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?

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to General chat. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Divine Insight]

I will offer you my sincere constructive view of your writings. But I'm afraid you're not going to like what I have to say. Please understand that this is in no way intended on a personal level as I have no clue who you are, nor do I feel any hostility toward you.

Will you help me to make them better, please?

I'm afraid that to be honest and truthful I have no choice but to simply say that you have a very antiquated idea about how computers work and how artificial intelligence works.

I have been working with computers since the early 1960's. I still work with them today, including working with A.I. I read the first page of your article on A.I. and I have very good reasons to disagree with just about everything you have stated about computers and A.I. Your view and understanding of computers appears to my experience to be extremely limited in scope.

At the bottom of the page you ask:

Anyway, the question behind the AI is:

“Do we believe, that we could make a plastic toy for 4-years olds a thinking being?�

But your question here make the grave mistake of thinking that I actually accepted the description you had given in the previous paragraphs, which I absolutely do not agree with.

So now when you ask:

Will you help me to make them better, please?

At this point the only help I could offer is to suggest that you learn more about what's actually going on in the fields of computers and A.I. because the description you had given is far from describing what's actually happening in the field, as well as being far from how modern day programs actually work.

In short, all your article has done thus far is convince me that you have a very poor understanding of both computers, and A. I. And then you appear to hope to get readers to jump to your conclusions based on this extreme misinformation.

I'm quite sure this is not the kind of feedback you were hoping to receive. But you asked for help. I would suggest that you learn about computers and A.I. before you start making misinformed claims about what you think they are supposedly based upon.

[Divine Insight]

Will you help me to make them better, please?

Just for the record. I didn't read your papers on economics as a "science". But if it's your point to claim that economics is not a science I'll be the first to agree with you on that point.

[Tart]

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?

You're right... I'm not going to read... For I ponder what good is the "leap", to fall down the rabbit hole? Though I'm open for the push...lol.. Though I might push back...

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by philosopher4hire]

I`m in heavy agreement with DI here. As someone who works in the field, you seem to have little actual knowledge about how computers work. Describing them as machines that simply redirect balls and then jumping to your own conclusions based on incorrect understanding is not going to give you a very solid argument.

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.

The key component you appear to be missing is that modern processors are a layered system. Only the very, very bottom of this structure could possibly be described as you are describing the entire system. A transistor can take some inputs and present an output. Depending on how you arrange the transistors you can create logic gates that allow you to do basic logic. Building these logic gates into larger components lets you perform more complicated operations. On up the hierarchy we go. Eventually we get to the software that controls which instructions the hardware will perform. Then in software we can have even more layers of hierarchy, simultaneous threads doing independent operations, etc.

AI, very loosely, is more about creating a non-biological brain. Do you consider our brains as mere marble machines? Is it a matter of taking the marbles that enter our ears and watching them fall out of our nose?

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.

I suggest understanding the subject matter better if you intend to use it in your arguments. One paragraph into your material and I had already tuned out to whatever followed. If your leading premise is easily ripped apart, your conclusions are going to fare no better.

[philosopher4hire]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I will offer you my sincere constructive view of your reply. But I'm afraid you're not going to like what I have to say. Please understand that this is in no way intended on a personal level as I have no clue who you are, nor do I feel any hostility toward you.

All that you wrote is really funny. You claim to be an expert, but you gave no professional critique. Nothing to discus with. Please, take a look at my discussion with bearish the quant, to see how a discussion with real pros looks like. He gives arguments, you just say how wise you are, and how unwise I am.

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.

[philosopher4hire]

[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.
“

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.
But this is the “lowest level� only from a software developer point of view. Later you’ve noticed correctly that:
“

Only the very, very bottom of this structure could possibly be described as you are describing the entire system. A transistor can take some inputs and present an output. Depending on how you arrange the transistors you can create logic gates that allow you to do basic logic. Building these logic gates into larger components lets you perform more complicated operations. On up the hierarchy we go.

�
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.

“

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

So, perhaps you had better read my entire text?

[Divine Insight]

All that you wrote is really funny. You claim to be an expert, but you gave no professional critique. Nothing to discus with. Please, take a look at my discussion with bearish the quant, to see how a discussion with real pros looks like. He gives arguments, you just say how wise you are, and how unwise I am.

The problem is that your paper has already revealed your extreme ignorance of how computers actually work, especially in today's world. There's really not much point in trying to enter into a serious discussion with you on a topic you clearly do not understand. No offense intended.

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.

CPU's are not the entirety of modern day computing. So your assumption that modern day computers are restricted to solely excuting sequential instructions is already misinformed.

2. Can you describe the functional way of working of such element?
Hint: It can be done on a napkin along with a schema.

I've programmed many CPUs in machine language using nothing more than their own instruction sets. I've done this directly using hexadecimal and binary numbers as well as programming them using Assembly Langue. In fact my first computer had 8 binary switches for the data and instructions, and 16 binary switches for the address. No keyboard, mouse, or monitor. The output was read from a row of 8 LEDs and the address was read from a row of 16 LEDs.

So I'm totally familiar with the architecture and capabilities of CPUs.

However as Benchwarmer points out, 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.

~~~~~~~~

Not only this but in modern day computer scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the advantages of analogy computers over digital computers. And the moment we move over to an analog computers everything you've said about CPUs no longer applies.

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.

The field of A.I. is also far more complex than you are apparently aware based on what you have written in your paper. What you have stated about self-driving cars and the inability of A.I. to ever become aware of, or understand, what's actually going on in the real world, is simply wrong.

Your conclusions are based on artificial neural networking projects that simply recognize objects visually but no nothing at all about the objects they recognize.

Just to help you understand, I'll be the first to agree with you that this particular field of A.I. does not represent intelligence of any kind. It's certainly useful technology for the development of A.I. but it does not itself represent any form of actual intelligence.

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.

So all I see in your article is an extremely limited view of what's actually being developed in today's world of Artificial Intelligence.

~~~~~~

Finally, you had originally posted this thread in "Christianity and Apologetics" with the tittle "A request for help in my work on a new apologetics."

If you think for one second that by attempting to decree that the creation of true A.I. is necessarily impossible will somehow support ancient Hebrew mythology you are sadly mistaken.

If you want to apologize for that pathetic theology please attempt to address the theology directly, because even if your claim that true A.I. could never be achieved, this still wouldn't support the absurdities and self-contradictory nature of Christian dogma.

~~~~~

In fact, I will go much further than this. I claim that if you feel a need to go off on such a tangent in an effort to "apologize" for Christian theology, all this does is demonstrate that you have already conceded that there is no way to apologize for the theology directly.

After all, if you could make compelling argument for Christian mythology directly then why not just do so?

The mere fact that you feel a need to try to support the theology by attempting to dismiss other sciences and technologies only reveals that you have given up on trying to make a compelling case for the theology itself.

So even if true A.I. were to turn out to be impossible that wouldn't loan support to Christian mythology anyway.

So you idea that this would somehow represent a "New Apologetics" is ridiculous.

If you can't make compelling apologies for Christian theology directly then you may as well give up on that guest.

[Divine Insight]

1. What is the basic building element of every CPU?
Hint: Modern CPUs are build of billions of such elements.

By the way, just for your information I have already made the argument that any A.I. based solely on digital computing (i.e. CPUs), could never become as fully sentient as a human being. I have been arguing that in order to do this we must turn to analogy computers which is how our biological brains actually function.

Apparently you are unaware of the existence of analog computers.

So your argument (in terms of Christian apologetics) appears to go something like this:

We could never hope to create a truly sentient being using CPUs, therefore, Christianity must be true.

That wouldn't follow anyway. Plus it ignores the fact that CPUs are not the only way to create thinking machines.

So this is basically my short answer to your paper.