Re: Apple II and God (was Re: Notice to Scott Gamon)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Amitai Schlair writes ...

> .... 
>
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
>>

     How would you go about producing a self-aware computer?
<<

> 
> You're trying to draw unfounded parallels between self-aware humans and
> self-aware computers. In addition to being a loaded question, it begs
> several others:
> 
> 1) What does it mean to be "self-aware"?
> 
>     a) Is a computer that can be programmed to display the contents of
>        its motherboard self-aware?

     no
> 
>     b) Is a person who can be taught to say which portions of his brain
>        correspond to which functions self-aware?
>     not necessarily

> 
> 2) How did humans come to exist?
> 
>     a) Were we created by a prime creator (which begs the question "Who
>        created the creator?")?

     yes
 
>     b) Or did we grow/evolve out of natural conditions?
>

     to some extent, yes (which, supposedly, begs the question of who/what 
created the "natural conditions")


 
> 3) If a computer were to become self-aware, would this condition
>    necessarily/provably be due to a human creator?
>

     Who can tell?

> 
> ....
> 
> what would be the characteristics of a self-aware computer? .... Would 
> you say a computer which could design its own self-check routines is  
> self-aware?
>

     Not necessarily. Indeed, a self-aware computer might have little 
understanding of its own self-check routines.


>
> I might be inclined to agree,

     But; there was no agreement.


> but how would a computer get this ability?
> From (extremely intelligent) humans, of course.
> 
> Sounds like a solid case for the existence of a first creator.

     It does?


> Except,
> of course, that it precludes evolution: chips degrade over the years,
> but none of these "mutations" on record have been beneficial to the
> functioning of a computer.
>

     In any case, it is a big jump from 'improved functioning' to 
self-awareness.

 
> Another problem I have with the concept of the Prime Mover: Who put Him
> there? Possible defenses include self-generation (which again begs the
> question "Who programmed God's ability to create Himself?"), and the
> rejection of time as we know it by saying that God and His universe have
> *always* existed. Both of these scenarios, from the aesthetic viewpoint
> of a scientist, are unacceptable because they create more philosophical
> complexity than they resolve.
>

     To speak in terms of "have always existed" is to trap yourself in a 
time-referenced analysis of existence where such an analysis makes no 
sense.


     For a good definition of "self-aware", look within your self. It's the 
only valid definition you are likely to come up with.

     So, how would you produce a self-aware computer?

     

> ....
>

>>

     How can you absolutely prove _anything_? Even Science does not claim
to reveal truths. It makes observations and develops explanations called
"theories". We cannot, even, absolutely, establish "cause" and "effect"
for observed events.

<<

> > > In many (even most) cases, this last statement is true.
>>

      Can you give one contrary example?
<<
> 
> Closing a switch in a properly designed circuit causes electrons to
> flow.
>

     There is a big difference between accepting something as "true" and 
absolutely proving that it is true. In fact, a major scientific theory says 
that, every so often, you will close the switch and the electrons will just 
sit there.
 

> .... 
> 
> As far as our records show, God has not made a point of participating in
> scientific research. I'm sure that if He did, a lot more scientists
> would become religious! :)
>

     Suppose you were attending a scientific convention and a shinning 
being appeared at a session discussing faster-than-light space drives. This 
being announces: "I am God and I have manifested myself in order to give 
you the key to inter-stellar travel." The being, then, inscribes a formula 
and diagrams on the wall and vanishes. Viola! We have a 'star drive'.

     Would you believe the being was "God"?
 
 
>
> .... 

>>> So call me the "God is not true" person. Can you direct me along a path 
>>> which will lead to an understanding of the Supreme Being?

>>

     A good start is to treat others the way you would wish to be treated.
<<
 
> What does this have to do with God (other than that it's in the Bible,
> which is attributed to Him)?


     The 'Golden Rule' is, certainly, implied.


> I've followed this for all of my life,
> though not for religious reasons but for philosophical and practical
> ones. ....
>
> I'll need another starting point, ....
>

     For someone not interested in reading and understanding The Manual, 
there's not a much better guide than the Golden Rule.


Rubywand