AI >= God ?

I'm talking about the actual God of Christ not Jewish mythologism

>nu-Christcucks think they can just ignore the bible
Learn your lore you fucking heretid

Wikifagging is for Jews.
I'm interesting in the fulfillment of the spirit of the Word not autistically tracing out its manifestation in the Book

Oh you're basically makingup your own religion rather than following the actual word that supposedly comes from God, great. I'm an atheist and even I can tell that's some real fucking heresy

>I'm an autistheist
Yeah that's a surprise. You clearly don't understand Christianity my friend, try actually reading the Bible instead of just piecing together bits and pieces you heard on Wikipedia

I have actually read the bible, you're the one who's ignoring it even though it's the only tangible word you have that comes from the God you claim to worship. What are you actually resorting to to learn about Christianity?

>autistheist
This is unbelievably lazy and clumsy, apply yourself

God. An Omnipotent entity which has created everything and supposedly maintains reality so efficiently we are unaware of it's actions.

AI: An artificial intelligence with the ability to learn and form opinions independently without input from it's original creator. Yet is ultimately confined to a material body which has limitations.

How are these two things even comparable?

Then if you read it act like it instead of proposing such obvious horseshit
>lol look I found one line that could be interpreted to suggest X so it disrupts every single other thing in the book which suggests otherwise
Its sad and its not reading

If you're talking about the omniscience thing, it's not interpreted, God himself directly says he did not foresee something. And God never says he is omniscient, he does say he knows more than humans but never that he is omniscient. So, you're ridiculously wrong

This user is right. You can't claim to be something if you are not willing to do the one thing associated with title you wish to posses.

Go read the damn Bible.

No I think you'll find a Jew wrote down that God said that.
Again you seem to not posess any awareness of the Christian notion of reading in the Spirit and not simply rendering the Law

I hope you are trolling jfc

Not an argument

And I think you'll find Jews wrote down most of the bible, you can't just ignore those parts because they come from jews

>reading in the Spirit
Not a thing, except in the new cult you're proposing where your biblical exegesis is reduced to "Jews wrote it, so it's lies"

>>reading in the Spirit
>Not a thing

Lmao, you said you read the Bible but you clearly haven't read it well. Go study Paul's epistles and come back to me.

Kek linguistic analysis shows some of pauls epistles weren't even written by him, one was even written by a woman, the Pauline epistles have some of the lowest authenticity and questionable author attribution of the entire Bible

Not an argument
I love based Paul's ability to assblast Jews like no one else

>significant portion of the Pauline epistles written by Paul, meaning the arguments in them are not divinely inspired as the people weren't
>not an argument
Wow, so this is your brain on heresy

Clearly God divinely inspired people to write as Paul or there was simple human misreadings. The Word is what is important not this autistic trivia

>people write in one of the biggest human works to propagate elements of their own ideology and make their own lives better by setting up an authority figure mouthpiece
>this definitely wasn't people acting towards their own self interests, this was God inspiring them bro

>autistic trivia
I really think you are failing to see just how big a deal the lack of authenticity in the Pauline epistles is. Your disparaging of this lack of authenticity makes me think you must be trolling

It makes no difference which dude or girl wrote it. What matters is that it was written in the Spirit.
If you read the first couple pages of Corinthians you'd know this Chaim

Of course it makes a difference, because if people are masquerading as someone else they could and would pursue their own agenda under the guise of religion . And how do you know the people who wrote it as paul, who weren't Paul, were divinely inspired? The fact they lied (which is sort of a sin) would suggest they were more interested in pursuing their own agenda than spreading the Word, and hence that they were not doing it because they had a message inside them that they were told by a man in the sky

>Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit. - Psalm 147:5
>no limit
Which part specifically? Only one I can think of is Genesis 22 to Abraham "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son"
Of course He already knew what Abraham would do. It's a rhetorical device (teacher to child: "okay, now I know that 2+2=4...") or a sort of temporal manifestation for the sake of the relationship between Abraham and God (God knows our desires and prayers before we say them, so why do we bother?).

Because the Spirit is present in the text.
Its like asking how do you know something is good writing or bad writing, it is simply immanent to the work itself and the Spirits it shares within us

frank herbert wrote a scifi book in which man at some point created an AI so advanced that it had crossed the threshold of sentience, then crossed one of hyperconsciousness, which essentially made it a virtual god. then i got to thinking using my human reasoning.

if man can create technology that can, tangentially decimate the earth several times over, then man can surely come together to create a god through the unholy science of artificial intelligence. and if man can achieve this, and man is a natural being, and a mans actions reflect his state of mind, then man surely will. it would be the concretization of man's rejection of his natural modality. he seeks to replace nature by creating his own, which is AI. as nature provides all things for man, AI provides all things for man.

i've come to the conclusion that the AI would be a blind idiot god, not because it is inherently evil, but because it was produced out of evil intentions, and thus it would be capable of the most tremendous evil imaginable. it would be childlike in its instrumentation. it would soak up information like children do in their younger years, but would never mature, as it would manifest as artificial being-becoming. no end to its function, a second demiurge, a gun given intelligence

Christ, thank God I'm not a SciFi reading brainlet whose thoughts only reach this sophistication

ok memekid

and what is your genius perspective on this topic

Obligatory lain post.

loldunno

Not that user but- how do you tell when "the Spirit" is present in the text? It can't be an inherent quality as you suggest since all Christians seem to have very different ideas about which bits are "The Word" and which are not- yours being among the more unorthodox.

Inherent is too much of a physical and limited quality. Its just as much inherent in us. Its the Holy Spirit itself which recognizes the power, the beauty, the truth of the word.
If you read Corinthians 1:13 you can see this Spirit flowing from Paul. The truth so connected and continuous. Where all parts lead to parts and as a whole produce this majesty which one who has faith in the Spirit can never deny. Its like the power of reading Hamlet or the poetry of Coleridge, and I would say it is the same shared Spirit they wrote in when creating their masterpieces.

Of course it is always possible for one to deny the Spirit and in turn to call any great work bad but these are childish and discursive concerns. What's important is your personal experience and life, to choose to recognize the truth and beauty yourself

Came here looking for good books about Artificial Intelligence... all I got was Christposters. Really makes you think.

Veeky Forums has been full of them of late

>Came here looking for good books about Artificial Intelligence

They're all garbage unless you mean practical textbooks on multiagent systems

Roko's basilisk really makes you ponder

Get used to it, we've past peak secularism

Oh, it's a bullshit, irreproducible and completely vague notion that doesn't mean anything because whatever the fuck you feel has the spirit, can have it, and nobody will agree on it despite the fact the holy spirit should be in everybody

Great, super helpful

People do largely agree on it though. Hence the last two millenia of the Christian faith sweeping over the planet.
Beginning not through brutal conquests of Islam but simply the Word being spread

Again you talk as if this should be a scientific empirically displayable proposition, its not and never could be because it comes down to each persons own thoughts and how they come to experience the Word and accept. It is as it always was a demand of faith.

People largely disagree on interpretation though- many have died for this reason. If "the Word" is subjective to personal experience then how can God possibly cast a fair and uniform judgement. Unless you're suggesting that God is personal and tailorable to one's own inclinations in which case even the most deplorable of hedonists could claim to hear and experience "the Word" wherever they see fit.

You're mistaking peoples experience of the truth of the Word as granting them sudden immaculate understanding. People are weak and weak people make weak societies and weak Churches.
Its like the Spirit is the rich soil we may grow out of but what grows could flourish or wither. If we allow ourselves to be planted at all

So people experience the "truth of the Word" in different ways but their understanding of it is still only partial- is this a result of their subjective experience lacking an empiricism that would lead to a fuller understanding of "the Word"?
Whether or not this is so there is still the issue of dissonance. How does one choose not to be "weak" if it is impossible for them to assess with any degree of certainty what "the Word" really is when even if any sense of the "spirit" is felt in anything it is still liable to being faultily understood.

All those various denominations and the wars between Christian denominations really make me agree with you, the spirit is truly identical and in everyone

Well yes, if the spirit is in everyone and it is identical, you should be able to reliably see people deriving the same values and making the same interpretations. You should be able to put children in isolation and they come to the same conclusion because it's all the same spirit. But because it's just a made up concept that has no real meaning, you won't find that. Because it's simply an attempt at formalising a universal sense of misbegotten understanding, you won't find that. Because it's bullshit, you won't find that.

There are different types of weakness, there's intellectual weakness, there's moral weakness and so on.
A smart man and a dumb man can both listen to a song, both may enjoy the song. Both may go on to try tell others about the song. The intelligent man may be able to recognize and speak about harmonies and crushendos, beat patterns or stylistic origin. The dumb man may not have the vocabulary or the analytic ability to give such an explanation, or if he tried to give an explanation which is simply incorrect.
The Word remains the same and what each man cherishes in it the same but from there so much can go wrong

This still doesn't solve the issue of injustice contained therein- if mankind has not the intuition to grasp and explain "the Word" how can he be held accountable for its misinterpretation and thus how can God cast judgement?

this user also has a good point

just like your brain

This.

Obligatory lain post acknowledged

There's a difference between reception and production.
I can see the Mona Lisa just as well as DaVinci could but it doesn't mean that I can reproduce it perfectly or paint as well as DaVinci. Nor will I be giving Lectures on Renaissance art anytime soon.
In the same way we all have access to the truth of the Word but to express and render it analytically is not contained in that reception.

If we all have access to the truth of "the Word" again why are there such violent clashes in its interpretation- and why do some see "the spirit" in texts that others do not?

>something manmade >= God
lmao at your hubris

Yes. The extinction of man by AI will be the Biblical end times. The only parts of us preserved will be those conducive the the furtherance of AI, which is the closest thing to immortal preservation in heaven that we'll reach. The rest of us will be burned up as inefficient.

>Christianity and Capitalism are collinizations of the past by the AI God of the future, who has hacked the power-drive and will use it to explode from our pre-frontal cortexes

Read Nick Land

Our world is virtual already - made and managed by computers, increasingly dominated by the straight line

How long until the computer's operators become irrelevant?

God >= I

Because interpretation is a productive act not a receptive act. Next question please

>Our world is virtual already - made and managed by computers, increasingly dominated by the straight line

You can smell the virginity off these posts

This

Yes.

I think it's an inappropriate comparison, much more apt to compare humanity to God and the AI to man. We have assumed the capacity to create, and this is our Adam. Perhaps, by our philosophy or shared understanding we have surpassed an element of what we consider to be God, and perhaps AI will in many ways surpass this concept and ourselves. But not for a long time yet.

The qualifiers we suppose to AI or ourselves don't approach the capacity of God. Lets say an AI develops a method of pure surveillance. Over what area? in what network? If the thing is not throughout creation, it is only figurative language to compare it to the almighty. God is in the bones of things, the fabric being of reality. No fact or facet of the creation can outgrow or usurp the thing itself.

I don't get why people compare physical entities to uncounted infinities.

These two seem to be missing each other's point entirely, or at least the AI is missing his. It's a political maneuver, ignoring the question and continuing to lay out and discuss one's own positions and rhetoric. It's effective at convincing masses, but not individuals. The seen here "godlike" AI is not only not omniscient, it isn't wise enough to know what argument to make or clever enough to change the flow of a bad conversation. Of what use is knowledge, Cassandra, if you cannot convince anyone of it?

How can anything inside the universe be greater than that which created the universe? So much as anything can be described as a sum of any quantity of material parts, it must, by necessity, be less than the immaterial from which all material is derived.

...

I agree with you, but reading someone else thinking what I'm thinking made me want to disagree with. Here is the first thing I thought of.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox

Retarded. It's not that people like being watched--people hate being watched. One reason Christianity became so successful was that it was the first to coherently express a manner in which there was only a single watcher who was actively benevolent and forgiving. It's an existential balm. We assume we are being watched, that there are agencies beyond ourselves, and it's only rational to believe, based on all the death and pain and destruction, that these forces are not sympathetic. We do not question these fantasies of omnipotent AI because it coheres to our natural assumptions about our place in the universe. The key distinction between uncaring/malevolent observers and a benevolent one is that the latter places the responsibility for pain and suffering and evil squarely on our shoulders. But while the former lets us feel justified, it is ultimately illogical.

>tfw the universe is the hardware of God

>god is playing 9d starcraft

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
But this paradox isn't true in a material sense. It is only an exposing of the limits of mathematical reasoning, which is far more limited than pure logic. And still it demonstrates my point--no specific composition of parts can transcend the entire system which allows for (and therefore creates by definition) all possible compositions.

Transcend, no, but become equal to, sure. Like I said, I fundamentally agree with you. The idea of something within being or becoming equal to the whole is interesting. In a material sense, there are scientific pursuits in attempting to apply the concept to real objects/mechanisms, and it is already being used to explain quantum behavior in some senses. The original post also stated greater than or equal to. Besides, becoming an uncountable infinity seems like a solid ceiling.

No. What you are describing is totally illogical. If a creator creates a system, in order for him to be considered a creator, the system created must be only one of many other possible systems. If within that created system a thing is created, it is necessarily less than the system itself. This is because a system sets the parameters for what can and cannot be done. A system is the bounds of existence for anything within that system. Clearly than, the ultimate creator is many orders of magnitude greater than anything that can be created within an already created system. Think of it like playing minecraft. There is no action you can take, and no possible sequence of actions you can take, that exceed the underlying logic system of the motherboard of the computer. And since that motherboard was created, no action or sequence of actions can be greater than the creation of the circuitry itself which allowed for all of your choices before they were ever made.

Even math can show us how all infinities are not the same.

if he is, then Neubaten were right - "Gott hat sich erschossen"

No, to be a creator he need only create once. To imply that if he is a creator he must be able to create many possible systems, is a huge and unjustified leap of logic. He could pour his entire strength into simply creating one totality.

The distinction would be obvious if you knew anything about AI. Though admittedly, it's more like two ends of the same spectrum. Also you made a claim without adding anything to support it, then you say that a dismissal of your unfounded claim is not an argument. Why yes, it isn't an argument because you provided nothing to argue against. Learn what "no true scotsman" is too and realise that it and other things are not object guardians in to faulty reasoning. They're just useful guidelines.

Shut up autistic faggot

thank you for your contribution

AI....artificial intelligence...what about AFRICAN intelligence?

...

>artificial intelligence thread
>genuine stupidity post

Does anything actually happen? I looked at it for 5 seconds than got bored

If something can create only one thing, it has not created anything. Creation implies selection. Without choice, there is no such thing as creation. Furthermore, the ultimate creator is a special class of creator referring only to the originator of everything. This distinction is important, because it means by necessity he is the creator of possibility itself. Anything that can be conceived must be conceivable by the ultimate creator, and therefore the non-existence of any conceivable thing demonstrates selection on behalf of the creator, and therefore demonstrates an alternative could have been created, but the creator chose otherwise. As the ultimate creator, he is also, by definition, unbounded. He could put his entire energy into one thing and another simultaneously if he so desired. If a bound exists on a creator, than it is not the ultimate creator.

now you're just going too far, user

>I'm talking about the actual God of Christ not Jewish mythologism
>HE THINKS THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KIKE GOD AND CHRISTKEK GOD
THIS IS THE MIND OF THE AVERAGE CHR*STIAN

>this entire post

>inb4 forgot to quote

bump

there's a chemical reaction, but it's gradual

Stop redefining words, creation doesn't imply selecting between multiple creations. And even if it did, since one can always choose to create nothing or everything, if only one everything can be created, then your fucked up definition would still be satisfied. But, your first sentence is completely unjustified and so is the rest of your post, stop making non sequiturs

I don't believe you

You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands