Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 63 of 63

Thread: Take the atheist challenge

  1. #61
    Speak of Ideas, not of things Prisme's Avatar

    Talking HA!

    You see!?!

    Riley said:
    "I don't know where you got this statement..."

    I knew that I was clear enough.

  2. #62
    Originally posted by drnihili
    Too bad Jesus didn't say anything about not taking quotes out of context. You'll notice I did not say she was a hypocrite. I said:
    I don't know everything He said, nor do you, who knows... maybe he did?
    If you think your way of dealing with other people is pleasing to your God, and if you would be happy to see your children follow suit, then by all means continue. Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.
    'If' connotes uncertainty, therefore your statement has a double meaning, in essence, because no one knows anything personal about Flores except... God himself? Therefore if it goes one way you were doing the thing that disgusts you so much, if the other way you weren't. However, you sure covered for both possibilities in which case you still did it. Do better next time please.

  3. #63
    In search of Immortality Cris's Avatar

    Creating a conscious machine would only add probability to the argument of design for no such sentient machine could have ever been possibly created on its own (by natural processes of evolution.)
    You appear to be erroneously excluding man and man’s intelligence from nature. Man is part of nature and has evolved to have intelligence; hence intelligence is part of evolution. The use of that intelligence to build complex machines is still a function of nature and evolution.

    The evolutionary arrival of a conscious machine will be the result of natural evolution where the role of man was that of a catalyst and not a creator.

    But let’s not deceive ourselves that man will tomorrow design a conscious machine. I suspect such a machine is inevitable but it will take man many attempts to make it work. The whole process will yet again be an evolutionary process, with many rejects and errors, in a very similar way that the electronic computer has evolved over the past 60 years and is still evolving.

    There is a temptation to consider man as something special, but he is not. In terms of the evolutionary history of life man is a very recent arrival and the evolution of intelligence probably means that he will not stay as he is for very long since he is already starting to take control of the next stages in his own evolution, e.g. genetic engineering.

    Even if the machine ever truly becomes conscious (not programmed to act consciously) then their would be another problem: how would consciousness be possible without a programmer?
    (programmer: individual that places all the parts together and organized their harmonious interdependance and capability of recognition between each part)
    If you teach a child to ride a bike are you then always responsible for ensuring the child maintains correct balance and control. No of course not. All you have done is initiated a sequence and the child has adapted and learnt and becomes independent.

    The key components of the human brain are its ability to learn and adapt. The key components of an AI machine will have similar capabilities. The human brain comprises essentially a very simple mechanism, the neuron. But when 200 billion of them interact with each other and form patterns then what you see is “consciousness”. Note that all your brain patterns weren’t programmed; they were formed gradually over time from the time your brain first formed inside the womb. A new born baby has very few capabilities since those complex neural networks haven’t formed.

    An AI machine only needs the essential learning seed for it to grow just like a human brain. It is the development of such seeds that are the focus of much development in the field of AI.

    Thus the two problems still remain:

    1- How was OUR consciousness 'made\originated'?
    The basic mechanism (the neurons) evolved and sensory input allowed them to learn.

    2- Is outside interference necessary to create such consciousness?
    No, only sensory input.

    In the event of a conscious machine, we would not be able to answer any of these two questions in the favor in which you proclaim... it would certainly go in the opposite direction.
    I hope I have convinced you otherwise.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts