God

PopeBeanie wrote:
Are you telling us what our purpose should be? Is entropy a goal for us to attain on purpose? I don’t see the value in this, other than from a mathematical perspective that merely explains how the universe might come to an end. At the most basic, proven level so far known as fact to us in our tiny corner of this universe, “…

[Read more]

Zweifel wrote:
It’s not at all unreasonable to think that evolution is melding biology with technology. It doesn’t have a purpose, but AI could be the next stage in wherever it’s headed. Human creations, as ghastly as many of them are,  literally come “out of nature” just as much as stars, galaxies, and biotic beings.

• Purpose (as far as def…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Well done Jordan. I have to admit, most of it is beyond me..

All that’s going on, is that:

1. We want our computer model to guess what some input is saying.
2. That model is a structure of weights, biases and activations, that can hold representations of input in (1). We store these weights and biases in one BIG_MATRIX, and…

[Read more]

Well, if one’s mind is as expansive as Edward Wittens’, then scientifically thinking about concepts without writing them down is probably okay.

If not like Witten, and lack built-in evidence, then thought experiments must be substantiated by keen research/evidence, as much as possible.

Strega wrote:
Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story on this. He had a scene where a super super computer had built a super super super one, until they had a huge (of course, size mattered in those days) computer with a huge ‘On’ switch and television cameras everywhere poised to record the first human GiantComputer interaction. They swi…

[Read more]

Tom Sarbeck wrote:
A noun (atheism) is unavoidably a verb (the act of rejecting….)? Fascinating.

Act can be a noun too: (millisecond google search result for the word act)

Unseen wrote:
“An example is presented here (See the question at the end of the thread’s OP below, for clarity):” I’m not arguing with the Edward Witten, I’m arguing with you. If you find his argument compelling, you must understand it. What is your understanding of what he is saying? (BTW, I have no idea whether or not he deserves to be called…

[Read more]

Dang Martin wrote:
Is there proof that scientists “believe” in science, with belief meaning the same for them as it does with religion?

Yes.

Notably, although scientists tend to highly concern evidence, scientists are also subject to especially that flavour of belief that ignores evidence.

Part A

An example is presented here (See the que…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

If it’s so unavoidable, there should be plenty of examples. I’m waiting.

(1)

Part A

An example is presented here (See the question at the end of the thread’s OP below, for clarity):

Genius Edward Witten, could he help intensify artificial intelligence research?

Part B

Also, many sci…[Read more]

notSimple wrote:
This sort of touches on the periodic discussions over at biologist Jerry Coyne’s blog (whyevolutionistrue) about whether we are fully deterministic or not (Jerry advocates for determinism). I’m comp sci, but not in the AI field. Nonetheless, I am still unconvinced that we are truly approaching artificial intelligence, instead we’…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
We’ve moved past Newton, though, haven’t we, which demonstrates that science doesn’t let current belief keep it from advancing. Are you going somewhere with this?

That we have “moved past” Newton, does not suddenly warrant that science could not advance at a better pace.

There is unavoidable evidence that belief facilitates that…[Read more]

Footnote correction:

Old:

Newton believed that some region of science was only calculable by God, and avoided said work. That work was later solved by an atheist, Laplace.

New:

Newton believed in absolute time (See wikipedia data), blocking him from considering a more workable theory.

That old text above was contained in a very old text file…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
1. As with the notion “theory,” “belief” is subject to a special definition when it comes to science. It is a so-called “term of art” in that regard. Unlike faith-based belief, as in religion, scientists belief consists in trusting the best explanation based on empirical evidence and proofs in terms of repeatable experiments…

[Read more]

Paper analysis complete.

Simply, the data is unavoidably, inconclusive, as is expressed in the paper itself:

Paper: “Although religion was an appropriate field of study in which to test our hypotheses, other external sources of control may operate similarly.”

Belle Rose, had you read the paper in its entirety?

If so, why did you avoid…[Read more]

Belle Rose: “No…belief is actually good for your brain….Multiple studies show this.

I had searched for a little while, and I am still unable to find scientific data showing belief being “good for the brain”.
Anyway, I had long found data showing belief’s science opposing nature:

(1)
“Half of People Believe Fake Fac…[Read more]