Morals

[Guest bkelm18]

Question...who defines "blind belief and willful ignorance" in regards to faith (and how is it defined)?

If you believe in anything without knowing why or how, I call that blind faith or willful ignorance. I mean, why believe in it if you don't understand what you're believing in and why you're believing? That applies to anything, not just religion.

Edited April 15, 2012 by bkelm18

[R_Bert]

If you believe in anything without knowing why or how, I call that blind faith or willful ignorance. I mean, why believe in it if you don't understand what you're believing in and why you're believing? That applies to anything, not just religion.

That does not answer the question at all. Who makes the judgement, and by what standards are the judgements made ?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The emergence of intelligence and consciousness in computational systems may provide some insight. So, you think that's a bit over the top? Kind of like your great-grandfather would have reacted to you telling him his great-grandkids would someday be talking to each other on a computer!

Thanks profgunner. Please keep signing on, gonna eventually get around to asking you some genetic questions. Sometimes takes a long time to figure out what to ask. BTW, agree that Wild Turkey 101 on the rocks is a purty good thang.

Maybe we will get machine intelligence about the same time-frame as practical fusion? They have both been "a decade away" since the 1950's. Have met many bright folk who think that consciousness is only posessed by humans. That human noggins are both qualitatively and quantitatively different than other animals. Admittedly the gap is huge and maybe they have a point, but I'm a habitual anthropomorphizer and tend to think the animals have about the same qualitative thang except running on less complex computing hardware which was also optimized for more specialized tasks.

Anyway, up til now we only have carbon-based wetware to show much sign of intelligence or consciousness. Have conversed with bright-enough people who do not believe true machine consciousness or intelligence possible. Apparently believing that there is something unique about carbon-based wetware. There certainly isn't any factual way to refute that opinion at the moment. The more people study machine intelligence, the tougher the problem gets. Just like over-unity controlled fusion.

It is rather obvious that consciousness has SOMETHING to do with brain metabolism. Damage the brain or chemically alter the metabolism and it does alter intelligence and consciousness. Maybe that is all there is to it. We would need to have a pretty good idea of what is involved if desirous of emulating human consciousness, though there may be completely different ways to accomplish consciousness than the human mechanism. Perhaps some methods better adapted to current computing hardware, for all I know.

Some know-it-alls firmly believe that the right hardware and software is all it takes. That could be true. I don't keep up with the field, but was reviewing topics on depression awhile ago. Even when I was studying it in the 1970's they believed it had to do with neurotransmitters. Confusingly, anti-depressive medicines are not as effective as one would expect and the medicines that do kinda work affect the pathways in contradictory fashion. Placebo is almost as effective as drugs, and some claim that counseling is slightly more effective than drugs (which I suspect somebody might be lying about, but that's just me). Just sayin, some folks wonder if the old neurotransmitter model is either incomplete or possibly even "mostly wrong".

Am merely leaving open the possibility that there may be more to it than simply cleverly building a huge neural network. Or maybe that is all required. If people might have been over-optimistic that they understood adrenergic vs serotonergic brain pathways, then maybe they would be over-optimistic that consciousness only requires a honkin big fast computer?

Unless there is something unique about carbon based wetware than one would think consciousness could arise in a powerful enough computer. Some estimates of human total memory capacity are rather low and match current hardware. Other estimates claim human memory is of holographic nature and has much higher capacity. The memory system is the "state machine", which would get shuffled around in states as the machine "thinks". Some neural network chips have been manufactured. Maybe some of em are huge nowadays. Maybe people could program FPGA's to act like neural networks? One can emulate a neural net on an ordinary digital puter, but it takes a lot of CPU to emulate a neural net on ordinary hardware.

But if you have adequate memory to hold the state, then maybe the speed wouldn't matter for purposes of demonstration. If the computer running the neural net model runs 1/1000 realtime or slower, then you might say "Hi how are you?" to the computer today and then a few months later the computer finally replies "I'm fine, how about you?" Even if the net runs glacially slow, then it ought to be able to think deep thoughts. The thoughts would just take a long time to complete unless computers get lots faster, or we build humongous hardware neural nets rather than emulating on a CISC sequential computer. Or figure out new intelligence algorithms that are better suited to conventional sequential computers.

One other weird thought-- The above presupposes that intelligence or consciousness is the pattern and dynamic changes of the information, rather than something unique about the hardware it runs on, or even anything unique about processing speed if you don't mind non-real-time operation. If that is really so-- If what we perceive as "ourselves" is the dynamic pattern of information rather than anything to do with the underlying hardware--

Imagine a much cruder (but ginormous) system, neither silicon nor carbon based. Imagine a huge monastery of demented but dedicated monks presiding giant warehouses full of chalkboards. The complete bit pattern of the "current state" of one huge human-brain-complexity neural net are stored on on those zillions of chalkboards.

The monks have been carefully trained to erase and re-draw the chalk marks to perfectly emulate the rules of a ginormous neural network. Even though it may take the monks hundreds or thousands of years to erase and redraw enough chalkboard bits to represent a few seconds of human-real-time-- If the chalk marks on all those blackboards exactly emulate the pattern of a conscious brain, would that grand assortment of chalkmarks be "conscious"? Would all the moving bits of chalk, in toto, have its own consciousness and "feel alive"?

If consciousness and thought is the bit patterns and nothing else, then the chalkboard brain ought to be just as "alive and conscious" as a carbon wetware or silicon brain running the exact same algorithm and having the exact same state? It is fairly easy for me to visualize a silicon brain having true "consciousness" and feeling its own existence. I think, therefore I am. If its just bits then it ought to be identical for the ginormous chalkboard brain. But it is very difficult to visualize a ginormous collection of moving chalkboard bits being conscious.

[Guest bkelm18]

That does not answer the question at all. Who makes the judgement, and by what standards are the judgements made ?

I answered your question exactly. If you believe in something without knowing how or why, you are willfully ignorant.

[R_Bert]

I answered your question exactly. If you believe in something without knowing how or why, you are willfully ignorant.

OK. Then by your reasoning, there are *none* fitting your definition. For all who believe, regardless of their religion, understand their personal reasons *why* they believe and participate in that faith. *they*, or their diety, are their judges. Not those of us who do not understand their beliefs.

Edited April 15, 2012 by R_Bert

[mikegideon]

yeah, so if they got too tired to tread water anymore explain how I am here.

You're not here. I thought we settled that

[Guest bkelm18]

OK. Then by your reasoning, there are *none* fitting your definition. For all who believe, regardless of their religion, understand their personal reasons *why* they believe and participate in that faith. *they*, or their diety, are their judges. Not those of us who do not understand their beliefs.

I wouldn't say none. There are plenty that are blindly faithful. Not everyone who believes in something can articulate their beliefs as well as you. Some not at all. Like I said, I don't care what you believe, as long as you know why you believe it and can understand what you're believing in. Not that my opinion should have any bearing on it anyway. If it offends anyone they should re-examine why it offends them to begin with.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I give more credit to the bulldog tenacity of the Jews as a race/culture than any divine intervention. They've made their own "prophesy" a reality.

Actually, it took a Christian believing President by the name of Harry Truman to cast the deciding vote in the UN that brought about the statehood of Israel. But I will give them credit for their tenacity and belief that Israel would be reborn again someday when they began their efforts starting in late 19th century, and with the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

ThePunisher

But they'll get theirs, right, since they're all going to hell anyway?

You will know who is going to hell on the judgement day.

ThePunisher

Edited April 15, 2012 by ThePunisher

[mikegideon]

You will know who is going to hell on the judgement day.

ThePunisher

Isn't it anybody that doesn't believe your version of the story? Aren't most religions a minorty of people in the "right", and the rest are going to hell?

[R_Bert]

I wouldn't say none. There are plenty that are blindly faithful. Not everyone who believes in something can articulate their beliefs as well as you. Some not at all. Like I said, I don't care what you believe, as long as you know why you believe it and can understand what you're believing in. Not that my opinion should have any bearing on it anyway. If it offends anyone they should re-examine why it offends them to begin with.

Again, it reverts back to *who* is the judge. Being articulate is not a requirement for faith. In fact, some religions and faith do not require extensive doctrinal knowledge of followers.

In my case, I have articulated no faith at all in this discussion, and have given no reason for my beliefs (or even what they are). I have simply followed logic.

That said, I have yet to meet someone, agnostic, atheist, Buddist, Christian, deist, Hindu, Islamic,Jewish, Mayan,pantheist,Shinto (and whatever additions in alphabetical order I can come up with) who cannot in some form explain their reasoning for their beleifs.

Thus, what you might describe as "willful blindness and ignorance", the followers of those faiths and religions would probably rather consider as "committed".

[Guest ThePunisher]

You will know who is going to hell on the judgement day.

ThePunisher

Isn't it anybody that doesn't believe your version of the story? Aren't most religions a minorty of people in the "right", and the rest are going to hell?

Well, as for my faith, there is only one way to Heaven, and that is by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior through faith, and by repenting of your sin. But of course, you knew that is what Christians believe in.

[mikegideon]

Well, as for my faith, there is only one way to Heaven, and that is by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior through faith, and by repenting of your sin. But of course, you knew that is what Christians believe in.

Yes, I did. So Jews and Muslims are going to hell, correct? Hindus too, correct?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Southern Baptists have the best deal. Once saved always saved. One walk down the aisle at age 8 and I've got it made in the shade. However back when I was going to church the preachers made sure to remind people that backsliders would get crummy housing in the slums of the city of gold, wheras faithful servants would get the mansions.

[mikegideon]

Southern Baptists have the best deal. Once saved always saved. One walk down the aisle at age 8 and I've got it made in the shade. However back when I was going to church the preachers made sure to remind people that backsliders would get crummy housing in the slums of the city of gold, wheras faithful servants would get the mansions.

Unless you happen to live outside the US. If you do, chances are...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You will know who is going to hell on the judgement day.

ThePunisher

Isn't it anybody that doesn't believe your version of the story? Aren't most religions a minorty of people in the "right", and the rest are going to hell?

I never thought that as a christian, that gave me keys to heaven. It is only a path to follow. My actions on Earth will

determine what happens after I leave it.

That's for God to decide, not me or a church.

Edited April 15, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Oh Shoot]

Actually, it took a Christian believing President by the name of Harry Truman to cast the deciding vote in the UN that brought about the statehood of Israel.

HST had no great love of the Jews, and finally came around to the separatist movement after trying every other way to resolve tensions in the region. Great read here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

Well, just for statistical accuracy, final vote on Resolution 181 was 33/13 with 10 abstentions and 1 absent. Would have passed by 2/3 with US abstaining also (only votes cast counted in the %). But of course most of the other 32 pro votes were US coerced, so the stats aren't that important.

You will know who is going to hell on the judgement day.

Continue to scare the children with that. Though now steadily diminishing in effect, it has been quite effective for a good long while now.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Unless you happen to live outside the US. If you do, chances are...

Well, chances approach 100% that if ThePunisher had been born a Yemeni, he'd be as stalwart a Muslim as he is now a Christian.

That's the thing about religion; only a very slim minority ever deviate from their upbringing into The One True Faith (whichever one that happens to be).

- OS

Edited April 15, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest bkelm18]

You will know who is going to hell on the judgement day.

ThePunisher

At least I'll be in good company.

[mikegideon]

At least I'll be in good company.

Thanks man

[Mike.357]

it is hard to fathom that a god all knowing would damn for eternity millions upon millions of people who were never even exposed to a certain version of what it takes to go to heaven.

Aliens visiting earth and causing the miracles of the bible is much more believable.

Is god a man or a woman?

[Oh Shoot]

.....Is god a man or a woman?

Pretty small god to be limited to that sort of thang.

[Guest lostpass]

LOOK PEOPLE I WAS LUCKY TO BE BORN INTO THE ONE TRUE FAITH THAT GETS EVERYTHING RIGHT! WHY DON'T YOU THINK LIKE ME??????

[Timestepper]

Morals? Love 'em sliced up and fried with butter! ...Wait, that's morels.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the ratio of morality is still about the same as it always was. And the biggest reason we seem to be noticing a lack of morality in <modern> times is that there are simply more people to notice. Four years ago, I planted an equal amount of tomatoes, potatoes and pole beans in a tiny 4'X16' garden and everything looked pretty equal. Last year I planted an equal amount of tomatoes, potatoes and pole beans in a 20'X30' garden and dumbly wondered why I seemed to have so many more tomatoes than I'd ever had before.

As to the whole creation vs. evolution thing, well... I dunno... I guess I'm just so damn dumb that I don't see them as being mutally exclusive. In fact, the older I get and the more I see and observe, the more I become convinced that neither could exist independently of the other. I don't know everything there is to know about God and I certainly don't know everything there is to know about evolution, but the things I do know about each seem to compliment the other - at least in my simple little brain.

There are so many things that neither science nor theology can explain that sometimes we just have to take them at face value. Yesterday my wife and I went to a memorial service for her ex-husband - my "husband-in-law" and dear friend, Dr. John Baird - and his wife asked that we each take a daisy from a bowl and, when the time felt right, amble down to Spivey Creek and toss the daisy in the water and say our own personal goodbye. Well, I went - as I am wont to do - upstream. Quite a long ways. Finally found a spot where the water flowed over a couple of big boulders then down a tiny waterfall into a pretty little pool. I was standing there looking at the water and trying to think some profound and meaningful thoughts and wondering just how best to place the daisy in the pool, when - and I would swear to this before the Supreme Court - over my shoulder I heard John say, "Screw the flower, give me a cigarette!" So I stuck the daisy in a crack in the rocks and tossed a Marlboro Menthol into the pool. And I was still chuckling when I got back to the cabin.

Now, I'm not given to wild flights of fancy and I'm just as skeptical as the next guy when it comes to hoodoos and haints and hearing voices and such. But I know I heard John just as plain as I can hear the click of the keyboard keys as I type this. Science can't explain it (neither can science explain how a bumblebee can fly or just how aspirin works) and most Pastors I've talked to tell me that ghosts don't exist (except, of course, for the Holy Ghost!), but neither changes what I experienced yesterday afternoon on Spivey Creek.

Guess I'm just too damn dumb to know better... and to tell the truth, I kinda' like it that way.

[Guest profgunner]

As to the whole creation vs. evolution thing, well... I dunno... I guess I'm just so damn dumb that I don't see them as being mutally exclusive. In fact, the older I get and the more I see and observe, the more I become convinced that neither could exist independently of the other. I don't know everything there is to know about God and I certainly don't know everything there is to know about evolution, but the things I do know about each seem to compliment the other - at least in my simple little brain.

I respectfully disagree on this point, and I think it is an important one. While it is true that a person of religious faith can coexist happily with science, neither of these two ways of knowing depends upon the input of the other. In fact, that is exactly where the problem lies. Trying to support faith with science, or vice versa, leads to a corruption of both. The theory of evolution, for example, does not depend on the existence of a supernatural creator. Likewise, belief in a creator in no way depends on the science of evolution. Can a person believe in God and simultaneously embrace science, including evolutionary biology? Sure. Many do. But the happiest among them understand and respect the boundaries. Edited April 15, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest profgunner]

Thanks profgunner. Please keep signing on, gonna eventually get around to asking you some genetic questions. Sometimes takes a long time to figure out what to ask. BTW, agree that Wild Turkey 101 on the rocks is a purty good thang.

Maybe we will get machine intelligence about the same time-frame as practical fusion? They have both been "a decade away" since the 1950's. Have met many bright folk who think that consciousness is only posessed by humans. That human noggins are both qualitatively and quantitatively different than other animals. Admittedly the gap is huge and maybe they have a point, but I'm a habitual anthropomorphizer and tend to think the animals have about the same qualitative thang except running on less complex computing hardware which was also optimized for more specialized tasks.

Anyway, up til now we only have carbon-based wetware to show much sign of intelligence or consciousness. Have conversed with bright-enough people who do not believe true machine consciousness or intelligence possible. Apparently believing that there is something unique about carbon-based wetware. There certainly isn't any factual way to refute that opinion at the moment. The more people study machine intelligence, the tougher the problem gets. Just like over-unity controlled fusion.

It is rather obvious that consciousness has SOMETHING to do with brain metabolism. Damage the brain or chemically alter the metabolism and it does alter intelligence and consciousness. Maybe that is all there is to it. We would need to have a pretty good idea of what is involved if desirous of emulating human consciousness, though there may be completely different ways to accomplish consciousness than the human mechanism. Perhaps some methods better adapted to current computing hardware, for all I know.

Some know-it-alls firmly believe that the right hardware and software is all it takes. That could be true. I don't keep up with the field, but was reviewing topics on depression awhile ago. Even when I was studying it in the 1970's they believed it had to do with neurotransmitters. Confusingly, anti-depressive medicines are not as effective as one would expect and the medicines that do kinda work affect the pathways in contradictory fashion. Placebo is almost as effective as drugs, and some claim that counseling is slightly more effective than drugs (which I suspect somebody might be lying about, but that's just me). Just sayin, some folks wonder if the old neurotransmitter model is either incomplete or possibly even "mostly wrong".

Am merely leaving open the possibility that there may be more to it than simply cleverly building a huge neural network. Or maybe that is all required. If people might have been over-optimistic that they understood adrenergic vs serotonergic brain pathways, then maybe they would be over-optimistic that consciousness only requires a honkin big fast computer?

Unless there is something unique about carbon based wetware than one would think consciousness could arise in a powerful enough computer. Some estimates of human total memory capacity are rather low and match current hardware. Other estimates claim human memory is of holographic nature and has much higher capacity. The memory system is the "state machine", which would get shuffled around in states as the machine "thinks". Some neural network chips have been manufactured. Maybe some of em are huge nowadays. Maybe people could program FPGA's to act like neural networks? One can emulate a neural net on an ordinary digital puter, but it takes a lot of CPU to emulate a neural net on ordinary hardware.

But if you have adequate memory to hold the state, then maybe the speed wouldn't matter for purposes of demonstration. If the computer running the neural net model runs 1/1000 realtime or slower, then you might say "Hi how are you?" to the computer today and then a few months later the computer finally replies "I'm fine, how about you?" Even if the net runs glacially slow, then it ought to be able to think deep thoughts. The thoughts would just take a long time to complete unless computers get lots faster, or we build humongous hardware neural nets rather than emulating on a CISC sequential computer. Or figure out new intelligence algorithms that are better suited to conventional sequential computers.

One other weird thought-- The above presupposes that intelligence or consciousness is the pattern and dynamic changes of the information, rather than something unique about the hardware it runs on, or even anything unique about processing speed if you don't mind non-real-time operation. If that is really so-- If what we perceive as "ourselves" is the dynamic pattern of information rather than anything to do with the underlying hardware--

Imagine a much cruder (but ginormous) system, neither silicon nor carbon based. Imagine a huge monastery of demented but dedicated monks presiding giant warehouses full of chalkboards. The complete bit pattern of the "current state" of one huge human-brain-complexity neural net are stored on on those zillions of chalkboards.

The monks have been carefully trained to erase and re-draw the chalk marks to perfectly emulate the rules of a ginormous neural network. Even though it may take the monks hundreds or thousands of years to erase and redraw enough chalkboard bits to represent a few seconds of human-real-time-- If the chalk marks on all those blackboards exactly emulate the pattern of a conscious brain, would that grand assortment of chalkmarks be "conscious"? Would all the moving bits of chalk, in toto, have its own consciousness and "feel alive"?

If consciousness and thought is the bit patterns and nothing else, then the chalkboard brain ought to be just as "alive and conscious" as a carbon wetware or silicon brain running the exact same algorithm and having the exact same state? It is fairly easy for me to visualize a silicon brain having true "consciousness" and feeling its own existence. I think, therefore I am. If its just bits then it ought to be identical for the ginormous chalkboard brain. But it is very difficult to visualize a ginormous collection of moving chalkboard bits being conscious.

Thanks Lester for your thoughtful response. You have some very interesting ideas! -Steve