BBC TV channels to add more religion

[Fusion]

If what you were saying is true then a complex enough computer simulation of intelligence should itself be self-aware and conscious which is a pretty contentious subject.

I don't actually see an ultimate reason why this couldn't happen, though it would possibly have to be provided with the same sensory inputs that we are.

There is nothing particular to brain cells that allow them to generate conscious-like properties. The precise mechanics are still to be determined, but it's only a matter of time before we get there.

 

[Rroff]

I don't actually see an ultimate reason why this couldn't happen, though it would possibly have to be provided with the same sensory inputs that we are.

There is nothing particular to brain cells that allow them to generate conscious-like properties. The precise mechanics are still to be determined, but it's only a matter of time before we get there.

It is an interesting one - when you start applying things like "nebulous awareness" to things like electrons things become quite strange (though I have a few objections to the binary way its considered by many commentators) and while you develop a potential route for matter to be self aware you also open up some rather unintended consequences of that.

 

[Fusion]

It is an interesting one - when you start applying things like "nebulous awareness" to things like electrons things become quite strange (though I have a few objections to the binary way its considered by many commentators) and while you develop a potential route for matter to be self aware you also open up some rather unintended consequences of that.

Have you read Roger Penrose's book on quantum consciousness? I'm vaguely aware of the principles, but haven't read it. I've never really subscribed to any of the postulates.

 

[Rroff]

Have you read Roger Penrose's book on quantum consciousness? I'm vaguely aware of the principles, but haven't read it. I've never really subscribed to any of the postulates.

Not sure TBH I've read a lot of material on the subject in passing but I don't tend to remember author's names.

 

[Mason-]

That isn't really the same - the parts of a car separately have their function you choose a nut as part of what makes a car because of its properties.

If what you were saying is true then a complex enough computer simulation of intelligence should itself be self-aware and conscious which is a pretty contentious subject.

Fine, but we choose what parts we pick. Through trial and error or through what we've previously learned and are thus able to predict from trial and error. If you're an advocate of natural selection you could say that amalgamations of cells are natures version of trial and error. And obviously only the right combinations have survived.

 

[Rroff]

Fine, but we choose what parts we pick. Through trial and error or through what we've previously learned and are thus able to predict from trial and error. If you're an advocate of natural selection you could say that amalgamations of cells are natures version of trial and error. And obviously only the right combinations have survived.

You are conflating two different concepts that aren't analogues - the parts of a car intrinsically have a function in their own right that makes up the whole - we don't see the same thing at the lower level mechanics of our existence - there is little evidence of those intrinsic functions that combined would work towards producing something self aware and if we superimpose what we'd expect to find if such existed at the fundamental level things get very weird in that our universe would behave very differently (plus we'd expect to see constructs of consciousness on a far bigger scale than animal).

That isn't to say there isn't a scientific answer along the lines of what you are thinking but currently we seem a long way from discovering such.

 

[Amp34]

How would we ever discover anything if we didn't believe that something might be there to go looking for?

Empirical evidence irrefutably proved the earth was flat right up until it wasn't.

There are illnesses with no known cures, that doesn't mean they are incurable. It just means that we haven't found a cure yet and as such we must have faith that our research bares fruit.

This is the problem that so many ardent atheists don’t seem to understand.

They can’t provide any evidence that god doesn’t exist, yet believe it to be the case, and don’t realise they are falling into the trap they are claiming theists are falling into.

Science doesn’t tell us whether god exists or not, all it does is provide us with theories as to why some things that used to be attributed to god happens, without the influence of a god like being.

Being an atheist is just as much about belief as most theists, and claiming science backs up your belief shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Disbelief of god isn't a position of faith, it's simply rejecting the theistic claim that he does due to insufficient evidence. I don't have faith that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, I reject the claim that does exist until proven otherwise.

That’s agnosticism, not atheism. Atheists have a belief that there is no god, not just disbelief in god.

If you don’t accept there is a god, but don’t believe there isn’t then you’re agnostic. If you don’t accept there is a god but also believe there isn’t then that’s atheism. Arguably any “intelligent, well educated” person should be agnostic, because they know they can’t prove there isn’t a god.

 

[Fusion]

I dislike the direction that these discussions often take. The onus falls on those who subscribe more heavily to method to disprove that which has no proof of existence.

The ball is in "your" (believers/agnostics) court. Convince me (and others) why we should take your theories and arguments seriously. Any point pertaining to "you can't disprove the existence of god" isn't good enough.

 

[adolf hamster]

I dislike the direction that these discussions often take. The onus falls on those who subscribe more heavily to method to disprove that which has no proof of existence.

The ball is in "your" (believers/agnostics) court. Convince me (and others) why we should take your theories and arguments seriously. Any point pertaining to "you can't disprove the existence of god" isn't good enough.

the reason it goes to that direction is because it's a tit for tat argument, believers can't prove their beliefs have any foundation and neither can disbelievers, that's what amp's on about talking about agnosticism being really the only logical position.

 

[Christmas themed thank]

OCUK is getting more tinfoil hat by the day. Christ.

 

[Fusion]

believers can't prove their beliefs have any foundation

I guess I can live with someone who admits their beliefs are baseless, though the obvious questions would be "why do you believe it?" and "don't you feel it's more logical to assume nothing, then look for proof?".

 

[adolf hamster]

I guess I can live with someone who admits their beliefs are baseless, though the obvious questions would be "why do you believe it?" and "don't you feel it's more logical to assume nothing, then look for proof?".

the mistake you're making is here is assuming humans are logical, the concept that we are the product of pure chance, that nobody cares about us, there is no greater purpose and when we die it just fades to black is pretty scary, and belief can be a great solace to people who don't want to face that fear.

i believe some day the human race is going to master intergalactic travel, i have absolutely zero basis for this and whilst it's possible there are some significant challenges in the way some of which are practically insurmountable at the moment, but i like the idea that at some point we will be able to see the whole universe.

 

[wesimmo]

One of my favourite ever websites.

 

[Mason-]

You are conflating two different concepts that aren't analogues - the parts of a car intrinsically have a function in their own right that makes up the whole - we don't see the same thing at the lower level mechanics of our existence - there is little evidence of those intrinsic functions that combined would work towards producing something self aware and if we superimpose what we'd expect to find if such existed at the fundamental level things get very weird in that our universe would behave very differently (plus we'd expect to see constructs of consciousness on a far bigger scale than animal).

That isn't to say there isn't a scientific answer along the lines of what you are thinking but currently we seem a long way from discovering such.

I think it's a perfectly fine analogy. What we're talking about is capability. You're saying that the fundamental building blocks (whatever they may be, which also falls under the assumption that they are discrete rather than continuous), don't show evidence of when assembled or organized in a certain way giving the capability of consciousness. I'm saying that a nut on it's own does not provide the capability of driving from place to place. I think you're looking too far into the analogy. Also why do the building blocks themselves need to show evidence of the capability they could have when assembled? Again... a nut, you can take it out of a car and use it on a lathe. It doesn't have a capability. When used in a certain way in conjunction with other things does. Likewise human consciousness could just be a sum or result of parts that on their own have no motive to consciousness.

Also as for consciousness itself, what is it? Being able to observe? Being able to question? Why are we conscious rather than a machine with many sensory inputs and many outputs? (Is this yet more evidence of Human arrogance? "We are something more" etc.)

Another question while we're on this subject. Inanimate objects aren't able to observe anything. Assuming humans and the life on Earth are the only things capable of observing things. If all observers are removed from the Universe, does the Universe cease to exist?

 

[Tunney]

I wonder what this extra religious programming will look like. Feature-length episodes of Songs of Praise? Thought of the Day rebranded Thought of the Hour? I guess bringing back Father Ted is logistically difficult.

 

[Rroff]

I think it's a perfectly fine analogy. What we're talking about is capability. You're saying that the fundamental building blocks (whatever they may be, which also falls under the assumption that they are discrete rather than continuous), don't show evidence of when assembled or organized in a certain way giving the capability of consciousness. I'm saying that a nut on it's own does not provide the capability of driving from place to place. I think you're looking too far into the analogy. Also why do the building blocks themselves need to show evidence of the capability they could have when assembled? Again... a nut, you can take it out of a car and use it on a lathe. It doesn't have a capability. When used in a certain way in conjunction with other things does. Likewise human consciousness could just be a sum or result of parts that on their own have no motive to consciousness.

When you look at the parts that make up a car though you can see how things go together to make the whole you can't just stick a bunch of nuts together and have a car - there are various parts with different functions that can be used towards making a car - when we look at things like elementary particles we don't see features that when put together would produce self awareness and as mentioned before if we assume it is there and super-impose it then the outcome becomes quite weird.

Another question while we're on this subject. Inanimate objects aren't able to observe anything. Assuming humans and the life on Earth are the only things capable of observing things. If all observers are removed from the Universe, does the Universe cease to exist?

Without knowing the details of whatever other reality, assuming such existed, there is no way to know.

 

[Mason-]

When you look at the parts that make up a car though you can see how things go together to make the whole you can't just stick a bunch of nuts together and have a car - there are various parts with different functions that can be used towards making a car - when we look at things like elementary particles we don't see features that when put together would produce self awareness and as mentioned before if we assume it is there and super-impose it then the outcome becomes quite weird.

Yes but what if there are multiple different fundamental discrete objects... and only together do they form consciousness. Why does there only have to be one fundamental piece?

Without knowing the details of whatever other reality, assuming such existed, there is no way to know.

Exactly as it is now. Everything is as it is. All things that can observe are gone. Does the universe exist? As an extension, when I die does the universe still exist?

 

[Rroff]

Yes but what if there are multiple different fundamental discrete objects... and only together do they form consciousness. Why does there only have to be one fundamental piece?

There isn't just one - there are several elementary particles, etc. I can see how you aren't understanding what I'm talking about if you aren't aware of that. While there is a lot we don't know about them we do have a fairly reasonable grasp of how they work and interact with each other.

 

[Amp34]

I dislike the direction that these discussions often take. The onus falls on those who subscribe more heavily to method to disprove that which has no proof of existence.

The ball is in "your" (believers/agnostics) court. Convince me (and others) why we should take your theories and arguments seriously. Any point pertaining to "you can't disprove the existence of god" isn't good enough.

That’s not how it works from an agnostic point of view, someone who holds no view on whether there is or isn’t a god, because there is no evidence to prove it either way.

It’s up to the people on both sides to prove there is or isn’t one. You both need to provide evidence to back up your assertions/beliefs. Those theists need to prove there is a god, those atheists need to prove there is no god.

The atheists refuse to acknowledge they have no evidence to back up their ideas, while admonishing those that that just as strongly believe the opposite.

Science has not proven or disproven the presence of a god and as such cannot be used by either side as the main thrust of their argument. That’s the biggest issue I have with the more devout atheists. They try and use science to back up their ideas, which IMO is no better than the most devout theist trying to use science to back up their ideas. Both are just as bad at trying to convert others to their own beliefs.

Edit: A true scientist is going to base their argument on the balance of probabilities, not absolute terms. I don’t assert there is no god for example - as I said, there’s no evidence to prove that - but for me the balance of probabilities suggests that in all likelihood a god probably doesn’t exist. The balance of probability may change depending on new evidence or a change in the weighting of the evidence however, something that cannot happen with absolutes.

 

[Rroff]

That’s not how it works from an agnostic point of view, someone who holds no view on whether there is or isn’t a god, because there is no evidence to prove it either way.

Atheists like the perspective that absence of belief in God = atheist but personally I'm not a fan of that - there is a distinction between those who've never consciously thought about whether they believe in god(s) or not, those that actively don't or won't believe in god(s) without evidence and those that are so to speak on the fence like myself.