The Risks of Belief

Quath · Jan 8, 2008

I think "choose" is a tough concept. My computer got hot. So my computer has several options. It can run at a slower clock speed; speed up its cooling fan; shut down the hard drive and/or shut down entirely. It chose to speed up the cooling fan. We may even feel that on some level there was a choice.

But if we are presented with the algorithm and if we understand it, we probably no longer feel the computer really chose anything.

I think that is what happens with human decisions. We feel there is a choice when we don't understand the algorithm to make a decision. When we do, understand the algorithm, we don't call it a choice. You can see some of this grey area of choice in the game "flinch" where you try to make your opponent blink by moving something towards their eyes really fast. Did the person choose to blink? After all, something moved towards their eye. Yet it never hit their eye and their brain told the eyelids to shut. So some mental processing went on. But we call it a reflex or automatic response. But put serious effort into keeping your eyes open, and we call it a choice if you manage to do so. I think if we understood the alrogithm behind forcing your eyes open, then we would not call it a choice. We would call it something like "stimulation avoidance response."

So ultimately I think concept of choice is to descripe a process on which we have a lot of ignorance.

Sola'lor · Jan 8, 2008

Quath said:
I think "choose" is a tough concept. My computer got hot. So my computer has several options. It can run at a slower clock speed; speed up its cooling fan; shut down the hard drive and/or shut down entirely. It chose to speed up the cooling fan. We may even feel that on some level there was a choice.

But if we are presented with the algorithm and if we understand it, we probably no longer feel the computer really chose anything.

I think that is what happens with human decisions. We feel there is a choice when we don't understand the algorithm to make a decision. When we do, understand the algorithm, we don't call it a choice. You can see some of this grey area of choice in the game "flinch" where you try to make your opponent blink by moving something towards their eyes really fast. Did the person choose to blink? After all, something moved towards their eye. Yet it never hit their eye and their brain told the eyelids to shut. So some mental processing went on. But we call it a reflex or automatic response. But put serious effort into keeping your eyes open, and we call it a choice if you manage to do so. I think if we understood the alrogithm behind forcing your eyes open, then we would not call it a choice. We would call it something like "stimulation avoidance response."

So ultimately I think concept of choice is to descripe a process on which we have a lot of ignorance.

Hmmm. That's a very interesting concept.

rstrats · Jan 8, 2008

emiliano,

Its clear that I am not articulate enough to express my question, or if I have, that Im not smart enough to understand how your comments are responsive. Thanks for trying, though.

emiliano · Jan 8, 2008

Quath.
In the first place I like you to know that computers are programmed, they dont make decisions, the programmer (a human) makes then a Priori for them, we relay on his algorithm, arent computers practical things?

I think that is what happens with human decisions. We feel there is a choice when we don't understand the algorithm to make a decision. When we do, understand the algorithm, we don't call it a choice.

But we do understand and have said algorithm, is our problem solving procedure, everybody has one and use it to make millions of decision. I think that what rstrats in directing the discussion to is to the risk of been deceived by our mind (Descartes deceiving demon) our algorithm can be flowed and deceive us.

You can see some of this grey area of choice in the game "flinch" where you try to make your opponent blink by moving something towards their eyes really fast. Did the person choose to blink?

I could write you a long list of choices that are made in this instance, one should have to choose to play the silly game, one could choose to punch the light out of the other player, one could choose to grab his finger and break it, choices, choice, decisions , decisions, we will choose the one with the best perceived outcome, if we really like this guy we will chose to flinch, our motivation? To continue our friendship.

Yet it never hit their eye and their brain told the eyelids to shut. So some mental processing went on

.
That is not the only option, a decision was made after considering several courses of action, and a complex mental process took place, consider that although one flinches, there is still the possibility that one get poked in the eye and lots of options will have to be considered and one chosen.
I

think if we understood the alrogithm behind forcing your eyes open, then we would not call it a choice. We would call it something like "stimulation avoidance response."

Even if we know the process, it can deceives us and we get injured, we took a risk based in our understanding of the algorithm.

Quath · Jan 9, 2008

I am not sure where you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. For me, I see the following relationships being pretty analogous:

Brain - Motherboard
Subconsciousness - BIOS
Consciousness - Operating System
Mind - Software
Thinking - Executing program

The main difference I see is that we understand the computer very well and we have a lot of ignorance on how we operate. If you say computers don't make decisions, then I would say that neither do we. We are programmed (by evolution or by a Creator with environment) as well. In a computaional sense, we are analog processors with poor memory but great relational algorithms.

emiliano · Jan 9, 2008

Quath said:
I am not sure where you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. For me, I see the following relationships being pretty analogous:

Brain - Motherboard
Subconsciousness - BIOS
Consciousness - Operating System
Mind - Software
Thinking - Executing program

The main difference I see is that we understand the computer very well and we have a lot of ignorance on how we operate. If you say computers don't make decisions, then I would say that neither do we. We are programmed (by evolution or by a Creator with environment) as well. In a computaional sense, we are analog processors with poor memory but great relational algorithms.

There is nothing wrong with your analogy, if you acknowledge, that computer have no other consciousness but the one that a human programmes put onto it, on the other hand human are free agent endowed with the ability to choose courses of actions that can even contradict it creator programming.
Great relational algorithms? I dont think so, there is a lot of work to do yet.
Brain - Motherboard, Agree
Subconsciousness - BIOS, this and the one bellow, would fit more in the memory.
Consciousness - Operating System, ? Conciseness has to do awareness of ones environment, operations=actions, so I disagree.
Mind - Software, agree
Thinking - Executing program, nope, executing=actions, thinking=evaluating and planing actions

Sola'lor · Jan 10, 2008

Quath said:
I am not sure where you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. For me, I see the following relationships being pretty analogous:

Brain - Motherboard
Subconsciousness - BIOS
Consciousness - Operating System
Mind - Software
Thinking - Executing program

The main difference I see is that we understand the computer very well and we have a lot of ignorance on how we operate. If you say computers don't make decisions, then I would say that neither do we. We are programmed (by evolution or by a Creator with environment) as well. In a computaional sense, we are analog processors with poor memory but great relational algorithms.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing. I just thought it was intersting. It does bring up an interesting question. At what point to computers become what we consider to be concious?

Nick Soapdish · Jan 10, 2008

Sola'lor said:
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing. I just thought it was intersting. It does bring up an interesting question. At what point to computers become what we consider to be concious?

There is no way to tell, which is why we should include it is not possible. There is no algorithm or quantification for being conscious.

His analogy is very interesting, but it really only applies to physicalism. Any sort of spiritualism that involves a freewill agent goes against the analogy because we are no longer just a nature's machine.

Quath · Jan 10, 2008

emiliano said:
Great relational algorithms? I dont think so, there is a lot of work to do yet.

I read a book on AI that summed up what humans were good at. Forming analogies and relationships between stuff was what we excelled at. For example, we spot a human face and can identify people very quickly. This is a very hard area of research for computer programmers. In chess, computers are able to see more moves into the future than humans, but humans can identify board configurations that have a good chance of winning (after looking a few moves ahead). We do this by relating what pieces have strengths where they are and what we have seen win in the past.

It is a problem for us when we see the Virgin Mary in toast or Satan's head in one frame of a 9-11 video. But overall, it has great survival advantages.

Nick Soapdish said:
There is no way to tell, which is why we should include it is not possible. There is no algorithm or quantification for being conscious.

I see consciousness as self awareness. I also see it in shades of grey where something can be kind of consciousness. I also see intelligence and life in the same manner. Something is not alive/dead. Or intelligent/not intelligent. I see it having a degree of these quantities.

So for me, a computer is partly conscious because it understands some things about itself such as motherboard temperature, what keys are pressed on a keyboard, how fast is the mouse moving, etc. I think the more it has of this and the more intelligent we make it, the more we will see it having consciousness.

Any sort of spiritualism that involves a freewill agent goes against the analogy because we are no longer just a nature's machine.

I guess I don't see spiritual free will playing much of a part in human existance. For example, give the right amount of brain alterations, and you can remove memories, change behaviors, change beliefs, etc. I see nothing left over for a spirit free will to do since everything can be pretty well explained by physical means.

emiliano · Jan 11, 2008

Quath, you wrote:

I read a book on AI that summed up what humans were good at. Forming analogies and relationships between stuff was what we excelled at.

This must be a good book and have some other interesting insights, it confirms that humans are unique in that humans have consciousness of more than just the physical realms, humans have the capacity to imagine thing, computer dont.

For example, we spot a human face and can identify people very quickly. This is a very hard area of research for computer programmers.

Computer have a faster recall memory than humans, they can search a human name and personal detail much faster than a human, but cannot resolve the visual information that a human can.

In chess, computers are able to see more moves into the future than humans, but humans can identify board configurations that have a good chance of winning (after looking a few moves ahead). We do this by relating what pieces have strengths where they are and what we have seen win in the past.

This is because computer are nothing but a receptacle of information put into them by a human, computer cant see full stop, what they have is a filling system and a researcher that it faster, a computer can research a solution to a move from thousand possible counter moves that have been tried and tested before hand. There are no signs of conciseness, or reasoning, a computer does not think, it search in it filing system, there are those that say it thinking, but they are wrong, it is just searching for files.

It is a problem for us when we see the Virgin Mary in toast or Satan's head in one frame of a 9-11 video. But overall, it has great survival advantages.

I fail to see what this got to do with anything? Who are this us that have problem?

yossarian22 · Jan 11, 2008

emiliano said:
Quath, you wrote:

This must be a good book and have some other interesting insights, it confirms that humans are unique in that humans have consciousness of more than just the physical realms, humans have the capacity to imagine thing, computer dont.

Well, if thought is nothing but symbol manipulation as Quath (and some fields of AI) suggests, than a computer can do what a human can, eventually. There are some rudimentary symbolic processors floating around.

Computer have a faster recall memory than humans, they can search a human name and personal detail much faster than a human, but cannot resolve the visual information that a human can.

That has more to do with input limitations than ability. Computers are very very good at pattern matching, essentially what matching a face with a name is.

This is because computer are nothing but a receptacle of information put into them by a human, computer cant see full stop, what they have is a filling system and a researcher that it faster, a computer can research a solution to a move from thousand possible counter moves that have been tried and tested before hand. There are no signs of conciseness, or reasoning, a computer does not think, it search in it filing system, there are those that say it thinking, but they are wrong, it is just searching for files.

Well, what is thought?
What a computer does in chess is not different from what a human does with chess. We both look at the board. We both look for possible other moves. We both attempt to figure out which is the best. There is little difference between us. A human could learn to predict an opponent, but so could a computer. Sure, a computer is not conscious, but thought and reasoning do not require consciousness.

I fail to see what this got to do with anything? Who are this us that have problem?

Humans have an strange tendency to see patterns where there are none. Its very well documented.

rojse · Jan 11, 2008

lunamoth said:
What, if any, do you see as the risks or danger of having faith in God?

I would say that there is risk, as there is in many other things. But that the risk is worth it.

What risks or dangers can the average religious person have in believing in God?

Most people worship a majority religion in countries where freedom in religion is enjoyed.

If there are some people that mention bad experiences when talking about a minority religion, or a religion that has bad connotations, such as Luciferianism or the like, I would agree, but I doubt that most people can claim to be subject to that risk.

emiliano · Jan 11, 2008

Yossarian22,
You say:

Well, if thought is nothing but symbol manipulation as Quath (and some fields of AI) suggests, than a computer can do what a human can, eventually. There are some rudimentary symbolic processors floating around.

I dont know if youll get this, a computer does not think, its just store information that are thought of humans (noe is their own) and it has a faster recall of file that have been produce by humans.

Computers are very, very good at pattern matching, essentially what matching a face with a name is.

They just are very fast at bring out stored information and finding a yes or not answer (match or no match), they dont think, all their information is pre-programmed.

What a computer does in chess is not different from what a human does with chess.

The chess moves are pre-programmed into it by a human chess player and stored in the file system, the computer bring an answer that is at the level that the human player decide. They dont thing they find files that are the thought of a chess player.

We both attempt to figure out which is the best.

The computer answer at a pre-determinated level, if I choose to play at the lowest level, I win every time, the computer cannot choose the best move that is store in all the files that it memory contain, only those that I decide that it can use.
You may want to reconsider this one:but thought and reasoning do not require consciousness.

Humans have an strange tendency to see patterns where there are none. Its very well documented.

Yes we are pretty special, we can see even what is not physical, thats why we are the only ones the can have a communion with God, He is a Spirit you know? Irrational brutes cannot do this, they cannot believe that there is God.

Quath · Jan 11, 2008

rojse said:
What risks or dangers can the average religious person have in believing in God?

It depends on how fundamental your beliefs are.

For example, if you believe that Earth is a temporary resting spot and your real life begins in heaven, then logically, you may kill people in danger of going to hell.

Or say you refuse to let your kids be immunized because that would be trying to twart God's will.

Or maybe you just waste some time on Sundays that could be spent doing other fun things.

emiliano said:
I dont know if youll get this, a computer does not think, its just store information that are thought of humans (noe is their own) and it has a faster recall of file that have been produce by humans.

A computer manipulates and processes information, just as a human does. Thinking to a human is computation to a computer.

Say as a hypothetical that an alien race designed us by making our DNA and putting it inot a cell and growing us. Would you say that we have no thoughts of our own and are just echoing the thoughts of the aliens?

They just are very fast at bring out stored information and finding a yes or not answer (match or no match), they dont think, all their information is pre-programmed.

We pull out information and also make yes or no decisions. For example, we send a signal to move a nerve or we don't. We can come up with a "maybe" but so can a computer. 00 = no, 01 or 10 is maybe, and 11 is yes. This type of programming is used a lot.

The computer answer at a pre-determinated level, if I choose to play at the lowest level, I win every time, the computer cannot choose the best move that is store in all the files that it memory contain, only those that I decide that it can use.

Computers and people are using different algorithms. Humans spend more time storing success cases of good board configurations. Programmers have a hard time coding that in so they compensate by having the computer look deeper and score pieces left alive by some value. Some have gone further and scored pieces by position. If humans had the ability, we would probably try the same tricks. Chess is just a more complex version of tic-tac-toe.

Yes we are pretty special, we can see even what is not physical, thats why we are the only ones the can have a communion with God, He is a Spirit you know? Irrational brutes cannot do this, they cannot believe that there is God.

But we can show we see things that are not there. We may see a face or hear a sound that sounds like a human. But it turns out we made a false connection. In the wild, it is safer to have a false alarm than to miss out on detecting people or animals. But in reality, we are detecting stuff that is not there. It is just an algorithm in our brain that is successful for survival but flawed when reporting reality.

rojse · Jan 11, 2008

Quath said:
It depends on how fundamental your beliefs are.

For example, if you believe that Earth is a temporary resting spot and your real life begins in heaven, then logically, you may kill people in danger of going to hell.

Or say you refuse to let your kids be immunized because that would be trying to twart God's will.

Or maybe you just waste some time on Sundays that could be spent doing other fun things.

I am sorry, I said the risks that occur to you because someone believing in God, not the risks that occur to others because you believe.

yossarian22 · Jan 11, 2008

emiliano said:
Yossarian22,
I dont know if youll get this, a computer does not think, its just store information that are thought of humans (noe is their own) and it has a faster recall of file that have been produce by humans.

Yes, but that does not bar them from thought.
Humans do not think, they just store information which they receive from genetics and the environment.
See how that argument does not work?

They just are very fast at bring out stored information and finding a yes or not answer (match or no match), they dont think, all their information is pre-programmed.

So? Information does not need to pre-programmed. A neural network learns. A computer can be taught to gather its own information.
And if the learning is pre-programmed, so what? Our learning is pre-programmed by evolution. Does where the ability to learn comes from in anyway chance the fact that it is still learning?

The chess moves are pre-programmed into it by a human chess player and stored in the file system, the computer bring an answer that is at the level that the human player decide.

Uh, that is how one variant works. I produced one which is based off of a self modifying (in otherwords learning) binomial outcome system. Its random, though a neural network could do it much better (better than most, if not all humans)

They dont thing they find files that are the thought of a chess player.

But a chess player does not think of a new move. He looks at existing moves. There are a finite number of possible positions on a chess board, so he is just as limited as a computer is. They both know the limitations on the board.

The computer answer at a pre-determinated level, if I choose to play at the lowest level, I win every time, the computer cannot choose the best move that is store in all the files that it memory contain, only those that I decide that it can use.

So what? We intentionally put limits on it. We designed the system so it does not perform to its fullest extent. That in no way prevents it from thinking. It just prevents it from thinking very well.

You may want to reconsider this one:but thought and reasoning do not require consciousness.

Show me how logic requires consciousness.
And define thought. All you are doing is saying 'That is not thought, that is just looking at data and picking the best outcome'; essentially what thought is.

Yes we are pretty special, we can see even what is not physical,

Yours eyes are physical entities. If you see something that is not physical, you should consult a doctor.

thats why we are the only ones the can have a communion with God, He is a Spirit you know? Irrational brutes cannot do this, they cannot believe that there is God.

So atheists are irrational brutes?
Thank you for telling me. I had no idea. I will be sure to inform everybody.

emiliano · Jan 12, 2008

A computer manipulates and processes information, just as a human does. Thinking to a human is computation to a computer.
Say as a hypothetical that an alien race designed us by making our DNA and putting it inot a cell and growing us. Would you say that we have no thoughts of our own and are just echoing the thoughts of the aliens?

Danger, danger Will Robinson, you are confusing thought processes with fast file recall, in the old days a person would create a file with information from his own or other peoples thoughts, he would name the file and stick a little tag with its name, whenever he needed this information , he would go to his filler and search for the file that contained it. When things got complicated and too big, he would hire a clerk that would do the searching, all along the process the thought contained in the files were those of the creator of the file.

We pull out information and also make yes or no decisions. For example, we send a signal to move a nerve or we don't. We can come up with a "maybe" but so can a computer. 00 = no, 01 or 10 is maybe, and 11 is yes. This type of programming is used a lot.

No really, humans do not react instinctually, when the brain receives an stimuli, it get to wok on a solution, unlike a computer the human brain can created a solution that is not already stored in the brain, make a new one, no pre-existed response, computers can only bring out solution (that are human thought) that were pre-programmed into it, if there is not a file with that tag, the answer is there is not such file

Computers and people are using different algorithms. Humans spend more time storing success cases of good board configurations. Programmers have a hard time coding that in so they compensate by having the computer look deeper and score pieces left alive by some value. Some have gone further and scored pieces by position. If humans had the ability, we would probably try the same tricks. Chess is just a more complex version of tic-tac-toe.

As I said, if I choose the lowest level, I win every time, not matter how many complicated moves (thought by the best players) the computer file searcher have, it can only come up with basic move.

Quath · Jan 12, 2008

rojse said:
I am sorry, I said the risks that occur to you because someone believing in God, not the risks that occur to others because you believe.

I am not surewhat you mean by your clarification. Did you mean "Risks to myself if I believe in God?"

If so, you can take my examples and look at them from your perspective. Will you become a killer because earthly life is not worth as much as the afterlife? Will you refuse medical care because it conflicts with God's will? Will you just waste your time in worship you could spend elsewhere? This is just a broad spectrum of risks based on how fundamental you are.

emiliano · Jan 12, 2008

Yossirian22,
Ill make sort because I already responded to some of the point that you present in your last post.

You say: But a chess player does not think of a new move. He looks at existing moves. There are a finite number of possible positions on a chess board, so he is just as limited as a computer is. They both know the limitations on the board.

I responded to a simular argument, so I just point out to you, that a human player can do this created a new move while the computer can only use one that is at the level that I decided and was preprogrammed, not the best in it memory, just one at the level that I decide.

So what? We intentionally put limits on it. We designed the system so it does not perform to its fullest extent. That in no way prevents it from thinking. It just prevents it from thinking very well.

Again, computers cannot freely think, but human do, DATA is just a movie fictional character! A computer can only come up with a pre-programmed answer, if the input is deficient it response is also deficient.

Show me how logic requires consciousness

consciousness [kónshəssnəss]
n
1. being awake and aware of surroundings: the state of being awake and aware of what is going on around you

2. somebodys mind: somebodys mind and thoughts

3. shared feelings and beliefs: the set of opinions, feelings, and beliefs of a group
4. being aware of specific issues: awareness of or sensitivity to issues in a particular field
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
logic
logic [lójjik]
n
1. philosophy theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning
If you are unconscious/unaware of your surroundings how are you going to distinguish
2. system of reasoning: any system of or an instance of reasoning and inference
Computer do not do either, reasoning or infer
3. sensible argument and thought: sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim
4. reasoning of particular field: the principles of reasoning relevant to a particular field
5. inescapable relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction
If you are unaware of all of this hare you going to make a relationship between all of these?
6. computing circuit design: the circuit design and principles used by a computer in its operation
[14th century. Via French logique from, ultimately, Greek logikē (tekhnē) (art) of reason, from logos (see logos).]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Quath · Jan 12, 2008

emiliano said:
A computer can only come up with a pre-programmed answer, if the input is deficient it response is also deficient.

How do you know we don't come up with pre-programmed answers as well? It is hard to distinguish human thought from a computer's on a conceptual level. We both respond to input and output. We can both learn over time. Both can respond to others. We both deal with environment and self. The main difference is that a computer is easier to understand.

1. being awake and aware of surroundings: the state of being awake and aware of what is going on around you

I touched my keyboard and my laptop woke up becaue it was aware of its surroundings (me touching a key or mouse). We don't require 100% knowledge of stuff around us or else deaf and blind people would not be considered conscious

The Risks of Belief

Member

LDSUJC

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

LDSUJC

Secret Agent

Member

Well-Known Member

Resident Schizophrenic

RF Addict

Well-Known Member

Member

RF Addict

Resident Schizophrenic

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member