Life after Death

Originally Posted by ~Void~

I don't believe in any of this religious nonsense

Me neither! :D

Originally Posted by Hakeem

We experience thought. We also experience sight, and sounds and taste, touch. You can imagine a digital camera taking a picture, it detects various wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, compresses them into bits, and stores it on a chip, but does it experience this reaction? Does it truly see as we do? I guess we don't really know if it does or not, but hopefully I'm causing reactions in your chemical bath that result in your realization of yourself, that we seem to be calling "consciousness". Personally, I'd like to find a better word to use.

Define experience, what IS to experience something? comprehending the meaning of events? learning from past events?

Technically, a machine programed well enough CAN learn things if that's what you mean, computers today are already capable of looking on a given situation, and based on past events determine what is the best course of action.

About comprehending the meaning of events, do you comprehend? are you sure? perhaps you think you do but actually you have no idea? perhaps some machine can reach the same conclusions as you. and as we know machines have no souls, then how DO we differ from them?

Originally Posted by boomwolf

Define experience, what IS to experience something?

I can't, because I can only be sure of my own. I can't be sure that you in fact do have this thing that experiences existence. It's impossible to describe as much as color is. I can only hope your brain goes through the chemical process resulting in you realizing what I'm talking about.

Think about "I think, therefore I am."
Imagine everyone in the world were to ignore you entirely. We don't respond to your words, we don't respond to you touching us or anything you throw. It's as if your body does not exist. It's as if you don't exist at all. How can you be sure you exist?

Computers do not "learn". They are capable of adapting to adverse situations, but they are not capable of improving themselves beyond what their former limits were.

That fact is no longer true, while a machine cant learn WELL, it can learn now.

True-it requires a lot of work, and true-the machine learns slow and stupid, but it learns. taking little steps at a time, remembering what happened when he tried to do something before, and then using that same action when the result is needed.

It cant invent stuff, but it can experiment. and learn what are the results. (as much his sensors let him "see" and his programing to "understand".)

I say, we are about 10 years away from making an AI for computer games that can look at the player, learns what he does, and then do that itself later on-jest faster.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

Just as likely are unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.

Hypothetical talk of that caliber means nothing.

Just like life after death and God?

Originally Posted by boomwolf

That fact is no longer true, while a machine cant learn WELL, it can learn now.

True-it requires a lot of work, and true-the machine learns slow and stupid, but it learns. taking little steps at a time, remembering what happened when he tried to do something before, and then using that same action when the result is needed.

It cant invent stuff, but it can experiment. and learn what are the results. (as much his sensors let him "see" and his programing to "understand".)

I say, we are about 10 years away from making an AI for computer games that can look at the player, learns what he does, and then do that itself later on-jest faster.

Except wait, what you just described was adaptation, not true learning. A computer can never conquer a situation that it cannot even comprehend. Remembering a situation and being able to compute a counter-strategy are two very different things. Even the game bSerene, the AI does not truly learn, but adapts extremely fast.

Learning is of one of three steps:
1-Copying
2-Adapting
3-Inventing

So computer these days can reach stage 2 of learning, while most animals are stuck at 1 or non at all.

While we think better, as not only we can reach the third level-but we also do it all faster and more creative, the computer is still learning in a way, and how far do you think it will be before a stage 3 AI will be born? its the dream of every game to have a computer that can invent whole new strategies and tactics, and every game-maker thinks about how to do it.

I slightly believe in reincarnation, the idea is the most plausible to me :)

And reaching stage to of 3, aint learning mate.. your missing one step. But who knows what the near future holds in store for us..

To me, learning is copying one solution and using it to solve a multitude of different problems, i.e. watching one troglodyte climb into a tree to pick fruit, and then another troglodyte using that idea to climb into a third troglodyte's tree-house and steal their food.

They're doing the exact same thing except for who the food belongs to...

I'm not sure they even understand the meaning of ownership for that matter.

Originally Posted by ~Void~

Just like life after death and God?

Thanks Captain Obvious, that was a revelation that never crossed my mind, considering I was listing parodies of God. That was a lot like, in response to "The chlorophyll in trees, bushes, grass, and all other sorts of plants makes them green", saying "Does that include broccoli?"


Learning is just another word for memorization. No matter how you look at it, it's just memorization of what you see, smell, hear, et cetera. The mental function that matters is how you apply the knowledge you gain. You could memorize every letter of a book, in its exact order, but it would all be useless if you did not apply the concepts of the English language to it.

Thanks Captain Obvious, that was a revelation that never crossed my mind, considering I was listing parodies of God. That was a lot like, in response to "The chlorophyll in trees, bushes, grass, and all other sorts of plants makes them green", saying "Does that include broccoli?"

I was simply emphasizing the connection. No need to go sarcastic 12 year old on my ass!

The problem I have with Atheists is that they cling to logic like it's the breath of life. Now, logic is not infallible. It is not all-encompassing. THERE IS STILL SHIT WE DON'T KNOW. Things that are beyond us cannot be explained with logic, thus, it fails as an arguement against religion. Religion fails as an arguement against atheism because it cannot present any proof either.

Thus, Agnosticism for everyone!