A request for help in my work on a new apologetics.

[philosopher4hire]

I’d like to ask you for 15-20 min. of your time. I work on a series of articles, that are meant to become a XXI century Christian apologetics. A solid weapon in hands against the materialism, that rules the modern world.
I suppose, many of you might have smiled, now. Perhaps you are right. But if so, then prove me wrong. Show me, that my texts are not good enough. The quants on the wilmott.com forum were unable to defeat my argumentation:
https://forum.wilmott.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=102015
and the Paul Wilmott [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wilmott] himself chose going into a quarrel instead of a rational discussion. Perhaps it means nothing. Or maybe he had no better choice?
Anyway, your feedback would be very valuable, but ONLY if you actually read my text. Unfortunately, most people nowadays prefer writing to reading. Therefore, it is hard for me to get any meaningful feedback.
My texts are for everyone. They contain solid argumentation (I’m ready to defend every paragraph!), yet given in a light and easy (I hope) form.

Can you tell me if you liked it?
Was it easy to read? Interesting?
Was it easy to understand? Nothing important missing?

For now, I dealt with the artificial intelligence:
http://philosopher4hire.eu/index.php?nr=1
and economics as a science:
http://philosopher4hire.eu/index.php?nr=3

Will you help me to make them better, please?

[Divine Insight]

Nevertheless, I’ll try to make our discussion productive. I’d ask you to answer these simple questions:
1. What is the basic building element of every CPU?
Hint: Modern CPUs are build of billions of such elements.
2. Can you describe the functional way of working of such element?
Hint: It can be done on a napkin along with a schema.

By the way, here are some questions for you:

1. What are the differences between a digital and analog computer?

2. What are the differences between a digital and analogy neural network?

Answer these questions correctly and then perhaps we can have something constructive to discuss.

[philosopher4hire]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

You really like to write. That’s for sure. But you give nearly no arguments. Besides your favorite: “I know, and you don’t�. Funny, as I wrote, already. Your claims like:

this CPU architecture is not a limiting factor in the way you have suggested in any case, because the way that software and choose to make decisions goes far beyond the CPU programming. External information via sensory input is also involved. This is something your paper has totally ignored.

So the limitation you are claiming from CPUs doesn't apply to your conclusions anyway. All it does is reveal your ignorance in thinking that the CPU is all there is to it.

And:

Finally, programming on the higher levels has become free from the limitations of CPUs even when running on a CPU. So your arguments don't even hold there.

Show that you really do not understand that matter.

And thing like:

I'm working in a field called "Semantic A.I.", it's based on having the artificial intelligence actually understanding concepts just like humans do.

Shows that you don’t even understand the meaning of the words you use. “artificial intelligence actually understanding concepts�. LOL. And my typewriter likes Shakespeare.

The rest of your text shows, that you despise Christianity and this feeling prevents you from rational thinking. I’m sorry for you. The discussion with you is pointless. EOT.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 6 by benchwarmer]

Another funny reply. You see, I could teach computer science on a university level. But that’s unimportant. The important thing is, that you gave an argument. So, let’s discuss with your arguments.

Irony right out of the gate (no pun intended). Writes paper based on modern AI attempts akin to nothing more than ball processor and then claims responses are 'funny'.

“

A much better (though still simplistic) view of a computer is an instruction processor. At the lowest levels, it reads instructions and then acts on them. These instructions can be things like loading more instructions, performing math on the contents of registers, comparing some values and returning a result, etc.

�
You wrote: “At the lowest levels, it reads instructions and then acts on them.�
First: an incorrect formulation: it does not act on instructions, but it executes them. The more descriptive form is: the instruction sets the CPU in the state which results in a predefined behavior – like setting the AX registry to zero. For example: XOR AX, AX.

Well, I can tell we are in an apologetics argument now as we are arguing over semantics. Are you familiar with phrasal verbs?

[act on/upon something] to do something because you have been given information, advice, or orders

I bolded the important bit. However, I'm happy you at least realize that CPUs execute instruction sets and don't simply move balls from input to output.

And that is exactly what I write about. You may have really astonishing things at the very top: a photo-realistic 3D graphics rendered in the real time. But at the very bottom, you have those simple transistors, which functional behavior can be described in a few sentences and it is quite like the toy I described.

What you described was putting balls in the top and moving drawers around to get the balls out the bottom. Your argument based on that analogy is GIGO.

“

Our brains are a system of inputs, memory, processing, and output. It is this system that AI is attempting to emulate to some degree - perhaps even more efficiently than our biological processors.

�
You may be right. But this is not the recipe for a self-conscious, free-will intelligence.

What's not the recipe, a functioning brain? It seems to be working fine from all observation.

If it would be, we would have computers behaving like humans since the late 90’s. But we don’t.

Are you talking about CPUs then? Of course simple CPUs are not the recipe for AI. As DI has pointed out, our brains are analog systems (though technically so are CPUs at the transistor level, but we layer a 1/0 system the rest of the way up for digital computing). In order to achieve what are brains our doing we either have to figure out how to model our brain completely with current digital computers or move to analog computing. We also don't fully understand what's going on in our brains yet, so modelling them fully to achieve the same level of functionality is currently a stab in the dark.

So, perhaps you had better read my entire text?

I did read it, I just tuned out when I saw the ridiculous analogy.

I imagine you are going to want to convince non-believers with your apologetics right? If so, you might want to make sure your analogies or whatever you are using are airtight. If you lose people with your analogy, imagine trying to reel them back in when you get to reanimated corpses that fly off into the sky to save your eternal soul from the invisible being who will punish you eternally for not believing poorly written ancient fables.

[Divine Insight]

But you give nearly no arguments.

What you say is false. I gave very detailed arguments which you clearly ignored. No doubt because you cannot contest them.

The rest of your text shows, that you despise Christianity and this feeling prevents you from rational thinking. I’m sorry for you. The discussion with you is pointless.

And now you have made even more false accusations. I do not despise Christianity. Where in the world did you come up with that falsehood?

I simply point out why it cannot possibly be true as it is written in Christian mythology.

Discussion with you is pointless because you clearly arem't prepared to admit when you are wrong.

You didn't address the questions I asked you about the difference between analogy and digital computers and neural networks. This is no doubt because you haven't got a clue.

[Divine Insight]

If you lose people with your analogy, imagine trying to reel them back in when you get to reanimated corpses that fly off into the sky to save your eternal soul from the invisible being who will punish you eternally for not believing poorly written ancient fables.

Exactly.

Trying to sell people on Christian mythology by demonstrating a grave lack of knowledge of what the A.I. community is actually working on isn't likely to work very well in terms of successful evangelism.

[philosopher4hire]

[Replying to post 13 by benchwarmer]

As I see the discussion with you is pointless, either. But before I end this thread with you, I’ll try to show you why you are wrong. You wrote:

Well, I can tell we are in an apologetics argument now as we are arguing over semantics. Are you familiar with phrasal verbs?

[act on/upon something] to do something because you have been given information, advice, or orders

I bolded the important bit.

Thanks for bolding the bit that eludes your understanding. “to do something because you have been given information�. You see, computers don’t do something because they were given information, advice or order. That’s how humans behave. Computers are electric (electronic) machines that basically work as a music box. They execute. There is no ‘acting’. No reflection, hesitation, or thinking. No space for ‘a different decision’. It’s like an electric fan. You plug it in, and it starts turning. You do not say: “My electric fan acted upon my plugging it in and started turning.�. Words do matter. Improperly used, they can be misleading. Think of it. EOT.

[Divine Insight]

You do not say: “My electric fan acted upon my plugging it in and started turning.�

Why not? That's a perfectly legitimate semantic sentence.

"Acting upon something" does not imply that sentience or intelligence needs to be involved.

As I see the discussion with you is pointless, either.

So, in other words, anyone who doesn't agree with your papers and conclusions is "pointless discussion". And you haven't even responded to any of the legitimate points that have been made.

How about starting by addressing the following questions:

For the sake of argument let's pretend that you are correct that no truly intelligent or sentient being could even be created using CPUs and digital technology.

You seem to be prepared to imply that this would then mean that Christianity must be true. But why?

What would be wrong with concluding that Buddhism must then be true?

In fact, why would we even need to conclude that any theism is true? Why not just conclude that trying to create an intelligent being using CPU's is simply the wrong way to go about it and we need to approach it differently?

Where does Christian Apologetics come into this?

Even if you concluded that a "God" must exist, what would point this to a the Abrahamic religions much less a specific offshoot of them?

If I thought we had evidence that a God might exist I'd be looking more seriously at Buddhism than at any of the Abrahamic religions. Why would I look at them when they have already revealed their own ignorance and self-contradictions in their own dogmas?

These are valid questions if your ultimate goal is a "New Apologetics" for Christian theology.

You appear to be heading down the road to argue:

CPUs can never lead to truly sentient beings, therefore Jesus Christ must be Lord.

That's a pretty huge leap.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 13 by benchwarmer]

As I see the discussion with you is pointless, either. But before I end this thread with you, I’ll try to show you why you are wrong. You wrote:

Well, I can tell we are in an apologetics argument now as we are arguing over semantics. Are you familiar with phrasal verbs?

[act on/upon something] to do something because you have been given information, advice, or orders

I bolded the important bit.

Thanks for bolding the bit that eludes your understanding. “to do something because you have been given information�. You see, computers don’t do something because they were given information, advice or order. That’s how humans behave. Computers are electric (electronic) machines that basically work as a music box. They execute. There is no ‘acting’. No reflection, hesitation, or thinking. No space for ‘a different decision’. It’s like an electric fan. You plug it in, and it starts turning. You do not say: “My electric fan acted upon my plugging it in and started turning.�. Words do matter. Improperly used, they can be misleading. Think of it. EOT.

So you are saying a CPU can't be given information (an instruction) and then do something? Do you consider another CPU sending a signal to the CPU in question such that an instruction landing in it's instruction register is not receiving information? Maybe we can argue about what 'information' means?

It seems instead of countering the actual, major questions you have been posed, you are more concerned with being right about everything. Hardly a productive environment for receiving constructive criticism.

In the end, it seems you were more interested in preaching to the choir and not actually interested in tightening up your argument. In an apologetics argument, you are going to want something that stands up much better to any scrutiny. Good luck.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

I'm wondering if the argument is that no intelligent being can ever be constructed from anything?

Yet, here we all are. Constructed out of the material in this universe. If we take the ridiculous ball toy analogy all the way down we end up at subatomic particles.

<sarcasm>Can you imagine that an intelligent being could possibly be made up of just a bunch of subatomic particles whizzing around? I mean, how ludicrous! </sarcasm>

That's basically the point I see being made. I suppose the only solution is god magic inserted somewhere to make all the balls whiz around in an intelligent fashion? I think this renders all intelligent beings puppets, but hey, it's not my argument.

The OP seems to be missing the entire point of systems interacting with each other. Intelligence appears to emerge when many systems which may not be intelligent themselves operate in unison to create something with higher level functions. Oh well, another apologetics argument down in flames.