Why computers* will not become self aware.

I don't share your pessimism.

 

The same thing is documented to happen with people who are comatose due to severe medical problems.

The fact that a dentist doesn't claim to know how it happens or spend the time to explain how it happens does not mean that God did it.

What it means is that anesthesia does not totally shut down all brain function.

And, we already KNEW that, because if your brain were to be totally shut down, you would be DEAD.

Anesthesia is a major medical field. It's history is grim, obviously. But, today chemicals are introduced such that very specific PARTS of a brain are slowed or stopped while the rest of the brain remains fully functional and no part is permanently damaged - so you don't just die.

There is NO justification for declaring that to be supernatural.

The administered chemicals are not invoking God.

 

God? I believe in no such thing. Where do you get that idea?

Supernatural? Where do I make that claim? I said 'matter-of-fact' remember? Not 'supernatural'. I do not believe in supernatural. In my universe, if it exists, it's natural. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'.

All I can say to you is this, if it happened to you, I guarantee you would be singing a different tune.

Just as it did for this Harvard Trained, Brain Surgeon. Now, I never experienced what this man experienced, but I'm not
going deny his claim because the only thing I understand are test tubes and molecules. I'll keep an open mind on it.

 

when my wife worked in Neuro surgery, the need to keep patients anesthetised very lightly for some procedures lead to many cases of patients saying they could hear the conversations going on during surgery. Indeed staff had to be aware what they were saying so as not to stress the patient. Many patients described the experience as out of body.
My wife was not a brain surgeon, but a Neuro radiographer

 

Yes, it's not that uncommon.

 

Whatever you want to call it, your description of "soul" IS supernatural.

The catch here is that there is no evidence of "soul" and there IS evidence for solutions that do not include a "soul".

That describes the divide between religion and science.

This is what Galileo faced.

Like with Galileo, science today doesn't answer questions of religion - questions of the supernatural, of possible "after life", etc.. It has no way of doing that. Thus I don't reject your religious views. However, science has proven to be a FAR superior methodology for determining how this universe works.

 

I don't allow my beliefs to deny science, let's get that straight.

Science doesn't get into anything it can't measure, perceive with instruments, or extrapolate in some way, predict, etc.

Science didn't detect evidence yesterday that it can today, so yesterday, did you say, 'there is no evidence'?

No, the more scientific thing to say is ' there is no evidence of late'.

To say, 'there is no evidence' connoting 'there never will be evidence' is arrogant. No one can possibly know that.

For anyone in science to assert they know how things work, that is one thing, but let's be humble about it.

No one knows the full scope of what could be known, and no one knowns how deep the depths are in order to find the major secrets of the universe, they could be near, or thousands of years away in our scientific development.

For me, 'supernatural' means 'outside of the natural'.

To me, that's a kind of oxymoron, because, the way I think, if it exists, then nature allows it, and if nature allows it, it's natural. Therefore, everything that is, is natural. If ghosts are real, they are natural. They are natural IF they are real.

 

?? Saying "there is no evidence" means there is no evidence. Saying "there will never BE evidence" is how one might make statement about the future (if one is an idiot, of course!).

I agree that is a way of talking about the supernatural.

However, it is not helpful in dividing between science and its methodologies, assumptions, etc., and religious methodologies, assumptions, etc.

Unfortnately, science and religion use a lot of the same terms, but have very diffrent definitions - besides having starkly contrasting root assumptions upon which they build conclusions.

So, one can use religous versions and say "there is a soul" with no concern about being disproven - since there is no possibility of testing for the existence of a "soul", obviously.

However inside science you can not even write an hypothesis that refers to a "soul" for reasons fundamental to science.

That happened with the geocentric vs. heliocentric cosmologies. The religious declared Earth to be the center with god moving stuff around. Copernicus had a different model that answered all the same questions, but didn't depend on there being a god. Science couldn't make a statement until a hundred years later when Galileo could develop evidence acceptable by scientific limits.

The church answer? They put him on trial as an apostate. If he hand't been old, their standard procedure was to torture him until he "confessed".

Today, scientific models of how our brains work are substantial enough to indicate answers to questions of consciousness that can't be proven yet, but certainly do NOT depend on magic. So, resorting to that magic just isn't justified.

This come close to the question of why science can legitimately continue if the answer is declared to be "god did it"?

 

I have always stated that "supernatural" and/or "paranormal" are simply catch-all symbols for those things we cannot yet explain. As Clarke once put it, any science/technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic to a lesser society. I am paraphrasing to a small degree, because I don't remember the exact words and I don't feel like looking it up.

With the rest of what you are saying, I think Heinlein put it excellently in many of his novels. Three come to mind; Number of the Beast, The Search for the Panekera, and Children of Methuselah. There are parts in there that describe how science and mathematics don't always describe things accurately in layman's terms, and that there are plenty of times people assume things with no actual data by which to reach the conclusion they have. He also points out that just because you cannot explain an event, that doesn't mean that the event did not factually occur.

 

Amen. I really like that Clarke quote.

And, it's certainly applicable today.

 

I think it's safe to say that if there were a methodology of proof or disproof in religion, we would have FAR fewer religions and FAR fewer branches of Christianity.

Theologians of the various religions could come together and use such methodology to determine what is false - perhaps somewhat like methos so central in science.

In that case, results must be duplicated and reviewed and if important at all, are under constant testing - often with the keen desire to disprove the idea.

Do you have ANY idea how disappointed physicists have been concerning the failure of the CERN superconducting supercollider FAILING to smash the current standard model of physics?

Not only are the methods different, but the whole attitude is different.

 

I do not concern myself with God, and I do not believe in 'intelligent design', because the evidence is way against it. Moreover, it doesn't even make sense. I do believe, however, that life has a spiritual basis, but it's not a 'supreme being', it's more like one of the forces, like energy, gravity, etc.

i do not believe in magic, though some things seem magical.

I understand that you can't mix the two, spiritual and science.

I also understand that If science proves a belief is wrong, one should modify the belief.

You take the position that if science has an alternate explanation, you should go with the alternate explanation.

That would only make sense to someone who didn't share the same experience.

If I hadn't experienced an OOBE, I'd probably go with your explanation.

I make sure that whatever I believe, does not conflict with science, that what I believe, no proof for or against has been provided.

 

My view of ID, gravity, etc., is that there is NO way to test that God isn't doing it. Man can not test God (or spirit or other supernatural elements).

An all powerful being could be moving stuff around according to some pattern we recognize, etc. A all powerful being could send an x-ray to zap a gene in some sperm at some critical moment. God could be manufacturing photons streaming at Earth in such a way that it looks like there are galaxies millions of light years away, thus allowing for young Earth.

Man can not test god.

The best we can do is that we can have effective description that don't require miracles. What would be the justification for adding something as stupendous as miracles as a presumed necessary component?

When science is the appropriate tool set, I reject the idea of insisting on a spiritual/religious explanation simply because a scientific explanation can't be tested today or because of lack of knowledge by me or anyone else.

Leaping to a supernatural explanation essentially kills science. Why would I explore if I had already jumped to "a soul did it" or "a spirit did it" simply based on the fact that I don't have a fully testable answer? Why would Copernicus have continued to research if he had accepted the "god does it" explanation of geocentric cosmology.

 

isn't quantum physics shaking things up?

 

Your making an argument I haven't made. I'm not arguing for God, or 'God did it'. Those ideas, to me, are illogical.

I don't view the concept that life has a spiritual basis as 'supernatural'. I view that concept concomitant to other forces, gravity, energy, etc.

The only reason I believe is that, when I meditate, when I play my piano, when I look a child, or a dog, in the eye, I sense it.

Because I sense it, I believe there is a spiritual basis to life. If science proves otherwise, I'll change my view.

If I hadn't sensed it, I wouldn't believe it.

 

I'm not a pessimist...I'm a realist...

 

Not at this moment you are not. We are both speculating on the unknown, there is no real to be realistic about.

 

Yes. But, QM is more like a methodology that works rather than an explanation of why it works. It shows current knowledge is incomplete.

 

No problem.

I think it has more to do with methodology. You can include anything you want in your system of belief/religion.

 

I didn't speculate on anything? All I asked are questions...

 

I disagree this
In an AI application, how critical to mankind is the AI allowed to take action...like killing an enemy? Over time will this AI modify the definition of 'enemy'? We don't yet know.
is pure speculation. No questions asked. And its implication is pessimistic. And optimistic speculation would be,
I wonder if AI will bring peace to the world, solve hunger and war. The only prospect for AI you ever discuss is when it will start killing people.

 

A.I. could help us agree on objectivity and practicality. It could be an immense aid in policy formation and goal setting. It could aid in litigation. There are many possible applications. Totally turning over existence to anything (or anyone!) is not something lightly to be undertaken and certainly to be avoided where it involves unproven technology.

 

I agree. Imagine an opinion unaffected by greed or pride or desire to fit in.

 

We could most certainly use that!

 

How long before we just told it to shut up.