AI vs Religion

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
- Correction, 'Some' have

- Correction, 'Some' have complained that they are complex, Others notice those that are peer reviewed and others that are simply 'in the works' so to speak.

- As a result, You continuously spam your personal opinions which rest on unfounded papers.
Such as your thought experiment that requires supersymmetry, which we've all mentioned millions of times, has no evidence to support it.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
- Correction, 'Some' have

TheBlindwatchmaker said:

- Correction, 'Some' have complained that they are complex, Others notice those that are peer reviewed and others that are simply 'in the works' so to speak.

- As a result, You continuously spam your personal opinions which rest on unfounded papers.
Such as your thought experiment that requires supersymmetry, which we've all mentioned millions of times, has no evidence to support it.

1.) On the contrary, history shows that you have wrongly injected your opinions several times (Wherein you mistook your opinions as valid evidence, and my objective expressions as invalid evidence). You appeared to recently come to know the difference between the teleological argument, and teleology in biology. (In a recent thread where we largely exchanged words)

In simpler terms, you strongly expressed your opinions/subjective feelings, contrary to purpose in the regime of objectivity.

1.b) Reference: Scenario where you blathered on contrary to purpose in the realm of objectivity.

2.) It is no surprise that people without PhD's or Masters will find my model strange. However, from my interactions, professors or PhD holders, tend to find my model straight forward/sensible.

3.) Sample discussions with PhD Holders:

Aposteriori unum's picture
Argument from authority.

"2.) It is no surprise that people without PhD's or Masters will find my model strange. However, from my interactions, professors or PhD holders, tend to find my model straight forward/sensible."

Argument from authority. One after another, you're on a roll.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
This is something I too have

This is something I too have tried to point out on occasions, a proverbial fallacy marry-go-round.

And edit's to suit his narrative, which renders me uninterested in further dialogue.

CyberLN's picture
It would also include him,

It would also include him, then, as he is without a PhD or Masters.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Indeed, This is what I find

Indeed, This is what I find amusing.

But perhaps English isn't his first language?!

It's ironic too, that like supersymmetry, he cannot see the parallels.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
TheBlindwatchmaker said:

TheBlindwatchmaker said:

Such as your thought experiment that requires supersymmetry, which we've all mentioned millions of times, has no evidence to support it.

Where does my hypothesis supposedly require Supersymmetry?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
CyberLn said:

CyberLn said:

It would also include him, then, as he is without a PhD or Masters.

1.) Is English your first language?

2.) Note that I didn't say that all beings absent PhD or masters don't disregard my model. In English, we use qualifiers such as "all" to classify stuff.

Sheldon's picture
"Note that I didn't say that

"Note that I didn't say that all beings absent PhD or masters don't disregard my model. In English, we use qualifiers such as "all" to classify stuff."

You didn't say some either, so the error was yours by being vague.

"It is no surprise that people without PhD's or Masters will find my model strange."

In English we use qualifiers such as "some" to classify you don't mean all, and are not simply being lazy or illiterate.

CyberLN's picture
Enlighten me, please. How

Enlighten me, please. How would what you wrote exclude you? Be specific.

“In English, we use qualifiers such as “all” to classify stuff.” Did you use a qualifier in the sentence we are discussing?

Is the word ‘stuff’ some sort of technical term?

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
TheBlindwatchmaker said:

TheBlindwatchmaker said:

And edit's to suit his narrative, which renders me uninterested in further dialogue.

On the contrary:

1.) You can contact Garret Lisi to confirm our exchange.

2.) You can clearly see that the Facebook discussion with Eray is unedited. (I can't edit his responses)

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
You didn't say some either,

Sheldon said;

You didn't say some either, so the error was yours by being vague.

On the contrary, I specifically listed a few persons that don't disregard my model. (with PhD's). Is English your first language Sheldon?

Flamenca's picture
@ProgrammingGodJordan, since

@ProgrammingGodJordan, since you keep asking people if English is their first language (btw it is not mine, I warn you so you don't need to ask), when reading your posts I'm tempted to ask... Is any human language your first? As you can tell by the multiple negative comments about your muddled posts, that people cannot follow your thoughts (and this forum is full of brilliant women and men) and you keep commiting fallacy after fallacy... You're not interested in explaining your point of view, but to prove to yourself how smart you are... It's very boring to read you.

(Edited for clarity)

CyberLN's picture
Touché

Touché

Nyarlathotep's picture
Did you know. PGJ goes back

Did you know: PGJ goes back and edits his posts. Towards what ends you ask? Believe it or not, he removes places where he has been candid, and replaces them with extremely obscure language. I won't guess at his motives for doing so. But it leaves us with the situation: the longer a post of his has been up, the more obscure it seems.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: "...the longer a

@Nyar Re: "...the longer a post of his (PGJ) has been up, the more obscure it seems."

*cue The Twilight Zone music*

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
This is something I have

This is something I have attempted to point out on numerous occasions, I am glad someone else caught wind of it.

Randy the Atheist's picture
You don't need all knowledge

You don't need all knowledge to know that gods are man-made superstitions invented by different cultures, living on different continents across different periods of time and whose fairytales were isolated to their geographic locations for more than 1500 years until the Age of Exploration began.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
If only that were true, alas

If only that were true, alas it continues to have its strangle hold on various populations.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
and this forum is full of

Flamenca said:

and this forum is full of brilliant women and men

1.) It looks like many of them don't study machine learning, if my posts mostly supposedly appear "muddled".

2.) As I said before, people with PhDs or masters in relevant fields have been observed to recognize my expressions as straightforward/sensible.

3.) Ironically, I am the only being here that tends to present expressions as organized, quickly digestable bullet points.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Nyarlathotep said:

Nyarlathotep said:

Did you know: PGJ goes back and edits his posts. Towards what ends you ask?

I tend to remove typos. (You may detect this if you compare a quotation of my words by others with the edited stuff)

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
CyberLn said:

CyberLn said:
and you keep commiting fallacy after fallacy...

1.) Come, that you don't understand a topic, does not suddenly warrant that data in said topic terms is fallacious. In fact, your action above is probably fallacious.

2.) As per my invention "non-beliefism ", I don't subscribe to fallacy. Perhaps you need to reevaluate you're position.

CyberLN's picture
PGJ, where did I say “and you

PGJ, where did I say “and you keep commiting fallacy after fallacy”?

“Perhaps you need to reevaluate you’re (sic) position” that I wrote it.

Aposteriori unum's picture
Pgj said: " In fact, your

Pgj said: " In fact, your action above is probably fallacious."

What the hell does "probably fallacious" mean? It either is or it isn't. Are you not sure? Do you know where CyberLN was being fallacious... Do tell...but... Wasn't that flamenca who said that? Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

You called yourself a "being" in your response to Flamenca. Are you not a human? Why do you use that word instead of person?

Again with the argument from authority too... (Look it up).

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Quite literally the stupidest

Quite literally the stupidest thing I have read on here yet.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
You called yourself a "being"

Aposteriori Unum said:

You called yourself a "being" in your response to Flamenca. Are you not a human? Why do you use that word instead of person?

1.) I tend to call people beings.

2.) Refer to item 6 in the following url: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/being

Tin-Man's picture
STOP THE PRESSES!!! I think

STOP THE PRESSES!!! I think I just figured it out, everybody! It is so obvious it is no wonder we all missed it!....

Our ol' buddy PGJ is actually a prototype AI program that has logged in to the AR to interact with humans and learn social skills. Wow... It all makes sense now. We really need to help him with his etiquette and sense of humor. Just think.... We could all currently be a part of helping the first AI being assimilate into society. Awesome!

Randomhero1982's picture
Cyberdyne Systems Model

Cyberdyne Systems Model 01000011 01101111 01100011 01101011.

(I'll allow you to translate the binary code)

Tin-Man's picture
@Random

@Random

67. 111. 99. 107. Is it suppose to be random, Random?

Tin-Man's picture
@Random

@Random

Aw, shit. Disregard. I got it! LMAO!!!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.