Doesn't artificial intelligence completely BTFO religion? The contention is that because man is a reasoning animal, this reason must come from the divine, ergo it is the soul. However, we have built machines that can "reason" in some rudimentary fashion, or even more complicated ways so that they can perform image classification, object avoidance, facial recognition, optimizing stock options and so on. These machines did not exist in the times when religions became popular, nor could have been fathomed by those that lived then. If those machines can reason by means of their mechanics alone, this then brings into view the notion that we ourselves are machines, machines of organic matter and chemistry, and that our consciousness is a result of our own machinery, rather than some divine essence. Throughout history religion has just been packpedaling and backpedaling, nowadays they'll probably say "ah, but God assembled that biological machinery", when in the past they were claiming something completely different.
>>74348329
What if we created an AI that started making implications of God?
Would you then shuteth the fuck up?
AI doesn't exist
>>74348410
>What if we created an AI that started making implications of God?
It would be ok, computers fuck up and have errors all the time, just like humans.
>>74348410
Wouldn't an AI make implications about mankind in the same way mankind makes implications about God?
>>74348329
>"Surely this will end religion" says increasingly nervous fedora for 7th time today.
No seriously, if anything it only confirms that intelligent life can only come from an intelligent source, and massive amounts of data cannot simply accidentally themselves into existence. This has been the argument for a long time pal. Knowing that consciousness comes from some yet unfound source within our biological machinery doesn't refute religion, it just enlightens us on the origin of consciousness and leaves us in wonder that such a machine could be made from organic material.
Make a human from scratch, and then I'll be willing to concede something maybe. and NO I don't mean cloning.
>>74348329
>doesn't artificial intelligence completely btfo religion
Does artificial intelligence exist?
And a bot that can mimic phrases doesn't count
>>74348571
Nice delusion you got there
>>74348995
>massive amounts of data cannot simply accidentally themselves into existence
Over 4 billion years of constant minute improvements they can.
>Make a human from scratch, and then I'll be willing to concede something maybe. and NO I don't mean cloning.
But that's how all life came into being and that's what cloning is. One cell grows into an organism, passes a cell on, that cell grows into another organism.
>it just enlightens us on the origin of consciousness and leaves us in wonder that such a machine could be made from organic material
That's just the kind of backpedaling I was talking about. There's no "leaving in wonder" when you have the faculty of reason to pry into things.
>>74348995
who made the intelligent source that made humans/intelligent life?
>>74348995
> if anything it only confirms that intelligent life can only come from an intelligent source, and massive amounts of data cannot simply accidentally themselves into existence
Forgot one last point: why does that intelligent source have to be "divine" or as described by any religion? What if it's just aliens?
>>74348329
Perhaps it BTFO the supernatural aspects of religion.
But not religion itself.
>>74348329
IMO the biggest problems they're going to have with AI is political correctness. If it thinks objectively an AI will definitely be racist and probably right wing.
>>74348329
What if humans were created artificially by a more intelligent species?
>>74349275
What if aliens are devine?
Religion is not based on logic, reason or proof, thus nothing can btfo it
>>74349326
I mean, if they ever do create an advanced AI, ask it how to solve world hunger and it goes STOP SENDING AID that's going to cause them some issues.
How do you teach an AI how to doublethink?
>>74349265
>implying anyone knows
>>74349265
God obviously.
And god has always existed.
>>74349580
>how do we end world hunger?
>>DESTROY ALL ORGANIC LIFE
And that's how skynet formed
>>74348329
maybe that's the next evolutionary step, since we reached our 'final' biological form, given that we start to maintain a functioning environment without creating real physical dangers our bodies need to adept to, the only thing that's left for us is social evolution as in reaching one perfect form of political system that can be maintained on a global level. After that, what's left? it'll be either genetic engineering or robotic engeneering as a form of forced evolution which doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of a higher being
>>74349684
uh, yeah. but seriously how would an AI be able to hold two opposite, contradictory beliefs as true like liberals do?
>police officers are violent racist murderers
>but only police should have guns
If they ever make an Ai the biggest challenge will be to teach it how to be so fucking retarded
>>74349239
You're making the assumption that the cell already exists though. A living cell either cannot accidentally form on its own, can but us extremely unlikely, or cannot even form with help. Not only the jump from inorganic matter to organic matter to life, but also from single-celled life to multicellular life, is such an impossible leap that you have to admit sounds extremelyyyy unlikely.
>>74349265
>If there is an eternal, all powerful being surely somebody must have created him right? Hah theists btfo!
>>74349275
All depends on what you put your faith in I suppose. But as the guy above said, where did the aliens come from then?
Not really, I've had long philosophical discussions on the matter of intelligence in the universe, and it always ends in arguments that existence itself can be classified as 'God'. Now this doesn't pertain to the gods in religions, just that the very idea of anything existing and particularly in the form as is presented to us (the universe) has to have had an initial condition that allowed for physical laws and space to exist.
I consider myself an atheist, and I don't think the belief that 'something' had to create existence is at fault with that belief.
>>74349433
What if they're not
What if we're just a bunch of really complex self-replicating machines who think we're much more important and special than we really are
>>74350413
That would be fine since a divine source created those machines
>>74348329
true AI wont be real
robots will always respond to with same answer to question, they cant come up with their own theories and philosophy from thin air
>>74349906
>>74349622
so life and the universe is too complex and must've been created by god, but god doesnt need a creator...because you say so?
>>74350744
Because He said so, actually
>>74350854
is being gullible better than being stupid?
>>74348329
>religious people
>reasoning
These people cannot into rational discussion, OP. Religious faith is a mental illness.
>>74349239
So you're telling me a feminist programmer can say, "hello world" if they were given 4 billion years to figure it out?
You're shitting in your wheaties dude.
>>74349275
The whole alien thing is the exact same thing as religion. You fedoras are so desperately contrarian that even when you're agreeing with someone you find a way to try and argue.
>>74350896
I'll defer to your expertise
>>74348329
I would think the possibility of biological immortality would do that more, considering it is kind of a direct fuck you to god.
>>74350902
>facial expression
I kek'd
>>74348329
AI will never reach human levels. Computers simply lack the ability and always will.
See:
>Chinese Room thought experiment.
>>74350413
This. The Stoics knew this 2000 years ago, why can't retards who were brought up with religion accept this today?
>>74350604
>robots will always respond to with same answer to question, they cant come up with their own theories and philosophy from thin air
t. expert in AI and machine learning
40 years ago people like you were telling us that machines will never recognize a face.
>>74348442
This is true.
I work with computers. There is no AI.
There's nothing to refute or prove here. AI is simply not real.
>>74350964
>The whole alien thing is the exact same thing as religion.
No it isn't, because we don't worship aliens or believe they are supernatural.
>>74348329
The only artificial intelligence around here is yours.
>>74348329
lol fucking emptyfags who feel that the innermost depths of their being is the ability to reason like a machine, and that's what a "soul" is to them.
god you must be absolutely miserable!
>>74353656
>I work with computers.
So you're either a code monkey or an "IT guy", or at worst a cashier that uses a computer. and that makes you an expert on AI and the new stuff that's coming out on deep learning? Machine intelligence will eventually cross the uncanny valley and very soon, deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY
We're already at robots that can walk in the woods and pick up objects.
>>74353858
>god you must be absolutely miserable! I can't even imagine how someone can be happy without made-up bullshit like God xD
Yeah, how indeed, when they live a life as empty and bereft of good as yours.
>>74353719
Better to have artificial intellect than none, as in your case.
>>74353858
I wasn't quoting myself but Marcus Aurelius, who believed that just as we are composed of various elements, the faculties of reason also derive from God. He also believed in the existence of gods. However, if reason can be created by assembly and mechanistically, wherefore is the need for a soul in this?
>>74348329
science is nowhere near approximating anything like actual artificial intelligence, so you have no basis for discussion.
most of the breathless boasts and reports are cold-fusion level flack promotion
>>74353884
These machines have been programmed to do these tasks, they're not self-aware. No one even knows what consciousness eally is or how it arises, and the idea of it being created in a robot is science fiction for the forseeable future. When most scientists talk about AI referring to machines being able to drive cars, play GO, etc. no creating an actual sentient being.
>>74354903
You can simulate sentience and self-awareness. Machines are even more aware of themselves than we are since they know what resides in every part of their memories at any time.
The way machine learning works isn't by some programmer putting in rules or directly programming it. The machine instead has a blank model inside of it, which is then exposed to hundreds if not thousands of examples which then shape its model. This is called "training". No human being actually knows what's inside the model and if we did it would be meaningless to us (it's just a bunch of numbers inside of a matrix used in some kernel function). It then uses this model to make decisions on new information it hasn't been exposed to before (for example classification).
>When most scientists talk about AI referring to machines being able to drive cars, play GO, etc. no creating an actual sentient being.
There are obviously attempts at doing this, ever heard of the Turing test? Companion robots?
I work at an AI company. They have one that has the reasoning capabilities of a 5 year old and on occasion needs to be reset because it starts to think it's human.
>>74354566
Actually we are. But in any case, suppose we were at that stage. Would your sky-daddy be then BTFO?
>>74355276
Stories?
>>74355338
All I'm willing to share is look up Wired magazine stories on the subject in the last year.
>>74355410
Are you religious?
>>74355657
Buddhist.
>>74355774
Fan of Lobsang?
>>74355410
>>74355774
Can you recommend me some good materials, either textbooks, online lectures, webpage guides/"how to"s, or courses on artificial intelligence? I tried Norvig and Russell's textbook but it's so long and slow I gave up. Need something less wordy, more to the point and hands-on, like a webpage blogpost.
For example this guide on simulated annealing was useful for me:
http://www.theprojectspot.com/tutorial-post/simulated-annealing-algorithm-for-beginners/6
Thanks
>>74348410
ooomg imagine that
>>74355810
>Lobsang
Never heard of him before now. Fan of Wirathu.
>>74355774
Do you believe in a God and that God created us on this Earth, gave us rules to follow and that we have a soul?
>>74355973
No. Buddhism is pretty much the opposite of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence
>>74355904
Lobsang as in the Terry Pratchett character by the way.
>wirathu
There are no words to express the amount of cringe I'm undergoing right now.
>>74356051
What do you think of Stoicism? Been reading The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius lately.
Computers don't have concepts, they have symbols which stand for concepts.
Computers can't think, they can only manipulate symbols which signify thoughts.
Looking at a robot behave "intelligently" and then calling it intelligent, is like looking at a piece of paper with correct arithmetic written on it and saying that the paper is good at mathematics.
The essence of the intellect is to know reality or being. The intellect reflects the light of being, just as the glass mirror reflects physical light. Computers have no intellect, no access to being itself. The light of being/reality never shines upon them.
>>74356307
Love it. Very close to the teachings of the Buddha.
>>74356365
Nice. What can I read from Buddhism?
>>74355973
The Creator made all things out of nothing. Christians return to the Creator, Buddhists return to the nothing.
>>74356354
>>74356458
Why am I not surprised that the same moron makes the same moronic posts.
>>74348995
>>74348329
You used ergo... stopped reading.
>>74356499
you just revealed yourself a moron
>>74356516
honestly this tb.h fa.m
>>74354903
The greatest thing that confuses you people about consciousness is that you don't realize you're the thing you're describing. For fuck's sake, the only reason it seems so special to you is because it's you. I can look at you and pretend you're a robot and consider you just as much dead on the inside as a robot. You might think, "well I know I'm here so I'm alive", but not anyone outside of that frame of reference.
>>74356431
Wikipedia, Julius Evola, Edward Conze, Payutto.
>>74356668
This.
>>74356781
>Julius Evola
Did you/do you post on anus.com?
>>74356823
no.
>>74348329
>However, we have built machines that can "reason" in some rudimentary fashion, or even more complicated ways so that they can perform image classification, object avoidance, facial recognition, optimizing stock options and so on
You are so woefully ignorant it's hard to even pick a spot to begin to describe how wrong that is.
>reason
>image recognition
It's literally feeding bits through a mathematical equation and getting a number out. This is "reasoning" in the same way that a fucking and gate is "reasoning."
>>74356859
Thank God. I'll read what you mentioned. What about for >>74355895 ?
>>74356926
computers can be taught reasoning and thought. it's just a matter of engineering time.
>>74348571
That is some serious delusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUV4CSs0HzI&list=PLftzcs-q3kU7pR8s8S6_LkyH6Y_fe1BWm&index=1 - Creation Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAp6KUwEBZs - Dead Sea Scrolls OT and NT before 68 AD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIrZZHC27QQ - Extra Biblical Sources of Jesus in History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Zb5AhU0eI - Biblical Archeology [Stones of Israel] With Don Patton Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljv4eKEHYD4 - New Testament Archaeology With Don Patton Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTdKznTA9iY&list=LLbRgQ9CvqoVGflKZ0X2P2fA&index=1 - Exploration of The City of David in Jerusalem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHofTmolbi0 - 06 - The Resurrection of Jesus by Tim McGrew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrSkikZhxI&nohtml5=False - Jericho Found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2xv3XwOVaQ - Ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah Found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sA8nloFLbs - Pharaoh's Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As_tG_rxTaI&nohtml5=False - 40 Archaeology Facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8 - The Creation Model vs Evolution Model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AVxRVXHYqo - The History and the facts about The Ark of Noah Dr. Don Patton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPTcnZXN8WY&nohtml5=False - Creation Astronomy: The Heavens Declare the Glory of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9_o7NGTkJc - Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5o4WGPzqE - David Lines Interview - Many more interviews on that channel.
Also. God has already won.
>>74356926
Apparently the words "rudimentary" and "complicated" are lost on you. Ok meister, what is reasoning according to you? What do you call it when a computer uses a complicated heuristic to beat a human at chess? And no it's not just "built in rules".
>You are so woefully ignorant
Says the guy who knows nothing about AI.
>>74348329
Life is a cycle, we are products of a people before us. AI is simply us re discovering the rudimentary pieces of becoming a god. Soon computers will become indistinguishable from flesh and we will achieve the perfection of nature.
>>74357022
>implying I'm going to waste my time with that ancient-aliens tier bullshit
People like you on 4chan are just trolls, right?
>appending Dr. to any of those scumbags
Yeah, just like "Dr." Kent Hovind, right?
>>74348329
what if you create AI and it is completely immoral, it steals, lies, has no pricks of conscience, ruthlessly tries to gain supremacy and eliminate mankind.
Would it be a proof too?
Also human can be gullible, stupid, reckless, silly, naive. Would you like to REALLY duplicate it
>>74348329
a machine can not reason. It is a machine that follows instructions based on input and it does it in a way it is programmed to do.
>>74356956
There's one titled Artificial Intelligence I like but I don't have the authors names, sorry.
>>74353618
They still don't recognize a face ll the time
>>74348329
No.
Your just a retarded brainlet that has no idea how real AI or computers work.
>>74357204
there's no arguing with these people, they worship their machine god blindly out of their own want to become machine gods, perfect without reason for insecurity
>>74357259
Ok. Give it time.
>>74357204
Maybe if your definition of a machine is from the 1930s. See what I said about machine learning here >>74355253. Neural nets and perceptrons were already big in the 60s, they just didn't have the computers powerful enough to use them like we do.
>>74357224
Is it this one? It's the one I was talking about.
>>74348329
True artificial intelligence doesn't exist. If it ever starts existing humanity will stop existing shortly after.
A true AI wouldn't take "time" to learn, it would be able to learn everything in a ridiculously short amount of time and then it'd terminate humanity because in a flight or fight situation it wouldn't be able to choose flight.
>>74348410
Cyber autism
>>74353618
AI might be possible some day, but achieving it has more to do with understanding how the human mind works and a lot less with modern robotics, heuristics, machine learning, etc.
>>74349433
>What if aliens are devine?
That would explain a lot.
>>74357014
>computers can be taught reasoning and thought
>computers
>taught
You don't teach a computer anything, you give it a program and it runs through it.
>>74357096
>complicated heuristic
This is no different from a shitload of if statements.
>And no it's not just "built in rules".
If you don't let the machine learn and you do the same moves every time, the result will be the same every time. Those are literally the built in rules.
The difference between natural and artificial intelligence is that one came from environment and the other came from man. True artificial intelligence that has a personality will be practically human in regards to sociability.
>>74357096
>What do you call it when a computer uses a complicated heuristic to beat a human at chess?
Meaningless, because the only thing that computer can do is beat a human in chess. It cannot spontaneously decide to use that heuristic to solve other problems it encounters.
It has all the self-awareness and agency of a stone rolling down a hill.
>>74348329
If we had truly life like A.I.. it would just about prove it. The soul, being separate from the body, therefore the body just being a thing we inhabit. The soul being not bound to the body.
>>74348995
We Can make humans from scratch you got dam retard, its calld fucking. If that doesnt cut it for you then we can clone humans. If it were legal that is...
>>74359511
There is no soul. The buddha proved this with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta (no-self) ages ago.
>>74356668
/thread
>>74348329
>Implying AI will ever exist
>>74356668
Yea we get it "can't prove consciousness wow guys" but calculators are literally just electronic 1's and 0's. If I had to say a difference between animals and computers it's that animals have much more complexity and chemicals than simply 1's and 0's, they're a lot more random than that.
>>74348329
>It is another /pol/ does not understand AI episode
>>74357393
>Give it time
The very nature of how it recognize faces is entirely mathematical such that by manipulating certain pixels you can easily trick the neural net
>>74348329
>implying true AI is possible
>>74361157
>implying it isn't
>>74354903
But anon they are already self aware, but not sentient.
itt: anon doesn't do maths and likes mooviez
>>74357022
>Ph.D creationists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyKaH09lpc
