Evidence for God from Science

Modern scientific thought likes to hold that our brains are nothing more than really complex computers, and that if we could replicate the complexity of our brains in silicon we could make a computer that would come just as close to cognitive thought as we come.

I say 'as close as we come' because most scientists today do not believe in true cognitive thought. Rather they believe that we are programmed by DNA and that we utilize experience just as a computer is programmed by a programmer and by whatever 'experience' it may be capable of using stored in RAM or on disk. If you change the DNA and/or the experiences an individual has had, you can change how they will react to any stimuli just as you can with a computer. We don't think. We merely react within a computer modeled with sufficient complexity that it gives the perception of thought. We can create - but only within the confines of our genetic encoding. Life then is a byproduct of carbon-based organisms and has nothing to do with 'free will' or 'mind' because such axioms simply do not exist as conveyed in religious thought.

The funny thing about this position is that we all know it isn't true. Even those who argue that the brain is nothing more than a computer know deep down that the mind is FAR more than a computer. The very fact that they have the capability to question what the mind is proves that it is something more than a computer - that cognitive thought (which I would call the essence of life) has nothing to do with programming. Sure - we have traits. Sure - we have experiences. Sure - traits and experiences may make us more or less likely to choose one alternative over another. But I would suggest that when we are confronted with a choice, we really do make a decision and have within us the capacity to make any decision we wish - including ones that go against our DNA and our environmental background.

Cognitive thought is problematic for contemporary science (I'm throwing you a bone BGood - I'm not calling it 'naturalism' because you have convinced me that at least one naturalist doesn't apply naturalism as an extension of science, though I'll hold firm that you are in the minority when you call it a philosophy..) because contemporary science has no explanation for it. We have made incredibly complex computers capable of complexity in calculation that we cannot replicate in our minds, yet these same computers are no closer to cognitive thought than a calculator is. My sofa is just as capable of thought as the most complex computer in existence. Science touts artificial intelligence as proof that computers, if complex enough, can think, but as a computer scientist I'm here to tell you that under the hoods these computers do nothing more than mimic. They do not think. They do not learn. They store data and they process it according to the coding programmers have put into them. Nothing more.

There is no 'scientific' explanation for thought, other than that it doesn't exist.

Wall-dog wrote:Modern scientific thought likes to hold that our brains are nothing more than really complex computers,

Nonsence!

Wall-dog wrote:and that if we could replicate the complexity of our brains in silicon we could make a computer that would come just as close to cognitive thought as we come.

This is only a hypothesis.

Wall-dog wrote:I say 'as close as we come' because most scientists today do not believe in true cognitive thought. Rather they believe that we are programmed by DNA and that we utilize experience just as a computer is programmed by a programmer and by whatever 'experience' it may be capable of using stored in RAM or on disk.

DNA does not program our brains. Noone beleives this.
lol

Wall-dog wrote:If you change the DNA and/or the experiences an individual has had, you can change how they will react to any stimuli just as you can with a computer.

Many do in fact beleive this. Many psychologist and behaviourists would suggest that human behaviour is a result of temperment and the environment.

Wall-dog wrote:We don't think. We merely react within a computer modeled with sufficient complexity that it gives the perception of thought. We can create - but only within the confines of our genetic encoding. Life then is a byproduct of carbon-based organisms and has nothing to do with 'free will' or 'mind' because such axioms simply do not exist as conveyed in religious thought.

The funny thing about this position is that we all know it isn't true. Even those who argue that the brain is nothing more than a computer know deep down that the mind is FAR more than a computer. The very fact that they have the capability to question what the mind is proves that it is something more than a computer - that cognitive thought (which I would call the essence of life) has nothing to do with programming. Sure - we have traits. Sure - we have experiences. Sure - traits and experiences may make us more or less likely to choose one alternative over another. But I would suggest that when we are confronted with a choice, we really do make a decision and have within us the capacity to make any decision we wish - including ones that go against our DNA and our environmental background.

So do you make decisions when the environment does not call for it? In other words why don't we act more randomly? Just a thought, not that I agree with those above.

Wall-dog wrote:Cognitive thought is problematic for contemporary science (I'm throwing you a bone BGood - I'm not calling it 'naturalism' because you have convinced me that at least one naturalist doesn't apply naturalism as an extension of science, though I'll hold firm that you are in the minority when you call it a philosophy..) because contemporary science has no explanation for it. We have made incredibly complex computers capable of complexity in calculation that we cannot replicate in our minds, yet these same computers are no closer to cognitive thought than a calculator is.

Some physicists beleive that the mind acts like a quantum computer. Where various inputs and such will not generate a consistent output.

Wall-dog wrote:My sofa is just as capable of thought as the most complex computer in existence. Science touts artificial intelligence as proof that computers, if complex enough, can think, but as a computer scientist I'm here to tell you that under the hoods these computers do nothing more than mimic.

Artificial intelligence is at a very infant stages of development.

Wall-dog wrote:They do not think. They do not learn. They store data and they process it according to the coding programmers have put into them. Nothing more.

Genetic algorithms have been successful at creating new algorithms which were never coded, but generated randomly.

Wall-dog wrote:There is no 'scientific' explanation for thought, other than that it doesn't exist.

Better to say it cannot be measured.

Sometimes I really hate this forum. I had a nice response all typed up, I hit 'submit' and poof - can't find the server. I hit my back button and no luck there either. The entire post is gone...

Oh well. Here we go again...

Nonsence!
Wall-dog wrote:
and that if we could replicate the complexity of our brains in silicon we could make a computer that would come just as close to cognitive thought as we come.
This is only a hypothesis.

You can't really agree with the second statement without agreeing with the first. The hypothesis suggested in the second statement is the basis of the first.

DNA does not program our brains. Noone beleives this.
lol

Wall-dog wrote:
If you change the DNA and/or the experiences an individual has had, you can change how they will react to any stimuli just as you can with a computer.
Many do in fact beleive this. Many psychologist and behaviourists would suggest that human behaviour is a result of temperment and the environment.

Same here.

But you aren't disagreeing with me in either one of those. I'd prefer not to get caught up in semantics so I'll move on!

So do you make decisions when the environment does not call for it? In other words why don't we act more randomly? Just a thought, not that I agree with those above.

We make decisions all the time that the environment doesn't call for. Have you ever gone outside on a cold day without a coat? We usually follow environment because for the most part it makes sense to, but unlike a computer we are not tied to it.

Some physicists beleive that the mind acts like a quantum computer. Where various inputs and such will not generate a consistent output.

I don't think you really understand what a quantum computer is. Modern computers can do everything a quantum computer will do (if anyone ever successfully builds one - right now they are just theoretical) but they are nowhere near as efficient as a quantum computer. Quantum computers will run on qubits, which instead of holding either a zero or a one will be able to hold a zero, a one, both, neither, etc. etc. etc.. Because of this they represent a quantum leap forward in storage capacity and processing speed. But though they handle memory very differently than a traditional computer they still perform the same basic functions. They'll be capable of much more complex computations and much more complex programming. Because of that we'll be able to encode-in much more complex variation. But it'll still just emulation. It's still just a computer. Nobody thinks a quantum computer will be able to think. The argument many scientists like to make isn't that quantum computers will think, but rather that we do not.

I'm going to ask here that we avoid getting sucked into a semantics debate over what 'thought' is. You'll find articles all over the place that say quantum computers will 'think,' but when you read deeper into those articles you find that they say that by defining 'thought' such that there is nothing cognitive about it. I suggest we agree on a definition of 'thought' such that it remains a cognitive process occurring outside of any form of encoding. We would then still be free to debate whether or not people 'think' differently than computers. Many scientists believe we are not capable of cognitive thought external from our encoding.

Artificial intelligence is at a very infant stages of development.

Oh, pooh! Based on what? Everything is at an infant stage of development based on where it will be at some point in the future. The problem with AI isn't that it's still in it's infancy, but that it is artificial. It is a mere emulation. Computers are neither intelligent nor capable of intelligence.

Genetic algorithms have been successful at creating new algorithms which were never coded, but generated randomly.

That and a buck will buy you a coke!!

Better to say it cannot be measured.

It can be measured. We use things like IQ tests to measure intelligence. It's probably better to say that it can't easily be defined, which is why it is so easy for debates such as this one to degenerate into arguments over semantics.

Genetic algorithms have been successful at creating new algorithms which were never coded, but generated rand

And we all know computer simulations accurately add coding to simulate real world situations...just like Dawkin's simulations.

And..as usual, BGood..so? So what. I bet we could make a program (or you, as I'm just learning C now) that could evolve all forms of life known within a few weeks...but so what?

Wall-dog wrote:It can be measured. We use things like IQ tests to measure intelligence. It's probably better to say that it can't easily be defined

How can it be possible to measure something which can't be defined? The measurement itself provides a rigorous definition. Of course, different IQ tests don't agree exactly with one another since they measure different things, none of which is quite what we mean by intelligence.

Wall-dog wrote:

So do you make decisions when the environment does not call for it? In other words why don't we act more randomly? Just a thought, not that I agree with those above.

We make decisions all the time that the environment doesn't call for. Have you ever gone outside on a cold day without a coat? We usually follow environment because for the most part it makes sense to, but unlike a computer we are not tied to it.

You're right, theres no need to argue over semantics here.
=)

I'll just make one point on the above rebuttal. I think you are being too specific. There are many factors in the environment. In other words we couldn't make a decision not to wear a coat if coats did not exist. More importantly what I am saying is does one's behaviour have nothing to do with their environment?

And if it does to what extent does it effect their behaviour.

As for the quantum computer, there is more than one application of the quobits.

More specifically the basis of some physicists thinking that the mind may operate on quantum principals is from experiments conducted in the field of quantum mechanics. A quantum system's state does not resolve until it is observed, and at that point it resolves into one of many possibiities. If the brain operates at this level then it is possible for the brain to opperate like a simulation of reality. As all of reality is theorized to be a quantum fluctuation.

How can it be possible to measure something which can't be defined? The measurement itself provides a rigorous definition. Of course, different IQ tests don't agree exactly with one another since they measure different things, none of which is quite what we mean by intelligence.

It can be defined. Here's the definition from American Heritage Dictionary:

in·tel·li·gence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
Information; news. See Synonyms at news.

Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: “Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities” (John le Carré).

We could spend the rest of our lives picking that definition apart and arguing each specific piece. If a computerized mouse bumps into a wall and then the next time around avoids that wall, does that imply a capacity to aquire and apply knowledge or is the 'knowledge' really in the program which was developed by someone who already knew the wall was there? That's what I meant by hard to define.

I'll just make one point on the above rebuttal. I think you are being too specific. There are many factors in the environment. In other words we couldn't make a decision not to wear a coat if coats did not exist. More importantly what I am saying is does one's behaviour have nothing to do with their environment?

And if it does to what extent does it effect their behaviour.

I absolutely agree that environment effects behavior. My point is that we have choices, and we make those choices independantly of environment. We take environment into account, but environment does not make the decision for us.

As for the quantum computer, there is more than one application of the quobits.

More specifically the basis of some physicists thinking that the mind may operate on quantum principals is from experiments conducted in the field of quantum mechanics. A quantum system's state does not resolve until it is observed, and at that point it resolves into one of many possibiities. If the brain operates at this level then it is possible for the brain to opperate like a simulation of reality. As all of reality is theorized to be a quantum fluctuation.

Interesting theories. In 20 or so years when someone actually builds a quantum computer we'll find out. Until then it's just speculation. It's more than likely that quantum mechanics are not really random.

We are all subject to stupidity. The truth about the mind is that, you can not learn what you do not open yourself to learn actively. "As you deny me, so shall I deny you" I keep telling people that its a catch 22, you find narrow minded people because they themself don't open their minds to possibility. DNA does correlate with the physical processes of the brain. This is one of the more secretive truths that is not so commonly released, not even to eager scientists who study years and years of school. DNA holds information. This is why the eye of the newborn child is ready for light, even though it is made in complete darkness, or the seed of a tree has the entire dimensional substructure of the tree programmed into it. It is because the body is not entirely physical, it correlates with a spiritual body which is not readily observable by the human eye, but lies within the multi-dimensional substructure that lies within the entity involved. The DNA of an individual also has the layout of what type of brain has to be created to pick up the frequencies of the Spirit that incarnates into the body involved. Then a cumulation of data, from geneticly enherited group karma, is plugged into the body of the child. The Spirit is already in the womb and the body is fine tuning itself to the Spirit. Then the Spirit, and body, give multi-dimensional psychic hints to the mother that carries the child, and through her to the father. That is why a mother's intuition is so strong. She or the father then appropriate a name to the child, that encompasses a numerologic layout of what the child's enherited karma will have him/her recieve within that life. The child senses these vibrations and the body is further attuned for it's existence in it's new life. Any more questions?