Alright, Spam Zone. We're gonna have a real-talk discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
We're not there yet, but we're getting there. Technology has been improving at an exponential rate since the invention of the first electronic computer (maybe even earlier; not too sure). As we improve our technology and our understanding of human consciouness, conscious AI will become all too possible.

 

Bah, my finger slips on my phone and I'm left writing most of this over again (due to a premature post and subsequent deletion)

I chose atheists informally because I wanted to leave other religions out of this. Though that is the standard demographic for belief in unguided evolution, correct? If you want to provide a preferred term that I must not be thinking of, I'll be happy to use it. In the mean time I'll just personalize this into you and me. Also works better for me since there are many flavors of creationism and I'm not wanting to get straw-manned with one of the ones I don't agree with anyway (like the Earth being created within the last 10,000 years).

Why would the burden of proof be on me alone? Isn't one of the fundamental concepts of science that the burden of proof be shared? There is an unknown and it would be mutually beneficial for us were it to be solved. The problem is though that it can't, not with our current understanding. We have both adapted our ideas to fit the world around until now there is nothing we know to look at that could define one over the other. And even if there were, I can't think of any way to disprove our ideas beyond modification. There is no intellectual high ground here.

And you mention that you can put up a decent argument against creationism. Let's see what you can come up with for the one I currently subscribe to (though it is one that admittedly doesn't give you much room, if any, to work with). And I'll describe it in terms of this thread just because.

So let's relate god during creation to a programmer designing a system. Normally the mark of a perfect programmer would be the perfect program. Clearly this isn't perfect, so we can just call it a day right? Well not yet. In this case the system has a necessary flaw to make it work, our free will, without it there would be no point. So then what would be the mark of perfect design in a flawed system? I would claim minimal intervention. Many people look for the miracles, but if god needed to tinker with everything constantly that would make him less perfect and thus less god. So while I do believe in supernatural miracles (Jesus's resurrection if nothing else) I believe miracles are more likely to be natural. Extraordinary events that were always possible but rare, occurring in circumstances of heightened importance.

 

Hypothetically. We've yet to find out if there is in fact something inexorably unique about our consciousness that no invention of ours can imitate.

 

There' s no word to describe people not believing in creationism. You can be an atheist and believe in intelligent design, and my grandma is catholic but believes in evolution. Most catholics do (here), the Vatican even officially accepts evolution. That' s why I was puzzled by your way to put it, but thankfully I don' t think labelling each side is required to go on.

It is shared, but the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary evidence you' ll need. If you were to tell me that you have a dog I' d be willing to take it on you word alone. However if you were to tell me that you have a dragon ...

Ugh, damn PS3 and its silly low characters cap, be right back in a double post.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
We're getting there. There's still a lot of research to be done, but findings like these lead me to side with the nihilistic and, in my opinion, much more elegant model that shows our consciousnesses as an extension of our natural universe.[DOUBLEPOST=1400090732][/DOUBLEPOST]

Um. How?

 

Glad I parsed that before responding, because it doesn't necessarily support that view so much as allows for it. It allows for a lot of other things, including mine.

Depression averted~

 

Precisely. It's far from a proof, it's really just supporting evidence. I'd wager good money that we'll be extremely close to the answer if not already there within a decade or two.

 

I should clarify, I don't resist the idea we can replicate our consciousness. I find it compatible with the idea of a universal spirit, because there is nothing we can create that does not become a part of that universe.

 

I can get on board with that. I'm not any denomination of theist, but I can't help but feel some degree of human spirituality because of the interconnection of the matter and energy that makes up everything. (Everything that we can observe, at least. Cheeky dark matter pls go.)

 

Same, I'm probably more agnostic than anything (though I've been looking at Eastern religions and fringe forms of paganism) but from everything I've observed I just can't rationalize the idea of a finite existence. Matter is never created or destroyed, right? Everything in this world, no matter its lifespan, is transubstantiated into another form as it expires. That must be true of consciousness. It is a form of energy—and if this evidence holds water, it is an organic part of the universe. So that energy must go somewhere.

 

Who the **** cares? Simulation or not, unless we find a way out of this consciousness (Matrix stuff) what's the point in wondering about other maybe/maybe not consciousness? It's like worrying what i'd do with millions and millions of £s when I don't have it. IT's fantasy. a neat idea to consider, but not a worthy worry.

And I wouldn't dare experience another person's consciousness. How would you be able to distinguish two consciousnesses as 'real' and 'not real', as yours and anothers? It be like giving someone schizophrenia.

 

I' m pretty sure the theory of evolution has already met its burden of proof. When I said creationists haven' t met theirs what I had in mind wasn' t you, me and casual conversations. What I had in mind was peer reviewed studies and the people pushing to teach the "controversy" in schools.

As for your own position on the matter I can spot quite a few unbacked assertions that would need to be demonstrated first, one claim at a time my friend. And I missed the "X + Y therefore design" part.

I don' t want to leave you completely hanging though, so here' a site listing the most frequently refuted creationist claims and their typical rebutal. Maybe you' ll spot a few claims you subscribe to in there : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[DOUBLEPOST=1400095566][/DOUBLEPOST]

A guiding hand doesn' t have to be divine.

 

Because if it winds up being the case then it fundamentally alters how reality and existence will be perceived from then on. Yeah, there's no empirical evidence to support it, which is a big problem, but at this point it's as valid to discuss as any other philosophical thought experiment. It's the same reason why the theism debate has a degree of merit.[DOUBLEPOST=1400095902][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ah, I hear you. Fair, fair. Though the hypothesis that I think you're getting at (ancient aliens genetically splicing animals to make us or something) has literally no evidence in support of it. Not to imply that you necessarily believe in it.

 

It was also the plot of Star Ocean 3...












































































....other than the lesbian space ninjas.

 

I'M HERE FOR THE WORD STIMULATION

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_law

Personally I wouldn' t bet on it. XD
I sure would like them to crack that nut though, I find that topic fascinating.

 

I used to care, still do sometimes these days, but I've gone past the point of really bothering to pursue it. I will never know, never grasp it fully and it will only be a fluttering of curiosity of mine, and not a concept of this reality that I can test. It's just boring to mull over the same thing without it ever changing sometimes I want to actually do an experiment.
Go on, for sure, think, think, think, like Pooh bear, but know that reality is not changing any time soon if our lives and thousands of others now dead are anything to go by.

 

I say this a lot, but this could be the best retort on KHV...

 

I kept dreaming of a world, I'd thought I'd never see...

And then...

One day...

I got in.

DOOOOOO

DOO DOO DOOOOO

 

what if we're the aliens that invaded earth and the dinosaurs were the ones that ruled the earth and we killed them