Cheers for the promote.

You've just given me a... thought. A good mst3k-style commentary would make a far better Turing test than the standard conversation thing.

Your video, THE TURING TEST Trailer (2016), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Eugene passed the Turing test! Booyah!

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx

Because I am a nerd, the subtitles:

Lunar Materials Fluidification and Firing
Feldspar Extraction Technique and Belt-Driven Flame Kiln are proprietary to Aperture Science. Do not describe the events depicted in this scene.

Ballistic Turing Test
"Polylunarcarbonate ballistic redisintermediation" is a registered trademark of Aperture Science.

Diamond-Assisted Panel Abridgement
In the event of a clogged diamond disposal chute, DO NOT attempt to clear diamond hole.

Packing Simulation Trial
Please note: these panels are intended for simulated transportation environments only, and should not be used in an actual packaging event.

Completed Test Chamber
This test chamber was constructed for promotional purposes only, and may not accurately reflect the actual panel distribution cost of an official Enrichment Center activity.

Extra-Earth Outsourcing Initiative
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to Earths not residing in the public domain is guaranteed by the physical laws of multiverse theory, and therefore not actionable.

How It Works
This is not a dramatization. An Earth where sea mollusks have created an advanced land-based society with wholly inappropriate bipedal keyboards is guaranteed to exist.

The Multiverse and You
A Note About Getting Back to Work: In the event that you are reading this, get back to work.

(Throughout)
This Aperture Science Extra-Earth Outsourcing and Perpetual Testing Initiative Employee Orientation Video is for internal use only. Do not distribute to other Earths.

I demand we give this woman a turing test.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.


Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.

And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.

If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.

I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.

In reply to this comment by dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:


You might realize that God is an idea deserving of serious philisophical consideration, a subject debated by some of the greatest minds this world has ever known. Is it the question in those circles. It would be laughable if you were to come to a real debate and say "well you don't have any evidence". And you do? Let's get real here..


Okay lets start this Poe/Turing test:

To give God serious philosophical consideration, the word itself must have meaning, so please, while not tipping your hand, explain how we could identify this thing if we were to come upon it. If you want to claim that we can't come upon it, then please explain your definition of the term exists in such a way that you can make the claim "God does exist".

i have been thoroughly impressed with your comments on this thread but this is nails the crux of any argument concerning theology/theosophy/sprituality:define god first THEN discuss.
otherwise it almost always and inevitably spirals into a dogmatic fistfight.

bravo my man.

>> ^shinyblurry:


You might realize that God is an idea deserving of serious philisophical consideration, a subject debated by some of the greatest minds this world has ever known. Is it the question in those circles. It would be laughable if you were to come to a real debate and say "well you don't have any evidence". And you do? Let's get real here..


Okay lets start this Poe/Turing test:

To give God serious philosophical consideration, the word itself must have meaning, so please, while not tipping your hand, explain how we could identify this thing if we were to come upon it. If you want to claim that we can't come upon it, then please explain your definition of the term exists in such a way that you can make the claim "God does exist".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Congrats on passing the Turing test NAR and thanks for your contributions to the Sift!

Oh man, you make a good argument here GSF, but some of your points are wonderfully put down by Daniel Dennett (my hero) in, hmm, I think it was Consciousness Explained. (I wrote an assignment on this a few years back, I'll just see if I can get the quotes and stuff..)

The Chinese Room thought experiment is essentially a dud. Dennett calls it an Intuition Pump.

“while philosophers and others have always found flaws in his thought experiment when it is considered as a logical argument, it is undeniable that its “conclusion” continues to seem “obvious” to many people. Why? Because people don’t actually imagine the case in the detail it requires.”

He argues that Searle's position may:

“(…) lull us into the (unwarranted) supposition that the giant program would work by somehow simply “matching up” the input Chinese characters with some output Chinese characters. No such program would work, of course”

For a program to work it would have to be:
“extraordinarily supple, sophisticated, and multilayered system, brimming with “world knowledge” and meta-knowledge and meta-meta-knowledge about its own responses, the likely responses of its interlocutor, its own “motivations” and the motivations of the interlocutor, and much, much more”

The point is, that Searle only looks at the man in the box, and not the whole box, which is what answers. While the little man may not have an understanding of the Chinese letters, the man + the reference book does have that understanding. Searle himself argues that this box would pass a Turing test, but that's the whole box, not just the little man inside.

You say

"Let us use another example. Let us say that we have broadcasting towers all over the USA. They are broadcasting all sorts of different programs to all sorts of different people. It is a complex web of towers and receivers but it all seems to work out ok. So, are we to conclude that radio towers are conscious? Of course not, but that is what are are doing with the human experience of consciousness. Lets look at that quickly.

When you experience something, you experience every one of your scenes simultaneously. You remember the sounds, the tastes, the sights...it is all there. However, your brain never really has a point in which all points connect. Your consciousness is something that seems to violate the laws of physics, that things are happening in different locations in space at different times, but for your consciousness, at the same time. This isn't something that is reducible to brain states, and not something that is physically possible in computer technology as we know it. It doesn't matter if it is parallel or not, if things don't touch but are somehow related this is mystifying; and as a result, unreproducible. Perhaps consciousnesses is reducible to one point in the brain we haven't found, but so far, there is no such thing."

And again, I want to refer to Dennett and his "Multiple Drafts theory", which I think is an excellent answer to this. I don't think that consciousness violates physics as such (obviously it doesn't, or it couldn't exist in our physical universe). I think that our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensory input that is processed in our brain and presented in our consciousness as "scenes". I mean, we have a much, much larger flow of sensory input than is presented to us, and our unconscious mind filters though this and presents what is perceived to be relevant inputs to "us" (our conscious minds). I think in the end it is actually reducible to brain states, in the same way that any give program, say firefox with videosift loaded, can be reduced to an electrical state at a given time in my computer.

On the concept on Blue and blueness, I think you are making a Qualia argument. To be honest, I can't remember all the details of that right now, but again Dennet's "Quining Qualia" in one of his books covers it greatly, if my memory serves.

I also love this subject.

The Turing Test is still used today to determine if artificial intelligence is gay.

im going to use your posts in a Turing test of a linguistic AI... if it can decipher what you say, it passes... cause right now, even some real people can't tell... and i find your wit, logic, and observational commentary to be high caliber... thanks for all the source data. im srsly.

http://www.logicaldiscourseproject.org