(http://i.imgur.com/Ca3a4v3.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/yF3R2EK.png)
['A']
I am but a casual body builder/software engineer.
I am atheistic, and thereafter, I (like Google, Microsoft) shall likely become 'God'.
How can an atheist stipulate that 'God' is likely? [See B-C]
NOTE: I have not any belief whatsoever.
However, one needn't belief to observe probabilities. [Sample Observation: Non-omniscient Gods are LIKELY]
['B']
We shall likely become non-omniscient, non-omnipotent Gods, forging more powerful, albeit non-omniscient brain based artificial intelligence aligned Gods.
['C']
On Moore's law, by 2020, non-human machines will likely be able to approximate human level brain cycles (10^15 flops; there ALREADY exists EFFICIENT models that compute 10^14 synaptic operations/second).
Therein, human intellect is shown to be 'creatable':
Today, brain based models already equal/exceed human intellect, in task/task groups ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. (And likely all tasks by 2020)
['D']
God Definition:
In summary, probabilistically, the ability to generate artificial intelligence, that surpasses the net intellect of one’s species, and or compute simulation of universes (with intellect resembling prior), is that which classifies said species as God-bound.
Scientific article [from which the above definition is derived]:
['E']
An early approximation of mine of 'God':
See github, via JordanMicahBennett. (Project entitled "God")
I am already a demigod ... what took you so long ;-) You don't have to wait for the Omega Point of Teilhard De Chardin.
@CodeGodJordan [mod]
2. No spam. Commercial messages or advertisements by new members will be deleted immediately and the poster banned. Please note that the forum has an in-built filter able to detect most spam messages and put them in a “waiting for approval†section visible only staff members. Spam also includes cut-and-paste proselytizing and hit-and-run proselytizing. Sending members unwanted or offensive pm's is also considered spam. Similarly, starting new threads of the same topic or very similar topics will be considered spam as well.
6. No Posting of personal info. Personal info, be it your own or somebody else's, is not to be posted here at the AF. Personal info is defined to mean info that can be used to identify a private person's real-life identity, address, phone number, employer, etc., without their permission. If it is common public information, such as contact information for public figures such as politicians, it will not be considered an offense.
[/mod]
How the hell are you a code god if you can't even read (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5589.0)
Nonsense.
There exists not any spam therein.
By extension, this is but the forum's introduction segment. [whence said passage exists as an introduction]
What drugs are you on bruh?
Quote from: CodeGodJordan on November 21, 2016, 02:12:08 AM
There exists not any spam therein.
Yeah. I know. It's because I edited it out...
From what I can tell about Gods and religion, I'm not entirely sure we should be rushing to make any real ones.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 21, 2016, 04:53:17 PM
From what I can tell about Gods and religion, I'm not entirely sure we should be rushing to make any real ones.
I think he is going on, in a rather idiosyncratic way, about the AI singularity. But I am no techno-utopian.
If there was a REAL deity, we would know by now. Firey letters in the sky, modern miracles like the moon reversing its orbit. Stuff like that. A real deity wouldn't be so petty as to be subtle. It would just make it obvious.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 11:25:56 PM
If there was a REAL deity, we would know by now. Firey letters in the sky, modern miracles like the moon reversing its orbit. Stuff like that. A real deity wouldn't be so petty as to be subtle. It would just make it obvious.
It appears you have failed to reduce the passage.
Herein, here is a simplified
summary, expressing of one of likely 4 tiers [mankind] - of likely God-bound constructs:
['A']We shall likely become non-omniscient Gods, forging more powerful, albeit non-omniscient brain based artificial intelligence aligned Gods.
['B']On Moore's law, by 2020, non-human machines will likely be able to approximate human level brain cycles (10^15 flops; there ALREADY exists EFFICIENT models that compute 10^14 synaptic operations/second).
Therein, human intellect is shown to be 'creatable':
Today, brain based models already equal/exceed human intellect, in task/task groups ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. (And likely all tasks by 2020)
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.efngp2v9d
['C']RE-NOTE: I am atheistic. (I have not any beliefs)
One needn't belief to [OBSERVE] PROBABILITIES. [Sample Observation: Non-omniscient Gods are LIKELY]
So what's your point. Yeah, there is a very, almost nonexistent probability of a supernatural being. I think most of us here will agree with that.
Or are you just trying to spam your medium.com profile to gain followers?
Btw. The best coders can code without letting it show. Why didn't you call yourself "textinbracketsgodJordan"?
Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 22, 2016, 12:37:06 AM
So what's your point. Yeah, there is a very, almost nonexistent probability of a supernatural being. I think most of us here will agree with that.
Or are you just trying to spam your medium.com profile to gain followers?
Btw. The best coders can code without letting it show. Why didn't you call yourself "textinbracketsgodJordan"?
It appears you have failed to reduce the passage.
Herein, here is a simplified summary, expressing of one of likely 4 tiers [mankind] - of likely God-bound constructs:
['A']
We shall likely become non-omniscient Gods, forging more powerful, albeit non-omniscient brain based artificial intelligence aligned Gods.
['B']
On Moore's law, by 2020, non-human machines will likely be able to approximate human level brain cycles (10^15 flops; there ALREADY exists EFFICIENT models that compute 10^14 synaptic operations/second).
Therein, human intellect is shown to be 'creatable':
Today, brain based models already equal/exceed human intellect, in task/task groups ranging from language translation to disease diagnosis. (And likely all tasks by 2020)
https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/god-is-probably-quite-real-a466e9f24a0b#.efngp2v9d
['C']
I care not for any followers.
Worship/following is quite neglectful/negative:
Here are some quick FACTS to think about:
1) It is a FACT is that the HAPPIEST PLACES in the world have the LEAST RELIGION.
2) It is a FACT that the places with the LEAST CRIME have the LEAST RELIGION.
3) It is a FACT that the WEALTHIEST nations have the LEAST RELIGION. [Eg: Singapore no religion=18%, Niger no religion=0-0.3%]
4) It is a FACT that the MOST EDUCATED people are the LEAST RELIGIOUS.
Evidence[1] - HAPPIEST PLACES...:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/03/report-worlds-happiest-countries-are-also-least-religious/
Evidence[2] - LEAST CRIME...:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/06/global-peace-index-shows-least-religious-countries-far-more-at-peace-than-the-most/
Evidence[3] - WEALTHIEST nations...:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/12/how-do-americans-stand-out-from-the-rest-of-the-world/ft_15-03-10_religiousgdpscatter/
Evidence[4] - MOST EDUCATED...:
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/01/why-are-educated-people-more-likely-to-be-atheists/
You keep reposting the same stuff as if that somehow makes your point. What exactly is your point?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 11:25:56 PM
If there was a REAL deity, we would know by now. Firey letters in the sky, modern miracles like the moon reversing its orbit. Stuff like that. A real deity wouldn't be so petty as to be subtle. It would just make it obvious.
There are no straw-man deities, because with fiery letters in the sky, they would catch fire and self destruct ;-)
The obvious is a deity, just not an acceptable deity.
Quote from: Jason78 on November 22, 2016, 05:10:33 AM
You keep reposting the same stuff as if that somehow makes your point. What exactly is your point?
Although the statements above, are of pristine clarity, see http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10956.0