Maybe. But are they predictable? And what does that have to do with the OP?Nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic. — 180 Proof
Maybe. But you just hit one into the net. :joke:Charitably, G, you've been playing tennis without a net for a long ... long ... long ... time. :clap: — 180 Proof
That's exactly why Pantheists and PanEnDeists equate G*D with Nature. As Spinoza concluded, "god sive nature" : god or nature, same thing -- no distinction. The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. Multiverse enthusiasts assume the latter, but they have no empirical evidence to support their faith in eternal Nature. :smile:but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place! — TheMadFool
The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. — Gnomon
Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke:The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think? — TheMadFool
Atheist = God — Gnomon
Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke: — Gnomon
life that we know of came about maybe 10 billion or so years after the Big Bang (the known/observable universe) — jorndoe
apart from ourselves, the world seems rather indifferent to us and our concerns — jorndoe
However, had not the Big Bang resulted in precisely the balance of atomic forces that eventuated then there would be no matter, therefore no universe. — Wayfarer
Which is a judgement. — Wayfarer
I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle — Wayfarer
I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from Amazon recently, just so I'd have a copy in my library. It's an enormous book, 738 pages, with mountains of footnotes and references. — Wayfarer
By the way, a case can be made that if god doesn't exist, intelligence and even consciousness has to be/could be an illusion. After all, if pure random chance can produce wonders (universe, life) that some sections of the population believe could only have been the handiwork of a conscious intelligence (god) - the two can't be told apart - it follows, right?, that conscious intelligence and unconscious non-intelligence are indistinguishable and Leibniz claimed the identity of indiscernibles. :smile: So, is consciousness an illusion? Daniel Dennett should take a look at this argument. — TheMadFool
Of course it is. Because the principle was observed from the perspective of humans. Everything people do is anthropocentric. What else would you expect : simian-centric? theo-centric? Science is supposed to aim for purely objective and unbiased observations and conclusions : the "view from nowhere". But, pure objectivity would be God's point of view from outside the universe, and outside the human body. Moreover, the term itself was coined and used by scientists, until its implications of divine design raised furious criticism. :smile:An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias — 180 Proof
Can you elaborate on your notion of..." can't be told apart"? — 3017amen
A discussion in another thread with 180 Proof revolved around mind and intelligence. 180 Proof said something to the effect that evolution is intelligent in that it suggests an optimum strategy given the volatile situation of the enviroment. Nonetheless, he refused to accept the involvement of a mind behind evolution citing AI as instances of intelligence sans minds. — TheMadFool
My response was to present a a gedanken experiment using the Turing test. Suppose you're interacting (say playing chess) with something that's hidden from view by a curtain. You examine the moves and come to the conclusion that your opponent is intelligent. Based on this piece of information (the entity behind the curtain is intelligent) alone can you infer whether your opponent has a mind (a human player) or doesn't have a mind (AI)? The answer is a big NO!. Why? Both humans (having minds) and AI (having no minds) possess intelligence and so you won't be able to tell which is which. Mind - No mind equivalency. — TheMadFool
The same argument works for evolution which bears all the marks of intelligence and so, based on this single data point, one won't be able to infer whether evolution is the product of a mind or is like AI, mindless. Hence, with nothing to go on but signs of intelligence, evolution with a mind at the helm and evolution with no such thing "...can't be told apart..." — TheMadFool
the "view from nowhere"— Gnomon
... is better (e.g. relativity).a "view from wherever" — Gnomon
You say that like being human is a bad thing. Are you a misanthrope?Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;) — jorndoe
He's very sensitive about justification of his atheism — 3017amen
Unless I'm misinterpreting the analogy, generally speaking Turing machine algorithms (patterns) have a lower complexity (see OP) versus that of higher complexity. In theory, while biological systems can emerge from very long, complicated chain of events and evolutionary processes, we still have a very large leap from not only explaining why the laws of physics has no evolutionary competition, but to explaining how consciousness emerges from matter. — 3017amen
Wouldn't self-awareness itself, be able to poke holes in the analogy? In other words, you would have to ask the AI thing-in-itself to prove it lives inside of a computer simulation. We then, are seemingly no better off in determining the reality of its existence, right? — 3017amen
He comes off as a person of great erudition. It's great to have him in the forum. I hope to keep learning from him...and others too. — TheMadFool
did think about that. There seems to be an unfounded assumption in thinking that AI isn't conscious because, as we all know, by that token even human consciousness is uncertain insofar as other minds are the issue. We infer consciousness in other people - other minds - not by some kind of direct access to their consciousness (impossible as of the moment) but through how they behave and of the the cues we keep an eye out for is intelligence. In other words, a big clue, at least we think it is, that indicates the presence of consciousness (minds) is intelligence. Compare this with the intelligence AI demonstrate by beating us at our own game as it were. Shouldn't we extend AI the same courtesy and deem them as conscious too? :chin: — TheMadFool
The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity enough to allow for consciousness, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is indeed far from absurd. — 3017amen
most creation stories are denominated myth — tim wood
consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.) — 3017amenHow does this work? — tim wood
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system. — 3017amen
What if self consciousness starts with memories? Recognition of the self comes from analyzing remembered events and assigning cause and effect. Sometimes the self is a cause and sometimes it's affected. Either way it's always central in the narrative. — frank
Maybe at first all the things we put under the umbrella of consciousness are identified as parts of the environment. The storm is angry. The river loves me. The lion hates me. I kill the lion.
I've been pondering why it is that math stalled in development until the invention of abstract money. Maybe abstractions were there, but not entirely fleshed out the way we experience them. — frank
Can you share some examples of that Frank? — 3017amen
BTW- relative to causation, what are your thoughts:
1. Darwinism=Bottom-up reasoning
2. Emergence= Top-down reasoning — 3017amen
Anyway, thanks again for poking your head in on the discussion...you have plenty of philosophy to offer!! — 3017amen
So this would be my question: say your experiences are like texts. Do you read them while they're being laid down to paper? Or do you act unconsciously and read them later?
Remembering backward, but living forward, as SK said. Does that have any bearing? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.