A sentient god? I don't think so.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2012, 07:51 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
I demand you purpose a method with which the hypothetical software could be stored and operational without hardware!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 07:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sentience is software. It must have hardware to run on.

No hardware, no sentience.
When talking about God people usually assert that 'He's not part of this universe' - if you have that degree of freedom, to talk of software *requiring* hardware seems a bit... restricted. *In our experience* software requires hardware...

NB I'm not bein' all wishy-washy, Vosur asked us to test-drive his argument so I'm trying to crash it into a tree...
You have succeeded. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Hey, Fst.

No.

And I used the future tense.

Hey, Vosur.

No, because neural refers to nerves in a nervous system.

That semantical argument aside, if right now we say, "Yeah, for sure only brains," it seems silly to me to, upon creating a sentient computer
to say, "for sure only brains and computers." What have we encountered that tells us that it is limited to the one or the two? This isn't to
say that the advent of AI proves that sentence can be achieved without a brain, but that our certainty may be misplaced.

For example, for a long time we've said, "only humans use language." But the evidence keeps rolling in that more and more species use language.
So why would we say, today, "OK, for sure now, only this many and no more."

Now we're learning that other species, like Noc the beluga whale can speak our language. That's remarkable and it fundamentally challenges this notion of human language exceptionalism. I'm simply suggesting that if we discover that sentience can be achieved with a completely different mechanism from the human brain, then perhaps there are more than two ways. Again, this isn't a supporting argument for the notion that there is in fact a sentient God out there, because there's no evidence for that. Just that the proposition, "Sentience requires a brain," or move the goal posts a little, "sentience requires a neural net," may be a spurious claim.





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 07:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  Um. It's not evident to me that sentience - intelligence - requires a brain. Anyway your definition of brain and sentience seem to me both to be fluid. What do you mean by sentience?

You could say that this is an argument from ignorance, but I think you're making an unsupported generalization, from 'the only sentient things I/we/the species have encountered all have brains, and damaging those brains leads to Creationism' to 'therefore all sentient things require a brain'...

Thoughts?
The fuck, you guys? It's the third time I mentioned that you can swap out the term "brain" with "complex neural systems". Seriously, I said it on the first page, post #3.

Having said that, I use the Oxford dictionary definition of sentience .

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:18 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 07:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  Um. It's not evident to me that sentience - intelligence - requires a brain. Anyway your definition of brain and sentience seem to me both to be fluid. What do you mean by sentience?

You could say that this is an argument from ignorance, but I think you're making an unsupported generalization, from 'the only sentient things I/we/the species have encountered all have brains, and damaging those brains leads to Creationism' to 'therefore all sentient things require a brain'...

Thoughts?
The fuck, you guys? It's the third time I mentioned that you can swap out the term "brain" with "complex neural systems". Seriously, I said it on the first page, post #3.

Having said that, I use the Oxford dictionary definition of sentience .
I got that. Still - swap out the term brain for complex neural system and see if what I wrote there still makes sense. As I said, I think it's an unsupported generalization. And 'able to perceive or feel things' - how do you *know* that requires a 'complex neural system' ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:23 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Mdog Wrote:...how do you *know* that requires a 'complex neural system' ?

It's kind of like saying that swimming requires fins.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Addressing the other part of the argument (which is why arguing about things we can't see is bloody futile IMHO), even if God does require a brain and brains are material - does that necessarily imply that God doesn't exist? What if he has got a giant brain? What if the universe is God's brain... Ah but you see, he sent his son to die nailed to a bit of organic matter so that other bits of organic matter can sleep easy at night knowing that they'll be OK once they stop moving and start decomposing...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2012 09:03 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Edit:
(22-11-2012 10:51 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That aside, I consider arguing about the properties of a being whose existence has yet to be proven a waste of time, hence why I don't plan to use this as an argument in a debate.
Fucking hell. I'm doing it again. Dodgy

(23-11-2012 08:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  I got that. Still - swap out the term brain for complex neural system and see if what I wrote there still makes sense. As I said, I think it's an unsupported generalization. And 'able to perceive or feel things' - how do you *know* that requires a 'complex neural system' ?
Observation, experimentation, etc. Seriously, read the thread. It's not unsupported - not even close.

(23-11-2012 08:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  Addressing the other part of the argument (which is why arguing about things we can't see is bloody futile IMHO), even if God does require a brain and brains are material - does that necessarily imply that God doesn't exist? What if he has got a giant brain? What if the universe is God's brain... Ah but you see, he sent his son to die nailed to a bit of organic matter so that other bits of organic matter can sleep easy at night knowing that they'll be OK once they stop moving and start decomposing...
Nowhere have I said that this argument proves god's nonexistence. It was supposed to prove that god cannot be sentient. That aside, "what if he has got a giant brain?" and "what if the universe is god's brain?" are both moot questions because the hypothesized god is immaterial. Brains are material and so is the universe.

(23-11-2012 08:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

No, because neural refers to nerves in a nervous system.

That semantical argument aside, if right now we say, "Yeah, for sure only brains," it seems silly to me to, upon creating a sentient computer
to say, "for sure only brains and computers." What have we encountered that tells us that it is limited to the one or the two? This isn't to
say that the advent of AI proves that sentence can be achieved without a brain, but that our certainty may be misplaced.

For example, for a long time we've said, "only humans use language." But the evidence keeps rolling in that more and more species use language.
So why would we say, today, "OK, for sure now, only this many and no more."

Now we're learning that other species, like Noc the beluga whale can speak our language. That's remarkable and it fundamentally challenges this notion of human language exceptionalism. I'm simply suggesting that if we discover that sentience can be achieved with a completely different mechanism from the human brain, then perhaps there are more than two ways. Again, this isn't a supporting argument for the notion that there is in fact a sentient God out there, because there's no evidence for that. Just that the proposition, "Sentience requires a brain," or move the goal posts a little, "sentience requires a neural net," may be a spurious claim.
I agree. If we discover that sentience can exist without a nervous system, I'll change my mind. Until then, I'll argue based on the knowledge we have gained by observing nature.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
23-11-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Trying to disprove the metaphysical with the physical is impossible.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
It's all philoso-bull anyway, KC.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: