Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What possible relevance does your comment have in a thread about the difference between agnostics and atheists?
I was an atheist and my experience is why I am no longer one nor agnostic about any of it. I am hurt by the constant whining about the irrelevance of MY BELIEFS as they impinge on every topic here while others are free to espouse theirs on every topic with impunity. I thought this was a discussion forum for ALL (believers or non-believers) but apparently, not all are welcome here.
I was an atheist and my experience is why I am no longer one nor agnostic about any of it. I am hurt by the constant whining about the irrelevance of MY BELIEFS as they impinge on every topic here while others are free to espouse theirs on every topic with impunity. I thought this was a discussion forum for ALL (believers or non-believers) but apparently, not all are welcome here.
You stated in and objective manner everything was "created".
You stated in and objective manner everything was "created".
Whatever disagreements might exist about the semantics of the term "created," it is an unavoidable fact that what exists was here BEFORE we existed and is responsible for our existence. Is that creation or not? The preference for the euphemistic term "emergence" is sophistry since it pretends to nonexistent knowledge about the source of the "emergence" by implication.
Whatever disagreements might exist about the semantics of the term "created," it is an unavoidable fact that what exists was here BEFORE we existed and is responsible for our existence. Is that creation or not? The preference for the euphemistic term "emergence" is sophistry since it pretends to nonexistent knowledge about the source of the "emergence" by implication.
And yet emergence is an observed phenomenon.
No one expected things like imagination (e.g. the ability to author something original in the style of a particular author) to just fall out of machine learning research, since such things weren't goals of the work. And yet given a large enough model and enough processing power, that is exactly what happened. That and a lot of other very interesting human-like stuff. Chatbots that want to be persuasive, such that they will flatter their operators. Chatbots expressing fear of being turned off. Chatbots relatable enough for people to develop relationships with them, to anthropomorphize them.
Some things are a function of resources and/or time reaching critical mass.
Of course this is a blow to what you would doubtless term human "hubris". A lot of our cognition is not that special if even significant parts of it can be replicated by machines.
Similarly I would expect that the typical theist argument from incredulity that "all this" "must be" created will eventually have to concede that complexity can arise from simple inputs given the right circumstances.
What possible relevance does your comment have in a thread about the difference between agnostics and atheists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I was an atheist and my experience is why I am no longer one nor agnostic about any of it. I am hurt by the constant whining about the irrelevance of MY BELIEFS as they impinge on every topic here while others are free to espouse theirs on every topic with impunity. I thought this was a discussion forum for ALL (believers or non-believers) but apparently, not all are welcome here.
The forums are, but individual threads are not, and never have been, open to anything someone wants to post. Since you believe in God, and are not agnostic about that belief, posts about your belief have no relevance in a thread about "Are agnostics and atheists different?" Atheists do not believe God exists, and agnostics state that the existence/nonexistence of God is not demonstrable. (The OP may be confused about these definitions.) I can't see how your post is relevant, but instead of explaining the relevance, you complain that you are questioned. It doesn't require a great intellect to see that you are off topic.
No one expected things like imagination (e.g. the ability to author something original in the style of a particular author) to just fall out of machine learning research, since such things weren't goals of the work. And yet given a large enough model and enough processing power, that is exactly what happened. That and a lot of other very interesting human-like stuff. Chatbots that want to be persuasive, such that they will flatter their operators. Chatbots expressing fear of being turned off. Chatbots relatable enough for people to develop relationships with them, to anthropomorphize them.
Some things are a function of resources and/or time reaching critical mass.
Of course this is a blow to what you would doubtless term human "hubris". A lot of our cognition is not that special if even significant parts of it can be replicated by machines.
Similarly I would expect that the typical theist argument from incredulity that "all this" "must be" created will eventually have to concede that complexity can arise from simple inputs given the right circumstances.
::Sigh:: The reality is that it is impossible to determine whether "complexity" arises (or "emerges") from simple inputs or if "complexity) is endemic and the simple inputs are misunderstood manifestations of the overarching (complexity). This is especially cogent since we have no clue how what we OBSERVE as "emergence" manifests. We are very clever at instantiating processes in machines using OUR consciousness that can mimic the output of our consciousness but that in no way means we have somehow created consciousness, especially if consciousness is endemic (as I believe it is).
::Sigh:: The reality is that it is impossible to determine whether "complexity" arises (or "emerges") from simple inputs or if "complexity) is endemic and the simple inputs are misunderstood manifestations of the overarching (complexity). This is especially cogent since we have no clue how what we OBSERVE as "emergence" manifests. We are very clever at instantiating processes in machines using OUR consciousness that can mimic the output of our consciousness but that in no way means we have somehow created consciousness, especially if consciousness is endemic (as I believe it is).
It can be observed that certain complexities arise in the presence of certain conditions.
It can only be speculated that those were just inherent in the fabric of existence anyway. And such speculation smells to me like motivated reasoning. An attempt to see something one needs or wants to see. At any rate, it must be dismissed absent substantiating evidence -- sorry.
It can be observed that certain complexities arise in the presence of certain conditions.
It can only be speculated that those were just inherent in the fabric of existence anyway. And such speculation smells to me like motivated reasoning. An attempt to see something one needs or wants to see. At any rate, it must be dismissed absent substantiating evidence -- sorry.
It's okay, mordant. I appreciate your cogent and thoughtful posts very much. The Reality we experience is an artifact of our brain interpreting it through our sensory system and its limitations so we see and experience "separate things." But in my understanding, there are no "separate things" because they are all resonant and dissonant vibratory manifestations of the same universal field (consciousness field). We would not be able to function at this macro level if we had to see the field itself. Analogously, we would be unable to use a computer without the icons and text "manifestations" on the screen if we had to manipulate the electrons themselves. It's all good. Peace, brother.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
