The Probability of God

[David Sklansky]

Your example violated my stipulation that "we know nothing about them"

[David Sklansky]

"My answer hinges on whether we will ever make computers that know they are alive.

We do this every time we reproduce."

You are like the Anti Not Ready. Did you see how when I said that the scientific explanation for the miracle of the sun standing still is "it didn't happen" he said "is that Newton or Einstein". You sometimes do the same thing in reverse. Are you contending that if someone could maneuver sub atomic particles at will he could without question create something that knew it was alive? That should mean, I think, that he could in theory ressurect you if you were dead. I'm not so sure.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you contending that if someone could maneuver sub atomic particles at will he could without question create something that knew it was alive? That should mean, I think, that he could in theory ressurect you if you were dead. I'm not so sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Without question" is too strong since you don't know without question that I know that I am alive. I might be a mindless automaton. The reasons you are nearly sure that I know I am alive are that you know you are alive, you know that you are built pretty much the way I am, and I act like I know I am alive -- that is, I pass the Turing test.

With that constraint, I'd answer your question in the affirmative: if we could move subatomic particles around at will, we could make Xerox copies of Phil Ivey, and all the reasons we have for believing that the real Phil Ivey knows he is alive would apply just as well to the copies. They would be built just like Phil, and they would pass the Turing test.

(And we could "resurrect" Phil after he dies by making a copy of how he is now.)

I am able to process thoughts because of how the physical atoms in my brain are arranged -- not because of some non-physical soul. Do you consider that statement to be controversial?

[rickieO]

here's a proof for god built on 2 premises:

humans are born, or endowed with innate knowledge.

example: the knowledge that every whole is greater than one of it's parts.

example: something which is concieved, but doesnt exist is not as great as something which actually exists.

can one concieve of that which nothing greater than it can exist?

if yes, then we know that "that which nothing greater than it exists" must exist, because of our innate knowledge (ex#2)

therefore, the probabilty of the first premise being true combined with the probabilty of the second premise being true leads you to the answer for the original question.

i do also realize "that which nothing greater than it can exist" may or may not be an adequate definition for god.

the rickiebear

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Without consideration of the evidence, what is the a priori possibility that invisible unicorns exist in an ethereal world beyond the reach of our 5 senses?

You answer my question, and I'll cut and paste it into yours

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. 50/50.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Others will point out technical problems with your question. But we all know what you mean. My answer hinges on whether we will ever make computers that know they are alive. In fact to me they are almost the same question.

[/ QUOTE ]

pokerstove gave it about a 12% chance.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a proof for god built on 2 premises:

humans are born, or endowed with innate knowledge.

example: the knowledge that every whole is greater than one of it's parts.

example: something which is concieved, but doesnt exist is not as great as something which actually exists.

can one concieve of that which nothing greater than it can exist?

if yes, then we know that "that which nothing greater than it exists" must exist, because of our innate knowledge (ex#2)

therefore, the probabilty of the first premise being true combined with the probabilty of the second premise being true leads you to the answer for the original question.

i do also realize "that which nothing greater than it can exist" may or may not be an adequate definition for god.

the rickiebear

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll just pretend that a millenium of critique of this Philosophy 101 argument doesn't exist, right?

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Without any consideration of the evidence, what is the a priori possibility that a personal, singular, interactive god exists?

Put another way, is it inherently more likely or less likely that there is a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

We may have a winner for "Meaningless Thread of the Month".

[David Sklansky]

The Turing test doesn't prove that something knows it is alive. As you yourself admitted. Here's a better although not conclusive, test. Eavesdrop on a supersmart computer talking to another one. See if they ever speculate on the subject of how to prove that something knows it is alive. If I knew that such a conversation was not explicitly part of the original software, that would be good enough for me.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a better although not conclusive, test. Eavesdrop on a supersmart computer talking to another one. See if they ever speculate on the subject of how to prove that something knows it is alive. If I knew that such a conversation was not explicitly part of the original software, that would be good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think the copies of Phil Ivey might indeed speculate about that. Not because they have been directly programmed to, but because they have been programmed (by the evolutionary process that designed the original Phil Ivey) to find meaning and purpose in things, and to model other people's psyches in their own heads to figure out what makes them tick, and so on.

If we programmed a computer to run essentially the same "software" that the human brain has been "programmed" with -- not that we ever would, mind you, but if we did -- then it'd probably engage in the same kind of speculation about other entities' capacity for thought that we are engaging in.

But that's a common failing of sci-fi movies. When a computer "wakes up" and becomes conscious, it adopts human-like characteristics like getting jealous or thirsting for revenge or whatever. But a computer will never do this on its own -- it would have to be programmed for those things.

The human brain has been programmed for them or we wouldn't get jealous, mad, etc, either.