Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Can Atheism Account For Rationality
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo - I actually wasn't. Indeed, I explicitly said the opposite. But that is how what I said was actually received and interpreted by several (apparently) and how it was responded to.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View Posthttps://www.iep.utm.edu/art-inte/
Much as intentionality
Take note of a couple things here. This is a secular website discussing artificial intelligence, and yet it makes reference to Christian thought to explain these concepts. Intentionality is cited as central to intelligence...intentionality requires free will.
Originally posted by Darfius View PostHave you heard of the Turing test, carp?
Originally posted by Darfius View PostThe inventor of computers knew they were not rational machines and devised a method of testing when they could have become rational. What say you to that?
As for the Turing Test, it was not designed to test if a computer is rational but rather to test if the computer is "thinking like a human being." Indeed, the primary thing Turing was looking to establish was "is it sentient?" In other words, Turing simply proposed that we humans, being sentient, are the best judge of sentience and whether or not it has been achieved by a given machine. It might interest you to know that we now have an instance of a computer passing the Turing Test. Despite that, I don't think modern computers have yet achieved true sentience, so Turing's test was by no means conclusive.
And all of this is essentially beside the point. Our discussion was "is it rational," not "is it sentient" or "does it think like a human."
I have said, several times, that you two (Seer and you) appear to be adding to the definition of "rational" things that are not part of the definition of the word. Sparko has pointed out differences in language usage. I continue to think that you two are not using the term "rational" in it's conventional sense.
A sentient being can be rational or irrational, so sentience is not an assurance of rationality.
An idea can be rational or irrational.
An object can act/choose/operate rationally, irrationally, or nonrationally.
All the word "rational" means is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." A computer is operating in accordance with logic. That is its very designed purpose. Ergo, it is a rational machine. It is not sentient. It is not "thinking."Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-26-2019, 03:37 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou were. And yes, I saw the wild contortions you later went through to justify why Christians you claimed were committing bigotry were not bigots. Just another example of you holding inconsistent views so that no one can nail you on anything.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI'll leave your assessments to you, Adrift. Thanks for the chat.
Or that anyone can parse in this thread here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...y+christianity (especially of Christians who hold that homosexuality is immoral, as you state here, and which includes most of the Christians on this website).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIt's not an assessment. It's the plain reading that anyone can see example of here and here.
Or that anyone can parse in this thread here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...y+christianity (especially of Christians who hold that homosexuality is immoral, as you state here, and which includes most of the Christians on this website).
I'm sure I have a few of my own (I can just hear the reaction to that statement now...). In a nutshell - I think the LGBTQ position many Christians have is a bigoted one. I don't think Christians are generally bigots, and I certainly don't think they all are.
And with that I am going to let you have the last word. I do not wish to derail Seer's thread further.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
It seems pretty clear to me that what Seer means by rational is "having the ability to reason". And to me it's clear as day that no matter how complex it has become, no computer or program so far has been able to attain that sort of rationality yet, nor is the prospect good of any computer or program ever attaining that sort of rationality (by which I'm saying that I disagree with Carpe's assessment of the brain/mind as a giant computer. There are no good reasons in my opinion to hold that belief). It is "rational" however in the definition that Carpe has provided, but I fail to see how that definition is even relevant to the discussion. As has already been pointed out before, pretty much everything in existence that we know of would fit under that definition of rational, since all that is required for anything to fit that definition is that it's existence and processes do not violate any laws of logic, and there is nothing we know of that exists that has been demonstrated to not fulfill that criteria.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAgain, you are meaning "UTILIZING/APPLYING Logic and Reason" but your definition says "in accordance with" - and I think that is the confusion here. And why you and seer are talking past each other.
Let me quote:
So I do not believe that A is true because of good reasons, I believe A is true, at bottom, because the laws of nature determined that I do.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRational: free thought where you get to weigh propositions, ideas and evidence and come to your own conclusions. Not where the underlying forces of nature dictate what you believe or think. Where you have no choice in believing and thinking as you do.
Let me quote: If there is no free will, then no one is capable of choosing to believe something because of good reasons. One could never adjudicate between a good idea and a bad one. Hed only believe what he does because hes been predetermined to do so.
So I do not believe that A is true because of good reasons, I believe A is true, at bottom, because the laws of nature determined that I do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostPersonally I think the problem is in that you believe that you are something other than your brain.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIndeed, the primary thing Turing was looking to establish was "is it sentient?" In other words, Turing simply proposed that we humans, being sentient, are the best judge of sentience and whether or not it has been achieved by a given machine. It might interest you to know that we now have an instance of a computer passing the Turing Test. Despite that, I don't think modern computers have yet achieved true sentience, so Turing's test was by no means conclusive.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI also think it is possible for a person who holds a bigoted view in one area to not generally be "a bigot" (as I noted in one of those posts). My wife is a prime example. She is supportive of the LGBTQ community, fights racism and racial intolerance, and many other forms of prejudice. But she grew up as an Italian in a largely Irish part of Boston and her youth was filled with some very nasty encounters and exchanges between those cultures. Now, when St. Patrick's day comes up each year, the antipathy she developed for "Irish" things surfaces. It's an understandable reaction, but it is (unfortunately) a bigoted one. I love her, but there is little/no discussing this with her. It's a "blind spot." Fortunately, it only comes up around that holiday, and is not generally aimed at any particular person (i.e., she has several friends and now family members who are Irish and loves them dearly).
I'm sure I have a few of my own (I can just hear the reaction to that statement now...). In a nutshell - I think the LGBTQ position many Christians have is a bigoted one. I don't think Christians are generally bigots, and I certainly don't think they all are.
And too bad seer doesn't earn the same treatment as your wife when it comes to the bigot pass.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAnd with that I am going to let you have the last word. I do not wish to derail Seer's thread further.Last edited by Adrift; 06-26-2019, 08:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt seems pretty clear to me that what Seer means by rational is "having the ability to reason". And to me it's clear as day that no matter how complex it has become, no computer or program so far has been able to attain that sort of rationality yet, nor is the prospect good of any computer or program ever attaining that sort of rationality (by which I'm saying that I disagree with Carpe's assessment of the brain/mind as a giant computer. There are no good reasons in my opinion to hold that belief). It is "rational" however in the definition that Carpe has provided, but I fail to see how that definition is even relevant to the discussion. As has already been pointed out before, pretty much everything in existence that we know of would fit under that definition of rational, since all that is required for anything to fit that definition is that it's existence and processes do not violate any laws of logic, and there is nothing we know of that exists that has been demonstrated to not fulfill that criteria.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI believe the universe is repeatable and predictable. That repeatability/predictability can be represented symbolicly as "laws" or "rules" or "concepts" that describe how the universe operates. If there is no mind to represent these principles (or whatever you wish to call them), then the universe continues to function, indifferent to the lack of symbolic representation of its operation.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment