a "kitchen sink" perjorative on all science, I denounce scientism as religious in nature and counter-productive not to mention narrow minded and silly. Just because the physical world can be modeled doesn't mean it can be known only in such a manner. Additionally there are subjective truths that are no less meaningful and useful than objective knowledge. Anyone actually understanding Science knows that not all things can be measured and important fundamentals are altered by the process of measuring, rendering the measurement useless. Aside from particle theory how does one measure the value of a song, a sonnet or haiku, or a gorgeous autumn day? Are they any less important or beautiful? Of course not.

That said, none of this addresses the issue of whether or not a single philosophy blog can establish the validity of Vitalism or that it is impossible to create convincing human-like intelligence any other way than biological procreation.... or for that matter if a concept is valid or intrinsically not valid just because it appears in wikipedia or associated with Stanford.
 
Old 09-08-2016, 05:45 PM   #7109
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175Reputation: 3175
I think that the three points of view are complementary.

Science is a very rigorous way of thinking that is especially based on experimentation and the examination of tangible evidence. It uses a so-called "scientific method" to produce hypotheses and eventually theories. But it is blind to what it cannot see, and it is subject to being misled ... and cannot know that this has occurred.

Scientific Philosophy (or, "thinking about thinking"), explores the limits of the unknown and of the unknowable, through the use of philosophy. For example, it looks for chains of reasoning that might explain part of what is observed, and it looks for apparent contradictions. Darwin's theory of Evolution is a common example of this: starting with the readily observable evolution of species, it explores the idea of just how much of the variety of life on Earth can be explained (without apparent contradiction) by the same process. Scientific philosophy is very useful when it is not possible to observe. Quantum physics draws heavily from this, as well.

Religion, in all of its various forms, uses intuition, instinct, faith, and belief in "a higher power." We know that it has been a fixture of human life because, even if we know very little else about a culture, we can find evidence of religious practice. I have always been fond of this verse from the Christian Bible: "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) I think that it sums up the idea with great eloquence.

And, as for lil' ol' me, I'm not ready to "diss" any of these perspectives. I think that all three have their place. I think that all three are legitimate. I think that all three are a crucial part of "who we are."

Also, I'm reminded of the parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
[The parable] has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.
I suggest that the same principles apply to our "objective" experiences, as well. Although we should never stop pushing the envelope of our intellect and our science, we should not deny nor decry any of the various ways that we seek "to Know."
 
Old 09-08-2016, 06:07 PM   #7110
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,777
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285Reputation: 1285
Arrow

Religion is evolving out the door; it's not needed, real or helping (just because your mommies* told you so!).edu Why wouldn't yous pray to T-Rex or other first "gods?"
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration