Posted on 06/23/2007 12:21:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Duality is real. However the line between objective and subjective is usually drawn in the wrong place. Kant was right, simple deduction, and Whitehead was right if you want to follow Kant. Schopenhauer was a belligerent curmudgeon and didn’t quite ‘get it’ but his work is useful in pointing out ways various post-Kantians have gone wrong, and continue to get it wrong even now.
So until we have all of that, any time reference is relative, subjective, and ulimately pointless. How useful.
I like it for the simple reason that, like epicycles, it will eventually become unnecessary.
In this discussion, I am presenting mostly all geometric physics - very little metaphysics.
The space/time continuum is a postulate of special relativity.
Nevertheless, I try to keep an open mind wrt physical cosmologies and am particularly fond of Max Tegmark's Level IV parallel universe which sees physical "reality" in space/time as the projection or illusion of the real mathematical structures existing outside of space/time.
The most fundamental question for all of us is: "What is Reality?"
And my response to that question is altogether Christian plain and simple: Reality is God's will and unknowable in its fullness.
But trying to understand is great fun - and we Christians are expected to do exactly that. (Psalms 19:1-3, Romans 1:20)
I didn’t go through a decade of college scrupulously avoiding economics, sociology, psychology and other squishy subjects just to start reading that stuff now! Life is too short!
I’m just stating the obvious point that AI will eventually figure out how to mimic brains. Deep problems can take hundreds of years.
But I doubt if this will take hundreds.
Before we can ask that we have to clear up some fundamental questions.
It's one thing to act like a rocket scientist and another to actually be one. AI will fail, although it will provide a few toys for the amusement of children and other consumers of entertainment product.
I must leave now, but will check back later.
Kant already took care of that. He said it would be easy to extend his results, although he said his insight wasn’t all that deep either. Just the simple (once you see it) method of mathematics, and later physics. Pure dogmatism.
I tend to agree in the short run. Nature tends to solve problems with genetic or evolutionary algorithms, and this is very difficult to emulate in current hardware. Efforts are, however, beginning to be commercially useful, and this will start driving research.
This points out one of the fundamental roadblocks to AI. First, nature doesn't have problems. Second, nature doesn't use mathematics. The AI theorists are trying to build on the Turing machine, but nature doesn't use the Turing machine. We'll make more progress by continuing to work on battery technology for our iPhones and iCars.
*real* physics? Is that like *real* science? What exactly is *real* science?
tacticalogic asked what *real* time is. Doesn't science have an answer? They should considering its critical nature in things like physics.
This charge is thrown at non-evos with such regularity that it's become a joke. Anything that doesn't agree with them and their world view is not *real*. So what is real?
Thanks for the pings everyone. Following this thread has been intriguing.
Interesting. I have friends whose son is working with AI and some interesting progress is being made.
Both mathematics and physics are dogmatic systems. Other sciences try to emulate that but haven’t reduced their fundamental premises sufficiently so they can have a self-contained coherent system. Time is a synthetic a priori concept. So is space.
I have many acquaintances in AI, went to school with some. Have had relatives in AI since 1950. They are doing some amazing things, although they will never produce artificial intelligence. They could put a fly’s nervous system in a robot and get more done, or like Snowcrash put a dog’s nervous system in a robot and get something that barks and moves 300 mph autonomously.
Perhaps the parts that condemn homosexuality don't really mean what they say. Some seem to think that issue is misrepresented. Maybe that whole “thou shalt not steal” statement doesn’t apply – how sure are we that it restricts one from “borrowing permanently”? Or maybe that whole salvation thing is a problem – a lot of people have trouble with that. Would a loving God really condemn someone to hell for not accepting His son’s sacrifice of Himself as payment? If I prefer not to believe that – hey, no big deal, right?
Now please don't misunderstand, I am not giving the same weight of importance to creation and salvation. But if Gods word is accurate and trustworthy for the salvation of my soul why is it not to be believed regarding the origin of humanity?
I readily state that I think ID is an end run around the wrong headed application of the establishment clause. But that is where we are left because of the reaction of so many on both sides of this debate. I am confident God is able to withstand the truth and I am secure enough in my faith that I am pleased to see it brought forward in comprehensive debate. It seems the article’s author is secure enough in his faith as well. It is just a shame that there are so many on both sides who are not secure enough.
Do you think that will stop anyone from arguing one against the other, knowing it's out of context?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.