@KellyJay
So by implication you would be saying if WE can design intelligent computers, maybe even MORE intelligent than humans, it should be obvious WE were designed and that would be in your opinion, have been done by a god.
And about that, are you also saying while you acknowledge we are made up from atoms and molecules of extreme complexity, we are somehow in you POV, more than the atoms that make us up. Would that be a correct statement from your POV? That by implication, we could NEVER make AI as intelligent or more than humans because we can only make atoms of stuff and therefore cannot imbibe such atoms with the extra whatever that you thing is inside every human?
We differ in what we mean by intelligence; in my opinion, a computer cannot hold a thought; it doesn't come up with a single idea; it doesn’t know anything! What it does do is obey commands given to it, in the manner they can be executed, due to its hardware and software limitations. We are the ones that design it, program it, run it, and make use of its output. It is a device, we acquire knowledge from using the thing, but it isn’t getting smarter each time we use it, any more than a ruler gets smarter when we use it to measure something.
This conversation can be just computers without God being brought into it, but you seem eager to make sure He is always in the conversation. You think you score points doing that or something? I don't mind talking about Him, completely up to you.
@humy saidComputers are just devices, that is a fact you seem to overlook, and you don’t need a degree to know that, they don't think for themselves, they do what we tell them.
I am talking about the known scientific facts. As already proven by AIs solving logic problems no human has, AI intelligence is no illusion. Please get up to speed with the modern real world.
@wildgrass saidLaughable, the laws of the universe just created life from non-life just like gravity causes rocks to fall to the ground when they are thrown up into the air? You should have watched that video, it would have shown you how flawed that it using just chemistry, not faith.
If trying to analogize this to organismal evolution, you're lost. Our universe has immutable physical laws, and thus is not random. Similar "laws" are programmed into simulations. Nils Barricelli simulated evolution in the 1950s.
@humy saidGo to the thread that had that video of Chemist speaking about chemical reactions you'll see atoms that are put together for cellular life are done so with a coding ability far beyond your own. You can start comparing apples to apples if you watch that otherwise, your logic is flawed, and you refuse to investigate why, not me.
And we are just made of mindless atoms thus we have no intelligence (your logic).
Your refusal to critically look at your logic it telling.
@kellyjay saidNo, I want 'see' that, because that makes no sense as there is no evidence of "coding ability", whatever THAT's supposed to mean, for that. What kind of "coding ability"? What are you talking about? You keep asserting complete gibberish.
Go to the thread that had that video of Chemist speaking about chemical reactions you'll see atoms that are put together for cellular life are done so with a coding ability far beyond your own.
And what has that (whatever the hell 'that' is supposed to be) got to do with the fact we are STILL just made of mindless atoms thus we should, according to your same 'logic' have NO intelligence?
@humy saidIf you are going to make judgment calls on coding, but refuse to confront opposing views, you are not honestly looking at things, just focusing on that which agrees with you. If you claim we cannot get AI without our intelligence designing it, while at the same time suggesting unintelligence gave us our very own intelligence to create AI and everything else we do, you don’t find that at all, a contradiction in your argument?
No, I want 'see' that, because that makes no sense as there is no evidence of "coding ability", whatever THAT's supposed to mean, for that. What kind of "coding ability"? What are you talking about? You keep asserting complete gibberish.
And what has that (whatever the hell 'that' is supposed to be) got to do with the fact we are STILL just made of mindless atoms thus we should, according to your same 'logic' have NO intelligence?
You want to suggest atoms somehow prove this while ignoring the very thing that separates life and what real knowledge and intelligence are from a device, something that we use to do our taxes and other things.
Pulled from the Web
That we should follow the argument wherever it leads is a principle put into the mouth of Socrates by Plato: ‘we must go wherever the wind of the argument carries us’ (The Republic, tr. D Lee, second edition, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1974, 394d). The principle has seemed to be not only reasonable, but to be a demand of rationality.
@kellyjay saidSo what IS the logic of your argument then?
Not my argument,
You said AIs cannot be intelligent because "computers are only devises" by that I assume your 'logic' is that since "devises" are not usually intelligent then a cumputer cannot be, right? That's you 'logic', right? If not, how do YOU claim computers being "only devises" logically imply they cannot be intelligent?
We are "only" made of atoms and atoms are also not usually intelligent (well, NEVER in the case of atoms), so we aren't intelligent? I am only using what I see as your implied 'logic' but if that's NOT your implied logic then you must correct me by explaining what IS your logic because so far you haven't.
@humy saidIf you know we cannot introduce random code into a computer to create AI, then how do you justify it is possible for DNA to be altered to produce, not a artificial intelligence, but one from a living system? It is a contradiction, if human intelligence is required to produce AI. How did the intelligence in humans come into being if not for an Intelligence ( capital 'I' ) far greater than our own, that can manipulate not just a simple computer keyboard, but the whole of the universe itself from the microscopic to the macro? You even pointed out non-living things make up the universe, and yet we are here, you don’t think this could happen without something designing life? A godless belief system cannot program anything into something functionally sophisticated as life, not even a single cell?
So what IS the logic of your argument then?
You said AIs cannot be intelligent because "computers are only devises" by that I assume your 'logic' is that since "devises" are not usually intelligent then a cumputer cannot be, right? That's you 'logic', right? If not, how do YOU claim computers being "only devises" logically imply they cannot be intelligent?
We are "only" made o ...[text shortened]... implied logic then you must correct me by explaining what IS your logic because so far you haven't.
"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates
@KellyJay
You base your chemist argument based on what we know today. We already know more today than yesterday. New work coming in about reactions that took place in interstellar clouds of prebiotic material shows that chemist you refer to does not have the whole story. The interstellar story trumps the bit about Earth not having enough time to do all the prebiotic chemical reactions and such.
You still base your arguments on religious grounds and I fear no new science will convince you otherwise.