Why did I (an atheist) change my name legally to “God”?

Homepage Forums Science Why did I (an atheist) change my name legally to “God”?

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  God 1 month ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35504

    God
    Participant

    3 concise points why are found in the PDF document below:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342328687_Why_I_an_atheist_legally_changed_my_name_to_God

    Note: If you don’t wish to click the Research Gate Link above, see a screenshot of the 3 points below. (Although the screenshot does not contain the portion of the PDF with proof of the name change)

    Notably, Research Gate is usable by people with university email addresses, although also readable by anyone with the link in this case.

     

     

    Essentially, humans have benefited from redefining archaic things, like asthma that was once supposedly mythical in issue. We could perhaps seek to update the archaic God concept in modern terms. As I noted in the source “scientific redefinition of God by an atheist”, we could also seek to discard the God concept entirely, which would be optimal.

    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by  God.
    #35508

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I can vouch for the safety & content of the researchgate.net link. I’m also subscribed to a few topics there.

    #35515

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    @programminggodjordan, a couple years or so ago I was vexed by your reasoning wrt the reason/purpose for accelerating entropy. I still don’t get it. I see no explanation for why this, by itself would be desirable.

    This would be a good place to insert something I fundamentally believe wrt the future of AI, which is that it will be shaped by programmers and owners, who are subject to personal biases and personal motives for controlling that AI. This means any rogue programmer or owner of AI could wield unexpected powers, in their own interest, in spite of any interest of other humans. How can anyone guarantee that AI will be benevolent in spite of the designs and great powers it will have and develop on its own?

    Take for example the direction of companies like Google and Facebook, employing AI to their own advantage. Would you automatically consider everything they do with AI to be desirable for the rest of us?

    To aim this even more squarely in your court, what gives you, personally, the right to say what “purpose” is, and in a form that could usurp every other person’s decision wrt what they might think the “purpose” should be?

    #35517

    God
    Participant

    @programminggodjordan, a couple years or so ago I was vexed by your reasoning wrt the reason/purpose for accelerating entropy. I still don’t get it. I see no explanation for why this, by itself would be desirable. This would be a good place to insert something I fundamentally believe wrt the future of AI, which is that it will be shaped by programmers and owners, who are subject to personal biases and personal motives for controlling that AI. This means any rogue programmer or owner of AI could wield unexpected powers, in their own interest, in spite of any interest of other humans. How can anyone guarantee that AI will be benevolent in spite of the designs and great powers it will have and develop on its own? Take for example the direction of companies like Google and Facebook, employing AI to their own advantage. Would you automatically consider everything they do with AI to be desirable for the rest of us? To aim this even more squarely in your court, what gives you, personally, the right to say what “purpose” is, and in a form that could usurp every other person’s decision wrt what they might think the “purpose” should be?

    • One of the competing theories for the universe’s likely end, namely the heat death, states that entropy will eventually be maximized.
    • That is what that paper of mine occurred on 🙂

    Regarding Google, they seek to engineer AGI/human level ai, which aligns nicely with my hypothesis above.

    Unfortunately for humans in general, i.e. even Google themselves may not be working towards their own ultimate benefit.

    As I pointed out on page 9 of the hypothesis:

    This grand purpose (of the human species) I refer to seems to lean more in the direction of a “Darwinian-like” cycle (compared to Dawkins’ treatment), because my hypothesis offsets within the realm of entropy maximization, that the human species seeks to enable the survival of general intelligence, which may not necessarily warrant the communication of human aligned genes, nor ultimately value human activities that lend to the survival of the human species, as humans draw nearer and nearer to inventing Artificial General Intelligence. (Artificial General Intelligence is a form of artificial intelligence, that shall likely generate more entropy than humans, in the form of more cognitive tasks.)

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.