Science as a religion: The "Ten Truths" revisited (believe, verses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regrettably, or perhaps not, this will be my last contribution before I return to the Irkle Cave for an extended period. The silence from LearnMe has been surprising, since he is the one who invited my original post. Perhaps he's consulting some brain trust and will wow you with a veritable refutation of all I have said. Or perhaps the silence is a tacit admission the Ten Truths have been sliced, diced and shredded.
Anyway, these discussions always bump up against the ultimate philosophical/metaphysical question: Why is there anything rather than nothing at all?
I don't see - and I don't think scientists and philosophers of science see - a definitive answer to this question so long as we are confined to the reality we are trying to explain. Even if science could determine to a scientific certainty that the universe has always existed or is one of many universes, the "Why?" question would remain.
God is an answer of sorts, of course, but invites the sort of questions atheists love to ask: Where did God come from? Why is there a God?
The Christian answer is that God simply is - he's the Uncaused Cause. Nothing in science or elsewhere mandates this conclusion. The creator of our universe could be a cosmic kid with a cosmic Lego set. Even if one accepts an ultimate Uncaused Cause, it doesn't have to reside at the level immediately above our own.
The Uncaused Cause is simply a philosophical construct, one of the standard "proofs" of the existence of a deity. It doesn't really answer the ultimate "Why?" Pretty much ditto for the notion that the universe - or rather the "stuff" that gave rise to the universe - has simply always existed. In the abstract, I don't find this notion inherently more or less probable than an Uncaused Cause.
Across the scientific disciplines in which I'm most interested - physics, cosmology, consciousness studies, psychical and PSI research - it seems to me the notion that the fundamental "stuff" of the universe has always existed has been badly shaken over the past 125 years. As astronomer, physicist and mathematician James Jean famously said, "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." As astronomer and physicist Robert Jastrow famously said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
As I look at the advances in these areas of science, the notion that this incredible organized, purposeful complexity just sorted of blossomed from eternally existing raw materials strikes me intuitively as implausible in the extreme. When I supplement the science with my own personal experiences and observations and those of millions of others, I arrive at a theistic conviction - not atheistic, not deistic, but theistic. When I further ask "Which theistic explanation best meshes with the science and my observations and experiences?" - well, a Christian template does, in part precisely because it is counterintuitive and not something I or anyone else would have been likely to invent if we were were seeking only emotional satisfaction and pie in the sky.
I like the fact that you can basically come up with the flowery prose that I can't. I'll hand you that. However, quote all the famous people you want. They don't have a real clue about any of this. I don't have a real clue about any of this. You don't have a real clue about any of this. Nobody does.
And that's why I chuckle at guys like Tzaph who demand that we take a stance on issues that we don't have any real information.
Unlike Harry, I do claim some expertise in the area ...
That would be like Harry. It would be difficult to build a back propagation network without any expertise, would it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
... and neural networks are an abstract model applied to the functioning of the brain that has no physical correlates so expecting microtubules is asinine.
Ha, again you miss the point. No one is expecting microtubules. That was the whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is what happens when you think that the models (usually mathematical) actually represent what is going on in the brain. They do not. They can produce similar outcomes, period.
Both use a step function, so the principle is the same. Both learn from the data, and both can react accurately to new information, because they are modelling how neurons work. So yes, a neural network is representing what goes on in the brain. Period.
And using test data with a game controller, the agent did what I would have done when presented with data it had not been trained with. The outcome was 100% accurate. Not similar, 100% accurate. The only difference is that I made conscious choices, the network (only having three neurons), did not.
I could post the data, although with your allergy to data, perhaps that may not be a good idea.
Wrong! I was talking about Harry and his absurd assertion that neural networks do not have microtubules, NOT Penrose. I am very much a fan of Penrose and Hameroff. It is Harry whose "little knowledge" presents such absurd arguments.
A neural network is a computer model. A neuron is a biological cell, and therefore has microtubules.
It is not an absurd assertion that neural networks do not have microtubules, it is a fact. It would be an absurd assertion if I said that neurons do not have microtubules.
Why do you assert I have little knowledge and then get the simplest concepts wrong?
But Irkle, where is my substantive evidence I asked for? Or are you going to return much later and misrepresent the fact that you did not give me the evidence I asked for, just as you misrepresented my contribution to your Bayes thread?
That would be like Harry. It would be difficult to build a back propagation network without any expertise, would it not?
Ha, again you miss the point. No one is expecting microtubules. That was the whole point.
Both use a step function, so the principle is the same. Both learn from the data, and both can react accurately to new information, because they are modelling how neurons work. So yes, a neural network is representing what goes on in the brain. Period.
And using test data with a game controller, the agent did what I would have done when presented with data it had not been trained with. The outcome was 100% accurate. Not similar, 100% accurate. The only difference is that I made conscious choices, the network (only having three neurons), did not.
I could post the data, although with your allergy to data, perhaps that may not be a good idea.
The brain is NOT doing mathematics, period. WE use mathematics to simulate the outcomes. Step functions that use perceptron neuron models are unable to learn in complex networks without corrupting the outcomes by correcting one of the outcomes. Sigmoid neuron modeling avoids that issue but it is till mathematics and the brain is NOT doing mathematics.
In some versions of panpsychism, the "aliveness" (or consciousness) extends throughout all systems and ultimately the universe itself - i.e., the universe's consciousness is independent of the earth's consciousness and an individual's consciousness.
Kastrup's idealism that I keep mentioning has it all as consciousness - i.e., matter or the appearance of matter being generated by consciousness - but my understanding is that the grand consciousness resides at a higher level and generates our reality.
Even with a limited version of panpsychism such as Penrose proposes (he doesn't use that term), or as true panpsychists who think consciousness is at the atomic or subatomic level of all matter (animate and inanimate) propose, how does anyone think this structure "just happened"?
To say that something like the matter-mind structure of the universe has simply always existed strikes me as intuitively implausible. I guess that's why I like idealism - it's a relatively clean and Occam-like explanation, not to mention easily reconcilable with theism.
I think I'm reaching the point where even I would have to say I scarcely know what I'm talking about.
What's your training? You seem to be piecing it together enough to me. Can you talk about it without name dropping? Not that I don't respect those guys, its just that its us talking.
Yes, I can't process "infinite" myself either. About the only thing i can't process more than that is "from nothing". But we just have to admit its us humans at that point and move on to me. I get rid of turtles by stating that "our universe is the first". lets say, for now, "its the first with "awareness".
We don't know where it came from and we don;t know where its going. But we can say some things about it today. For me, "stopping religion" as the starting point ends in the same place as religion. stagnate, "belief based", and ignorant. For me, its about what do we know that matches what we are seeing.
I don't know about an "aware", But it sure does look alive. I use some some very basic science to show it. But a measurement seals the deal for me.
Please, keep in mind, its just what I think. I am no where near certain and i just don't know for sure.
But Irkle, where is my substantive evidence I asked for? Or are you going to return much later and misrepresent the fact that you did not give me the evidence I asked for, just as you misrepresented my contribution to your Bayes thread?
Just list the traits of life. The system around us matches more than half of them. Toss in a measurement, And we do need more than you saying its not evidence.
Some right powerful people understand that we are part of a more complex system. they we are in its image. The imagine is not religious, its the PT. Whatever we have, The sytem is more of more of.
Can you show anything that we have that the system the system around us has less of? I will take one piece of evidence.
The brain is NOT doing mathematics, period. WE use mathematics to simulate the outcomes. Step functions that use perceptron neuron models are unable to learn in complex networks without corrupting the outcomes by correcting one of the outcomes. Sigmoid neuron modeling avoids that issue but it is till mathematics and the brain is NOT doing mathematics.
lmao ... I know right.
We do not "invent" the "math". We discover it ... I am not sure what they don't get.
Wait, my bad, we don;t get its more practicle to stop religion than than openly talk about other beliefs and question other atheist. my bad.
Regrettably, or perhaps not, this will be my last contribution before I return to the Irkle Cave for an extended period. The silence from LearnMe has been surprising, since he is the one who invited my original post. Perhaps he's consulting some brain trust and will wow you with a veritable refutation of all I have said. Or perhaps the silence is a tacit admission the Ten Truths have been sliced, diced and shredded.
Anyway, these discussions always bump up against the ultimate philosophical/metaphysical question: Why is there anything rather than nothing at all?
I don't see - and I don't think scientists and philosophers of science see - a definitive answer to this question so long as we are confined to the reality we are trying to explain. Even if science could determine to a scientific certainty that the universe has always existed or is one of many universes, the "Why?" question would remain.
God is an answer of sorts, of course, but invites the sort of questions atheists love to ask: Where did God come from? Why is there a God?
The Christian answer is that God simply is - he's the Uncaused Cause. Nothing in science or elsewhere mandates this conclusion. The creator of our universe could be a cosmic kid with a cosmic Lego set. Even if one accepts an ultimate Uncaused Cause, it doesn't have to reside at the level immediately above our own.
The Uncaused Cause is simply a philosophical construct, one of the standard "proofs" of the existence of a deity. It doesn't really answer the ultimate "Why?" Pretty much ditto for the notion that the universe - or rather the "stuff" that gave rise to the universe - has simply always existed. In the abstract, I don't find this notion inherently more or less probable than an Uncaused Cause.
Across the scientific disciplines in which I'm most interested - physics, cosmology, consciousness studies, psychical and PSI research - it seems to me the notion that the fundamental "stuff" of the universe has always existed has been badly shaken over the past 125 years. As astronomer, physicist and mathematician James Jean famously said, "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." As astronomer and physicist Robert Jastrow famously said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
As I look at the advances in these areas of science, the notion that this incredible organized, purposeful complexity just sorted of blossomed from eternally existing raw materials strikes me intuitively as implausible in the extreme. When I supplement the science with my own personal experiences and observations and those of millions of others, I arrive at a theistic conviction - not atheistic, not deistic, but theistic. When I further ask "Which theistic explanation best meshes with the science and my observations and experiences?" - well, a Christian template does, in part precisely because it is counterintuitive and not something I or anyone else would have been likely to invent if we were were seeking only emotional satisfaction and pie in the sky.
I'm genuinely disappointed to read that you are taking your leave. I enjoyed talking with you and reading what you have to say. I felt like we had found some common ground and for me that's what this is all about.
I like in particular, the way you articulate your beliefs and views. I felt like we were making some headway on this thread.
Ahh well I do hope we cross paths again somewhere down the road. I can understand why you are not hanging around. The carping over nothing that many people seem to insist on and petty one upmanship is tiresome. I can't say I blame you.
Wrong! I was talking about Harry and his absurd assertion that neural networks do not have microtubules, NOT Penrose. I am very much a fan of Penrose and Hameroff. It is Harry whose "little knowledge" presents such absurd arguments.
Apologies Mystic. I must have misread the post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
