[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1311461967' post='4839397']
So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI

If we create sentient AI that acts significantly differently than humans would that change your stance?[/quote]
One, I never declared a stance, so that doesn't apply to me. Two, if the AI is sentient it doesn't matter whether it acts the same or different from humans. It's sentient.

There's no saying what will happen when we reach that point, so it makes just as much sense to look at it from either side of the coin.[/quote]
I agree. But he made the claim, so I wanted his take on it.

Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=kN50ENE_HUU

Not necessarily God related, but very free will/AI vs human knowledge oriented. Putting aside that I like anything the tachikoma say because I think they are adorable, I really like the explanation. Not sure if I agree with it yet, but it's fun to think about.[/quote]
You had me at tachikoma.

[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311432357' post='4839287']
The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI
[/quote]

Define 'sentient'. One that has 'conscience'? Could we imagine that, at year X, we have achieved AI that can solve virtually all problems that humans solve, and passes all the turing tests, but is predictable, whereas human behaviour remains unpredictable? If so, then no my stance would not change. To explain what I'm trying to say, imagine we put an AI bot and a human in a controlled environment. They both perform actions(walk,navigate,interact with objects), but at that point we can predict the bot's actions, whereas we can't predict the human's actions, even though we have the same amount of information for both(through special sensors, or "brain scanners", or simulations, or what have you). For example, we can say 'in the next few minutes, the bot will occupy itself interacting with object A and object B' and be correct, but can't do the same about the human. In that case no, my stance would not change. If we can predict the human behaviour, then yes, it would. Or in the case of Civ2(which is impressive by the way): Both the computer AI and a human can play the game and win, but we can predict how the AI will play, when we can't for the human.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1311461967' post='4839397']
[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311432357' post='4839287']
The "God hypothesis", if you will, is falsifiable, at least for me. If you can prove that our brain functions are nothing more than products of deterministic natural laws, that is,say, build a machine/simulation that, given the correct data, can fully predict a human's behaviour, then it clearly follows that there is no such thing as a "soul", there is only matter, which settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned: There is nothing else but natural laws and matter. It proves the idea that "God breathed into [Adam's] nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul" is simply false. I would give up the idea of God at that instant.

So do you feel about AI? There is AI right now that can read an instruction manual and on the fly come up with strategies to play Civilization 2. This mind you is external from the game itself. So when we get to the point of sentient AI (which we will), will your stance change?

Link to abstract and code

Article on Civ 2 AI
[/quote]

Define 'sentient'. One that has 'conscience'?[/quote]
Yes and has human-level intelligence.

[4][/sup] it is sometimes used in popular accounts of AI to describe "human level or higher intelligence" (or strong AI). This is closely related to the use of the term in science fiction. Some sources reserve the term "sapience" for human level intelligence and make a distinction between "sentience" and "sapience".

Could we imagine that, at year X, we have achieved AI that can solve virtually all problems that humans solve, and passes all the turing tests, but is predictable, whereas human behaviour remains unpredictable? If so, then no my stance would not change. To explain what I'm trying to say, imagine we put an AI bot and a human in a controlled environment. They both perform actions(walk,navigate,interact with objects), but at that point we can predict the bot's actions, whereas we can't predict the human's actions, even though we have the same amount of information for both(through special sensors, or "brain scanners", or simulations, or what have you). For example, we can say 'in the next few minutes, the bot will occupy itself interacting with object A and object B' and be correct, but can't do the same about the human. In that case no, my stance would not change. If we can predict the human behaviour, then yes, it would. Or in the case of Civ2(which is impressive by the way): Both the computer AI and a human can play the game and win, but we can predict how the AI will play, when we can't for the human.
[/quote]
We could imagine a deterministic AI but we're talking about a non-deterministic AI. One that can make decisions and rationale like a human can. However, you knew that's what I was referring to. Which is why you made it a point to talk about deterministic AI.

Has anyone else here experienced depersonalization or something like it?

Loads of times, but then my whole nervous sytem malfunctions at the best of times so this isn't really a surprise.

Most of my take on this is based on observing my own brain and actions over a great many years.

Take memory for example; if we are something seperate from our brains then why don't we remember the few minutes before sleep? Why, when awaking for a short period in the night, don't we remember that? There seems to be a small amount of time where memories aren't stored when we are awake, more than likely down to chemicals used to make us sleep.

I also don't vibe with the idea that only humans have free will; live with a dog or a cat for their whole life and tell me they don't have the same amount of 'free will' as us humans do...

We could imagine a deterministic AI but we're talking about a non-deterministic AI. One that can make decisions and rationale like a human can. However, you knew that's what I was referring to. Which is why you made it a point to talk about deterministic AI.

I'm probably lacking in knowledge here. I do not know what non-deterministic AI is. I was going by the assumption that, if we built a machine, we can always predict how it will behave...

Regardless: The proof that is no such thing as a 'soul' is to reduce the human mind to a set of deterministic laws. If we create non-predictable AI, like a human, that doesn't prove anything about the human mind or 'soul', so no, I wouldn't change my stance about God in that regard.

@mikeman I'm still waiting for your responses:

[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311440690' post='4839314']
(Isaac Newton believed in God)
[/font]
[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]

Steven Weinberg is an atheist. So what?
[/font]Read about argument from authority.[/quote]

[color="#1C2837"]

First define God, then define free will, then show how having free will requires God.
[color="#1C2837"]

Regardless: The proof that is no such thing as a 'soul' is to reduce the human mind to a set of deterministic laws. If we create non-predictable AI, like a human, that doesn't prove anything about the human mind or 'soul', so no, I wouldn't change my stance about God in that regard.

Humans evolved from single cell'd creatures; do these creatures also have a soul? do animals that we come from have a soul? if not at what point during our evolution did this 'soul' turn up?

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]Steven Weinberg is an atheist. So what?
[/font]Read about argument from authority.
[/quote]

I didn't say Newton or Leibniz were correct. I just said they sure as hell weren't 'ignorant'.

[color="#1c2837"]First define God, then define free will, then show how having free will requires God.
[color="#1c2837"][/quote]

First, those are too big of a subjects to be dealt here. Second, I am not a philosopher nor a scientist. However, I'll give it a try, although I know you will not agree:

1)God: The extra-physical creator of the physical world.
2)Free will: The notion that a human's thoughts and actions are not depended only on deterministic physical laws(classical mechanics,chemistry,possibly QM) or chance, but there is another factor that cannot be reduced to those and be dealt with mathematically.
3)Now this you may disagree with. I state that free-will, the way I defined it, has an extra-physical component. That is, the thoughts that my neurons are producing at this very moment, are a result of: (1)Physical,mathematical laws (2)Possibly random chance and (3)Something unknown, an extraphysical factor. I define (3) as the 'soul'. Of course, even if one accepts that, they could claim that this extraphysical factor, this doesn't require God. However, I believe that there is a creator of that soul, and I name it "God".

Humans evolved from single cell'd creatures; do these creatures also have a soul? do animals that we come from have a soul? if not at what point during our evolution did this 'soul' turn up?
[/quote]

No I don't think single cell creatures have a soul. I don't know about animals. I don't have to have all the answers to claim belief in God. I believe in God, I am not God. Of course I can't possibly answer the last question any more than I can answer when what we define as 'consciousness' turn up.

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]Steven Weinberg is an atheist. So what?
[/font]Read about argument from authority.

I didn't say Newton or Leibniz were correct. I just said they sure as hell weren't 'ignorant'.
[color=#1C2837][size=2][/quote]
Did you read about the argument from authority?

[color="#1c2837"]First define God, then define free will, then show how having free will requires God.
[color="#1c2837"]

First, those are too big of a subjects to be dealt here. Second, I am not a philosopher nor a scientist. However, I'll give it a try, although I know you will not agree:

1)God: The extra-physical creator of the physical world.
[/quote]
What does extra-physical mean?

2)Free will: The notion that a human's thoughts and actions are not depended only on deterministic physical laws(classical mechanics,chemistry,possibly QM) or chance, but there is another factor that cannot be reduced to those and be dealt with mathematically.
3)Now this you may disagree with. I state that free-will, the way I defined it, has an extra-physical component.

Sorry, you can't. Actually, it's my mistake. I should have written '[color=#1C2837][size=2]show logically how having free will requires God'.
[color=#1C2837][size=2]You have 2 definitions, but now you are adding arbitrary statements.

That is, the thoughts that my neurons are producing at this very moment, are a result of: (1)Physical,mathematical laws (2)Possibly random chance and (3)Something unknown, an extraphysical factor.

If (3) is unknown, it is unknown. Again, you are making an arbitrary statement.

I define (3) as the 'soul'. Of course, even if one accepts that, they could [strikeout]claim[/strikeout] should that this extraphysical factor, this doesn't require God.

Indeed. So still you haven't show how free will requires God.

However, I believe that there is a creator of that soul, and I name it "God".

I see a contradiction. I've said that God is the creator of the physical universe. Then, the free will has some "extra-physical" factor you name soul. Therefore God didn't create it, since he is the creator of the physical universe.
Still, why do you believe that?

Did you read about the argument from authority?

I know about argument from authority. This is not it. This is a counterexample to the aphorism 'belief in something unproven as God is a sign of ignorance'.

As for the rest, I sure am not an expert on Logic, as most people aren't. Are you saying that a farmer or a construction worker isn't entitled an opinion about all that unless he takes courses on Logic or Physics? You are right I made a mistake, I meant to say that God is the creator of anything physical or extraphysical(this is what Christianity says anyway). I define extraphysical as something that can't be reduced to mathematics, measured, quantisized. This is the best way I can describe my thoughts. Relationship with God is a loving one, you might as well tell me to explain why I'm in love with my girlfriend. I like the idea of God, so I go with my hunch here. Take it this way: There was a time I was an atheist(not a fundamentalist like Brain in A Vat mind you) and now I try to be Christian. I feel better now, I've seen changes in my life and myself that this faith has brought. Isn't it rational to follow whatever works best for myself? Logic is a construct of the human mind anyway, why should I deify it? Call me irrational if you will, I don't mind, people operate irrationally all the time and it's inevitable, even if they pretend that they respect the allmighty logic. There are many things logic cannot talk about that interest me, such as art or compassion or any number of things.