Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • No

    Votes: 58 82.9%
  • Total voters
    70
Study scriptures of various religions for the rest of your life and maybe you can understand the relationship of God and man and this world.

How does that sound?

Not very appealing to you, eh?

Sorry, if you can't describe a concept yourself so as to educate others, if you can't do anything but say so and so understands it better than I do...you don't own the knowledge.

Using books to support an argument is still an appeal to authority, not that it is bad, but when you suggest that I read someone's opinion which is not fact, really I'm not interested in their opinion. Unless the author wants to come to this thread and give and explain his opinion, answer questions, debate the points of his opinion...it is useless.

Sorry that philosophy is not your strong suit. Science without philosophy is nothing but two dimensional shallow materialism...

"Knowledge in the book stays in the book."

---Hindi Proverb---

Quote from Mike805:

Optional,

I am not a philosopher nor do I claim expert status in the philosophy of human/machine interaction. Bart Kosko on the other hand, who wrote the book I recommended, is an expert. Please - no matter what you think of me at this point - read the book. It will be worth your time.

Philosophy is not my strong suit and you're getting philosophical. What I am telling you are facts, I don't argue philosophy as it is not a science.
More...
 
Quote from Mike805:

Engineering is where the rubber meets the road and we can engineer a human brain that is identical in its logical mechanism. It is being done, it has been done and will only get better with time.

More...


I don't believe this is accurate.

however, i am open to be proven wrong.

surf
 
atheism is a belief construct very similar to true religious fanatics.

neither is a "mental illness", however they are quite similar.

Belief is a choice, atheism is a choice regardless of stu etc word games.

a creation infers a creator--- who or what this is, is the proper question.

regards, surf
 
It is ridiculous in any case.

The computer "human" logical brain would not be anything close to human.

It wouldn't even know of its own existence, it would not be sentient, it would have no self awareness, it would not be conscious, it would only run a program ultimately written by a human being.

It would be like the difference between reading a biography of a man, and actually living the life and all the thoughts and feelings of a man.

It would be a replicant...not a human being.

Quote from marketsurfer:

I don't believe this is accurate.

however, i am open to be proven wrong.

surf
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Study scriptures of various religions for the rest of your life and maybe you can understand the relationship of God and man and this world.

How does that sound?

Not very appealing to you, eh?

Sorry, if you can't describe a concept yourself so as to educate others, if you can't do anything but say so and so understands it better than I do...you don't own the knowledge.

Using books to support an argument is still an appeal to authority, not that it is bad, but when you suggest that I read someone's opinion which is not fact, really I'm not interested in their opinion. Unless the author wants to come to this thread and give and explain his opinion, answer questions, debate the points of his opinion...it is useless.

Sorry that philosophy is not your strong suit. Science without philosophy is nothing but two dimensional shallow materialism...

"Knowledge in the book stays in the book."

---Hindi Proverb---
More...

Why did you choose to argue the value of the book I presented rather than find out what it actually says?

You're not being open minded.

I accept religion and I accept your point of view.

Let me make this as simple as possible:

You have made claims about what science is able/unable to *currently* do regarding brain function, MRI scanning and thoughts. I am telling you that you are not up to date on your information. I am presenting to you, a text, by a not only a PhD from USC in EE, but a guy who also holds an undergrad degree in Philosophy and Master's in Economics as well a J.D. (yes, Dr. Kosko is one smart f--k) and you are telling me this is all opinion and I shouldn't use a text to support my basic claims about what science is currently doing?

Where is the disconnect here?
 
Oh vey...

Read the scriptures that I recommend.

Read the philosophy books that I recommend.

Yada, yada, yada...

If it is so factual, you can easily provide some links...

Quote from Mike805:

Get the book I recommended.
More...
 
The idea that computer-run robots could come alive on their own is part of the misunderstanding even scientists have of mechanisms. Those who believe that life evolved by accident in a mechanical universe, on a nonliving planet, can also believe in accidents that will make robots come alive. But the fundamental distinctions between living organisms and machines show us why this will never be so.

Let us review those distinctions. Living organisms or systems remain functional only by continual change, whereas mechanisms remain functional only if they do not change, except as programmed. (Note that changes in natural systems can progress in only one direction, as they cannot undo their aging, while machines can run, in principle at least, both forward and backwards.) Living organisms are autopoietic and autonomous -- that is, self-produced and self-ruled. Mechanisms, on the other hand, are allopoietic and allonomous -- other-produced and other-ruled. The `others' are humans, or human-programmed robots, which make other robots. A robot making itself by its own rules is a logical impossibility.

http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Erthdnce/chapter15.html
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Oh vey...

Read the scriptures that I recommend.

Read the philosophy books that I recommend.

Yada, yada, yada...

If it is so factual, you can easily provide some links...
More...

It was a directed response about the fact that a computer can easily reproduce the logical mechanisms of the brain.

If you say that you don't believe certain things are happening then get a friggin' clue for goodness sakes...

Your claims about what is and is not currently being done by the scientific community are just wrong and I'll leave it that. Good luck utilizing that closed mind of yours.
 
I can go watch Oprah and she will recommend books to read...

LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!

Look, if you can't explain it on your own, you don't own it...

If you want to make an argument and cite others, make footnotes and references, fine.

But to just say "Go read this book" means you don't actually grasp and own the concepts...

I could care less if some dude has a 100 degrees in various disciplines, it means nothing to me at all...

If he can make an argument and defend it on his own by simple explanations, he has my respect.

If not, then he doesn't have my respect...

Quote from Mike805:

Why did you choose to argue the value of the book I presented rather than find out what it actually says?

You're not being open minded.

I accept religion and I accept your point of view.

Let me make this as simple as possible:

You have made claims about what science is able/unable to *currently* do regarding brain function, MRI scanning and thoughts. I am telling you that you are not up to date on your information. I am presenting to you, a text, by a not only a PhD from USC in EE, but a guy who also holds an undergrad degree in Philosophy and Master's in Economics as well a J.D. (yes, Dr. Kosko is one smart f--k) and you are telling me this is all opinion and I shouldn't use a text to support my basic claims about what science is currently doing?

Where is the disconnect here?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top