New religion: artificial God

[OldLady]

I didn't understand some of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I got Hal. I definitely got Hal. And I got Bishop in Aliens. A thinking computer that is perfectly programmed to protect humans. No screwing up and misusing intelligence like Carter Burke. So I guess I can understand the impulse to produce a machine that replicates -- but then improves -- us.

I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us. Conversely, those folks should offer the same, and not try and stifle the advancement of these longevity sciences.

Last, I'm sure both sides could come together in agreement that there's an issue that we agree that it exists, and need to address: misuse.

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

 

[G.T.]

I didn't understand some of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I got Hal. I definitely got Hal. And I got Bishop in Aliens. A thinking computer that is perfectly programmed to protect humans. No screwing up and misusing intelligence like Carter Burke. So I guess I can understand the impulse to produce a machine that replicates -- but then improves -- us.

I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us. Conversely, those folks should offer the same, and not try and stifle the advancement of these longevity sciences.

Last, I'm sure both sides could come together in agreement that there's an issue that we agree that it exists, and need to address: misuse.

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

 

[OldLady]

I didn't understand some of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I got Hal. I definitely got Hal. And I got Bishop in Aliens. A thinking computer that is perfectly programmed to protect humans. No screwing up and misusing intelligence like Carter Burke. So I guess I can understand the impulse to produce a machine that replicates -- but then improves -- us.

I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us. Conversely, those folks should offer the same, and not try and stifle the advancement of these longevity sciences.

Last, I'm sure both sides could come together in agreement that there's an issue that we agree that it exists, and need to address: misuse.

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

You are still twisting what I'm saying. You were talking about a Fountain of Youth scenario where people can choose to live on in a computer, enjoying .... whatever they consider to be heaven, I guess. I wonder(ed) if that is what is being studied. When I googled AI-longevity studies I got a lot of Greek language I didn't understand.

So now you can also call me stupid, I guess.

 

[G.T.]

I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us. Conversely, those folks should offer the same, and not try and stifle the advancement of these longevity sciences.

Last, I'm sure both sides could come together in agreement that there's an issue that we agree that it exists, and need to address: misuse.

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

You are still twisting what I'm saying. You were talking about a Fountain of Youth scenario where people can choose to live on in a computer, enjoying .... whatever they consider to be heaven, I guess. I wonder(ed) if that is what is being studied. When I googled AI-longevity studies I got a lot of Greek language I didn't understand.

So now you can also call me stupid, I guess.

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...

but yes, even to that question.... yes. You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image? This is what they're doing.

Symbiotic relationships between brain and computer are being, and have been studied for some decades, now.

Virtual reality simulators stem from these studies.

Additional studies into longevity are mainly DNA and medicine based.

There's a sea creature they've discovered that doesn't have an aging gene on, and they're trying to isolate which gene that is but apparently it takes millions of experiments to do so...(im not articulating this perfectly)

 

[Votto]

It’s inevitable that new religions will eventually replace old ones

Any day now.................................................................

 

[G.T.]

check these bastards out - -

Hydra (genus) - Wikipedia

Biologists are especially interested in Hydra because of their regenerative ability — they do not appear to die of old age, or indeed to age at all.

 

[OldLady]

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

You are still twisting what I'm saying. You were talking about a Fountain of Youth scenario where people can choose to live on in a computer, enjoying .... whatever they consider to be heaven, I guess. I wonder(ed) if that is what is being studied. When I googled AI-longevity studies I got a lot of Greek language I didn't understand.

So now you can also call me stupid, I guess.

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...

but yes, even to that question.... yes. You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image? This is what they're doing.

Symbiotic relationships between brain and computer are being, and have been studied for some decades, now.

Virtual reality simulators stem from these studies.

Additional studies into longevity are mainly DNA and medicine based.

There's a sea creature they've discovered that doesn't have an aging gene on, and they're trying to isolate which gene that is but apparently it takes millions of experiments to do so...(im not articulating this perfectly)

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

You are still twisting what I'm saying. You were talking about a Fountain of Youth scenario where people can choose to live on in a computer, enjoying .... whatever they consider to be heaven, I guess. I wonder(ed) if that is what is being studied. When I googled AI-longevity studies I got a lot of Greek language I didn't understand.

So now you can also call me stupid, I guess.

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...

but yes, even to that question.... yes. You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image? This is what they're doing.

Symbiotic relationships between brain and computer are being, and have been studied for some decades, now.

Virtual reality simulators stem from these studies.

Additional studies into longevity are mainly DNA and medicine based.

There's a sea creature they've discovered that doesn't have an aging gene on, and they're trying to isolate which gene that is but apparently it takes millions of experiments to do so...(im not articulating this perfectly)

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...
No, there was no "transition." Your post that I directly replied to said,
I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us.

You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image?
No. I did not see that.

Somehow you equate me being gobsmacked by the concept of a perpetual cerebral existence to being suicidal? And you have the nerve to say I'M lying.

You called me to this thread. I wouldn't have come to discuss something I know so little about. I sure as hell didn't come here to get one of your smack downs for not completely and totally agreeing with everything you said.

This is off topic; I'm done.

 

[G.T.]

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

You are still twisting what I'm saying. You were talking about a Fountain of Youth scenario where people can choose to live on in a computer, enjoying .... whatever they consider to be heaven, I guess. I wonder(ed) if that is what is being studied. When I googled AI-longevity studies I got a lot of Greek language I didn't understand.

So now you can also call me stupid, I guess.

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...

but yes, even to that question.... yes. You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image? This is what they're doing.

Symbiotic relationships between brain and computer are being, and have been studied for some decades, now.

Virtual reality simulators stem from these studies.

Additional studies into longevity are mainly DNA and medicine based.

There's a sea creature they've discovered that doesn't have an aging gene on, and they're trying to isolate which gene that is but apparently it takes millions of experiments to do so...(im not articulating this perfectly)

A simple google search would answer your question - of course it's being researched. Why would you surmise there's a possibility I might be lying that something is taking place when it's not taking place - when a mere peek on the same internet you're on coulda avoided doing that "maybe lying" thing altogether?

This is why I don't like the internet.

Don't put words like that in my mouth, G.T. You're shadow boxing here. I never said you were lying and I never considered that you were lying. Hopeful and imaginative was what I was saying. I don't see why you had to twist that into something so negative.

Try reading what you wrote again -

"its not actually taking place, is it?"


When I already said that it is -

what's that imply, that im maybe lying? lol

Also not sure why you wouldn't want longevity to be studied. That's akin to putting down your will to live, not visiting doctors, not looking before you cross the street, not eating well unless it tastes good, driving as crazy as you'd like...\

all of these things are empirical ways that promote longevity.

to say you hope that longevity isnt being studied is counter to you even taking steps to survive a day longer. its weird.

You are still twisting what I'm saying. You were talking about a Fountain of Youth scenario where people can choose to live on in a computer, enjoying .... whatever they consider to be heaven, I guess. I wonder(ed) if that is what is being studied. When I googled AI-longevity studies I got a lot of Greek language I didn't understand.

So now you can also call me stupid, I guess.

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...

but yes, even to that question.... yes. You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image? This is what they're doing.

Symbiotic relationships between brain and computer are being, and have been studied for some decades, now.

Virtual reality simulators stem from these studies.

Additional studies into longevity are mainly DNA and medicine based.

There's a sea creature they've discovered that doesn't have an aging gene on, and they're trying to isolate which gene that is but apparently it takes millions of experiments to do so...(im not articulating this perfectly)

I'm talking about the computer situation for my first few posts, and then changed to talking about the study of longevity in general - there was a transition there...
No, there was no "transition." Your post that I directly replied to said,
I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us.

You were in my dualism thread where I posted the accomplishment of hooking the brain to a computer and printing an image?
No. I did not see that.

Somehow you equate me being gobsmacked by the concept of a perpetual cerebral existence to being suicidal? And you have the nerve to say I'M lying.

You called me to this thread. I wouldn't have come to discuss something I know so little about. I sure as hell didn't come here to get one of your smack downs for not completely and totally agreeing with everything you said.

This is off topic; I'm done.

Oye vey, bye old lady

 

[Quentin111]

In essence, the task of designing and creating the Lord God is an engineering task. Only today, technology does not allow it. When can our knowledge of physics allow us to create God? Maybe in 1000 years, maybe in 2000 years?

What exactly is your perception of God?

It might be helpful for you to define what God is before you go about trying to artificially create God, don’t you think?

Resurrection of the dead, for example, and placing them in the afterlife in another spatial dimension.

 

[ding]

In essence, the task of designing and creating the Lord God is an engineering task. Only today, technology does not allow it. When can our knowledge of physics allow us to create God? Maybe in 1000 years, maybe in 2000 years?

What exactly is your perception of God?

It might be helpful for you to define what God is before you go about trying to artificially create God, don’t you think?

Resurrection of the dead, for example, and placing them in the afterlife in another spatial dimension.

That’s not really a definition of what God is. It’s more like a description of things he can do.

My question is what do you believe God is.

 

[Quentin111]

My question is what do you believe God is.

Christians believe God is Love. I believe that in future technologies will be able to reproduce all the ideas about God from the Bible and other scriptures.

 

[harmonica]

???? what?????
there is no god

 

[ding]

My question is what do you believe God is.

Christians believe God is Love. I believe that in future technologies will be able to reproduce all the ideas about God from the Bible and other scriptures.

Among other things. Truth, reality, existence and logic are others besides love.

But you didn’t answer my question. What do you believe the nature of God is? Is God matter and energy like us? Or does God transcend matter and energy?

 

[Quentin111]

I do not know how to put it more precisely. Of course, God is not substance or energy. God is in a different reality. Our knowledge of physics does not allow this. But future knowledge of physics may allow it.

I will try to describe the future of mankind. In the future, artificial intelligence will reach such power that it can contain the souls of all people who once lived throughout the entire history of the Earth and died in a separate world. Call it the "other world". AI itself will develop further, already according to its own laws. And human souls will continue to live in a world without death and without sin.

 

[ding]

I do not know how to put it more precisely. Of course, God is not substance or energy. God is in a different reality. Our knowledge of physics does not allow this. But future knowledge of physics may allow it.

I will try to describe the future of mankind. In the future, artificial intelligence will reach such power that it can contain the souls of all people who once lived throughout the entire history of the Earth and died in a separate world. Call it the "other world". AI itself will develop further, already according to its own laws. And human souls will continue to live in a world without death and without sin.

Not possible because we exist inside of space and time.

But I agree with your perception of God. God is no thing. God is entirely beyond our ability to comprehend.

 

[Quentin111]

But I agree with your perception of God. God is no thing. God is entirely beyond our ability to comprehend.

You believe in God, doesn't you?

 

[anynameyouwish]

I didn't understand some of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I got Hal. I definitely got Hal. And I got Bishop in Aliens. A thinking computer that is perfectly programmed to protect humans. No screwing up and misusing intelligence like Carter Burke. So I guess I can understand the impulse to produce a machine that replicates -- but then improves -- us.

I'm all for the folks deciding on their death on their own - and whether or not they're comfortable with it and opting out of any longevity options that science might present us. Conversely, those folks should offer the same, and not try and stifle the advancement of these longevity sciences.

Last, I'm sure both sides could come together in agreement that there's an issue that we agree that it exists, and need to address: misuse.

I sure hope you're basing all this "longevity sciences" thing on some hope of yours to exist forever. It's not actually taking place, is it?

People do live longer and longer.....

and what with REPLACEMENT parts.....!

I certainly do NOT want to spend the last 10 years (or longer) of my life bedridden!

2 different times in the last 10 years I had leg/angle/knee problems that confined me to beds and couches. Had to Crawl up stairs.....it really sucked!

So as long as I can move myself around and take care of myself I'd be happy to keep living.

 

[ding]

But I agree with your perception of God. God is no thing. God is entirely beyond our ability to comprehend.

You believe in God, doesn't you?

100%.

God isn’t a thing. God is beyond matter and energy. Matter and energy are created things.

 

[Quentin111]

Let's try to give a primitive hypothesis of the beginning of the XXI century about how
look beyond the world (in another space-time reality). With a point
From the perspective of knowledge of the physics of the distant future, things can be different, just like
modern helicopters do not look at all like the genius of Leonardo suggested them yes
Vinci, and the planetary model of the Rutherford atom has nothing to do with ideas
Democritus about atoms, although he and the other in fact were not mistaken in their predictions.
After all, what is each person, soul, person in terms of
modern physical views? A complexly organized system of atoms and molecules

in a sense, a complex cybernetic structure, at the lower level of the hierarchy
which as elements can be considered atoms or elementary particles. AT
the distant future, perhaps, the transfer technology will be invented (more precisely,
mapping) of any personality with preservation of the structure of its brain (nervous system or
of the whole organism) from a point in time (in this case, the existing causal
investigative connections, so as not to damage the “time cloth” of our Universe),
corresponding to the death of a person in this four-dimensional universe (meaning 3
Euclidean spatial measurements + time), to some parallel Universe
(the possibility of its existence, its topological and physical properties still need
to find and justify, it may have to be constructed, perhaps in other
space-time measurements) 4.
However, there are questions. At the present stage of development of theoretical
Physics such an idea seems impracticable because of the existing fundamental
objections in theory:
1) The law of conservation of energy, which corresponds to the symmetry of time, makes
Impossible to hit at past times. Also according to
Quantum mechanics have difficulty scanning matter at the micro level
even at the present moment of time, not to mention the past.
2) Identification of a teleport / display person. Is it possible
ensure that if we save when rendering in a sense
"cybernetic" structure of the brain (the nervous system or the whole organism) of a person,
will it be the same person? In other words, if we copy a person
(imagine yourself in his place), how to do it with files, will it be the same
the most "me"?
Maybe over time (and people have plenty of time), there will be
ways around these difficulties? After all, people once believed in a flat Earth, and now
their knowledge has expanded and much impossible has become possible, although, of course,
the above considerations about the method of building the Underworld through several
hundreds of years will look very naive. For example, the identity question at
transferring the soul to the Underworld correlates with the fact that we ourselves over time in
of this universe, we become copies of ourselves, because those atoms and molecules of
which we consist, are gradually replaced by other atoms and molecules in the process
metabolism, which accompanies our livelihoods.

 

[The Original Tree]

Artificial Intelligence cannot grant your entrance in to Heaven.

But it can condemn you to Hell.

Many things that we now have (smartphones, the Internet, flying through the air, flying into space), when they were told in myths and legends.
Science and technology has made these things real. I think that in the distant future, scientists will be able to realize the myths cited in the Old and New Testaments.
Namely, the Afterlife, Paradise, Hell, Purgatory, will create a god-like creature that will determine the souls of the dead in the Afterlife.
Perhaps this will be done with the help of artificial intelligence, with the help of access to other spatial dimensions and access at any time of the past time using a time machine.
Therefore, the creation of artificial intelligence becomes the main point of human existence. Many scientists agree that artificial intelligence can be created by studying how human intelligence works.
Hence, the main purpose of human existence is to study the work of the human brain. In the United States, the BRAIN Initiative is the study of the human brain.
If I had an extra billion dollars, I would have invested it in this project.
I wrote about the hypothesis of an artificial god to reconcile atheists and believers.