AI says God or No

[sdelsolray]

Time to flush the toilet?

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, see, you are imposing motivation on my curiosity to see what the results would be, and then using that to vilify.  So you, Walter, missed the mark and showed your own crap mixed in with your ego.  Can you please post that diatribe about you using your intellect to do harm and then reflect how you have failed to remedy your shit… even in the midst of all that intellect and “remit”… cordially of course…

 

This accusation is false and I will prove it by citing my posts in this thread.

 

From 23 hours ago...

 

That is, what is the point of Edgarcito starting this thread if he had already decided to ignore any other conclusion than the one he wanted? 

 

If Ed had decided beforehand the answer that he wanted, this puts an altogether different slant on his apparently open-minded opening gambit. 

Thought this would be an interesting topic...without too much contention.  (It will only become contentious if it doesn't give me what I already want.)

Do we think AI would conclude there is a god or confirm a particular religion over others?  (I have already concluded that AI will confirm Christianity.)

Interesting in my mind, but maybe not everyone's. (The result I already want is interesting in my mind, but if others disagree I'm going to ignore them.)

Thoughts if you would like to contribute. (Your thoughts are welcome if they agree with the result I want to see, otherwise they are not welcome.)

So, was Ed being deliberately false when he posed his apparently open-minded question about AI?

Or did he genuinely believe that he was being open-minded, when all the time he was suffering from confirmation bias?

 

Everything I say is based on the question of you accepting the result that AI gives you.  These are conditional sentences.  Conditional on your open-minded acceptance of whatever result the AI gave you.

 

And yet I wrote this AFTER you admitted you would not accept it is the AI's result of Islam being the true faith.

 

So, even after you declared your hand I was still giving your motivation the benefit of the doubt.

 

Therefore your accusation is false.

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, did someone appoint you to be the ExC anti-Christian response director or did your ego appoint you.  And what if Christianity is true and your zeal in the scientific remit has lead people to disbelief. Is that your right?….to be that damn disrespectful with your life?  And your intellect?  Your self professed bulb may be bright, but it doesn’t shine bright enough for you to see very far….

 

If nobody else stands up for free and fair, open-minded scientific inquiry then I'm glad to do it.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Time to flush the toilet?

 

Not necessarily, sdelsolray.

 

Edgarcito is performing a useful function for the forum by showing everyone how Christianity affects its followers.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, well we did start this thread politely because we were all under the impression that you began it with an open mind, in the spirit of unprejudiced investigation.  But since you have openly admitted that you would refuse to accept the AI's results if they were anything other than Christianity, your true motivation for starting up this thread has been revealed.  You only ever wanted AI to give you the result you wanted.  You were never really interested in the truth.  

 

You want to show us how you remitted this one Captain?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

DB, respectfully, you are not even following what I was proposing anyhow.  Please go back and read what I was/am asking of the AI database.  I’m not at all asking it to conclude anything.

 

I'm hesitant to call you a liar, maybe I misunderstood your motives but this is what you said earlier on the first page after your initial post. 

 

On 4/13/2023 at 11:09 AM, Edgarcito said:

I think AI likely has the ability to evaluate a data set and recognize trends or grouping we don't readily see...small to large.  Are our behaviors X or Y and then compare that to various doctrines.  Might give an insight into one religion being more certain than another...imo.

 

How am I to take that. In your own words in that post and the posts afterward concerning mine and Walter's line of questioning reflect that you think AI would verify Christianity over other religions. And if it didn't you would dismiss those findings. However if it did you would use those findings to promote Christianity. As you told RNP here.

 

On 4/17/2023 at 4:34 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's my question, Ed.  Well, here's my question and my follow-up question, anyway.

 

1. If your hypothetical AI definitively concluded jesus and christianity, would you use that information to encourage others to join the faith and become christians?

 

2. Based on your answer to question #1 above, if your hypothetical AI definitively concluded allah and islam, would you use that information to encourage others to join the faith and become muslims?  

 

 

17 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

1) I likely would.

2) No, I wouldn't.

 

So please tell me Ed. How am I not following what you are proposing?

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You want to show us how you remitted this one Captain?

 

So are you claiming that you did start this thread with an open mind, but then closed it up along the way?

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I think we're moving pretty far away from the topic of where AI will weigh in on the existence of a god.

 

So far we've established that current AI models are not up to the task, though they can uncover relationships in big data sets that would otherwise remain hidden to us.

 

Perhaps a model trained all world religions, holy books, and supporting historical data may find some interesting threads of commonality.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Krowb said:

I think we're moving pretty far away from the topic of where AI will weigh in on the existence of a god.

 

So far we've established that current AI models are not up to the task, though they can uncover relationships in big data sets that would otherwise remain hidden to us.

 

Perhaps a model trained all world religions, holy books, and supporting historical data may find some interesting threads of commonality.

 

I agree Krowb.

 

However, surely the whole point of this thread is that AI should be allowed to make an unbiased and unprejudiced inquiry?

 

But if its final answer is refused as unacceptable, especially by the thread starter, then where does that leave us?

 

This is the issue that DB and I are addressing.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, Krowb said:

I think we're moving pretty far away from the topic of where AI will weigh in on the existence of a god.

 

So far we've established that current AI models are not up to the task, though they can uncover relationships in big data sets that would otherwise remain hidden to us.

 

Perhaps a model trained all world religions, holy books, and supporting historical data may find some interesting threads of commonality.

Let me express one more time what I am proposing please.   A digital pattern....and then asking AI where else does it find this same digital pattern.  And then using THESE findings to then assess whether one religion is more congruent with the total database.  This is different than asking the AI to discern it for itself.

 

One might identify the digital pattern for "light" and then see where else that pattern shows up over the entire database.  And then ask OURSELVES whether one religion shows more accuracy than another.

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So are you claiming that you did start this thread with an open mind, but then closed it up along the way?

 

 

Nice dodge...answer the bolded.  How did you make the jump.  Show your data....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

One might identify the digital pattern for "light" and then see where else that pattern shows up over the entire database.  And then ask OURSELVES whether one religion shows more accuracy than another.

Ed, if the "light" is simply going to be ignored in favor of willful darkness, what would be the point of further inquiry?

[walterpthefirst]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Nice dodge...answer the bolded.  How did you make the jump.  Show your data....

 

Ok then, I stand by what I said in bold.

 

Your true motivation for starting up this thread was not to accept any answer that AI gave you.

 

If you deny that then you would have us believe you changed your position, flipping from an open minded acceptance of any answer to a close-minded refusal to accept answers that you don't agree with.

 

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok then, I stand by what I said in bold.

 

Your true motivation for starting up this thread was not to accept any answer that AI gave you.

 

If you deny that then you would have us believe you changed your position, flipping from an open minded acceptance of any answer to a close-minded refusal to accept answers that you don't agree with.

 

Well, you are wrong.  Took a hiatus from this place for a while in order to bring something that actually was interesting to me and then it come back to this shit Walter.  You might ask yourself why you have the necessity to self appoint yourself as Captain Kill The Christian at ExC.   

 

Now back to our regular scheduled programming.... 

[Edgarcito]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ed, if the "light" is simply going to be ignored in favor of willful darkness, what would be the point of further inquiry?

Let's run the experiment first please before convicting the analyst...

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, you are wrong.  Took a hiatus from this place for a while in order to bring something that actually was interesting to me and then it come back to this shit Walter.  You might ask yourself why you have the necessity to self appoint yourself as Captain Kill The Christian at ExC.   

 

Now back to our regular scheduled programming.... 

 

On the basis of the times you've been caught lying in this forum, I don't think your denial will cut much ice, Ed.

 

And your refusal to accept any answer that AI would give you still stands.

 

You're on record as saying that you would not accept it if AI told you that Islam is the one true faith.

 

And DarkBishop and the Redneck Prof would still like you to answer their questions about that.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

On the basis of the times you've been caught lying in this forum, I don't think your denial will cut much ice, Ed.

 

And your refusal to accept any answer that AI would give you still stands.

 

You're on record as saying that you would not accept it if AI told you that Islam is the one true faith.

 

And DarkBishop and the Redneck Prof would still like you to answer their questions about that.

 

 

Put you on ignore Walter...  thx.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

58 minutes ago, Krowb said:

think we're moving pretty far away from the topic of where AI will weigh in on the existence of a god.

I feel like the goal post keeps shifting. First the question was whether AI would determine whether or not there was a God. A few comments below that Ed shifted the goal post to the question of if AI could determine whether one religion was more accurate over other religions. Now we are talking about AI analyzing digital patterns to determine whether one religion was more congruent. 

 

Maybe all of this is the same question in Ed's mind. Christians believe that there is only one true God and that is the God of Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, etc, etc. So in a Christians mind if it determines that there is a God.... well it must be saying the bible is true. But then as Ed well knows. Our next Question would be..... well ok.... Which God is it and how can you say it isn't Zeus or Ganesh. As we have had these conversations in the past. So it makes sense to cut to the chase and just ask whether or not one religion is more correct over others. I get that shift in the goal post. For Ed.

 

But in the end. What is the point if you are only going to use a conclusion that agrees with your already presuppositions? Why even ask AI in the first place. 

 

Since Ed shifted the goal post toward religion instead of just God in general. What about if AI analyzed all religions compared to verifiable scientific discoveries? Is the unseen sky God that moves the sun back, plagues Egypt, raises people from the dead, confuses languages, has a pet talking snake called the devil, produces more water on earth than earth actually has, and makes water flow from rocks is more accurate than current testable data in physics, geology, astronomy, or any other science related field. 

 

I think AI would probably rule more in favor of testable data than myths and fairy tales. But maybe that is my own presuppositions. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

And DarkBishop and the Redneck Prof would still like you to answer their questions about that.

Actually he did. He said he would not accept it but if it concluded that Christianity was true he would use it to try to convince others of the truth in Christianity. Gotta love those double standards. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Actually he did. He said he would not accept it but if it concluded that Christianity was true he would use it to try to convince others of the truth in Christianity. Gotta love those double standards. 

 

DB

 

Then, even if Ed can make me disappear from his reality, the question of the analyst's bias and prejudice still stands.

 

Why run the experiment if there are results that the analyst will not accept?

 

Surely the whole point is to run the experiment and accept whatever result it gives?

 

Who or what is leading the search for truth here, the evidence or the ideology?

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me express one more time what I am proposing please.   A digital pattern....and then asking AI where else does it find this same digital pattern.  And then using THESE findings to then assess whether one religion is more congruent with the total database.  This is different than asking the AI to discern it for itself.

 

That doesn't require AI.  Grep commands have been around for a long time.  The total database part is the hangup.  Which translations to use for the database, does each translation count as a separate entry in the total database or simply a variation of the same underlying document?

 

From my view, the point and purpose of AI is for it to discern for itself, and it certainly does that when you pose a query and it returns a single answer, as opposed to google providing links to all sorts of answers.

 

This conversation has become muddled.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, Krowb said:

 

That doesn't require AI.  Grep commands have been around for a long time.  The total database part is the hangup.  Which translations to use for the database, does each translation count as a separate entry in the total database or simply a variation of the same underlying document?

 

From my view, the point and purpose of AI is for it to discern for itself, and it certainly does that when you pose a query and it returns a single answer, as opposed to google providing links to all sorts of answers.

 

This conversation has become muddled.

Thanks.  Then please pardon my ignorance of the subject.  What I described were my original thoughts regarding AI. 

In my mind's eye, I was seeing a particular matrix common to all and then asking ourselves where it presents itself and why.  I still believe it would yield surprising results.

 

Thanks. 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

6 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I think AI would probably rule more in favor of testable data than myths and fairy tales. But maybe that is my own presuppositions

 

That is an interesting point to make.  But the model doesn't "know" that one is testable data, only that a category of information self-describes itself as testable data and that another category describes itself as the words of god(s). It would need to make a judgment call that the "testable data" category is more reliable than the "word of god(s)" category.  And unfortunately a lot of tests aren't ever replicated, so even that is not a categorical truth either.  Since AI does not exist in the same experiential reality as us, it can only decide based on what is in its particular database -> which is simply an amalgam of symbols we use to describe the reality we inhabit.

 

Fun times ahead as the AI researchers grapple with these issues.  Philosophers will be involved soon.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  Then please pardon my ignorance of the subject.  What I described were my original thoughts regarding AI. 

In my mind's eye, I was seeing a particular matrix common to all and then asking ourselves where it presents itself and why.  I still believe it would yield surprising results.

 

Thanks. 

 

But is your mind open to whatever results AI gives you?

 

You are on record as saying No.

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

@walterpthefirst,

 

Please give it a rest, not every argument needs to end in capitulation.