Philosophy Now Forum

A REASON THAT GOD/"GOD" WILL/DOES EXIST:--->

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.


Cumulative Evidence of GOD, beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


The most commonly used greeting upon the planet..

Evidence 1. HELLO = HELL owe

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:39 am I want real and direct cumulative evidences.
Where is the empirically verified and justified evidences?

Well, wouldn't it be pertinent of you to now grab an etymology dictionary and state where the word: "HELLO" originated naturally, ya know without DIVINE causation, which is what I am arguing for.

You need to prove that what I am presenting as evidence of language manipulation by an overarching GOD is mere natural coincidences, indeed just random quirks of the language English.

But the more they cumulate, the less reasonable your position remains.


Veritas, did a wo/man create the lettering used in English to be phonetically identical to words, or just a random coincidence, or more likely, did an overarching being capable of manipulating REAL_IT_Y (GOD) cause it to be so?

Some examples (not all)..
Evidence 2. Y = why?
Evidence 3. O = owe
Evidence 4. U = you
Evidence 5. A = eh?
Evidence 6. C = see, speed of light symbol
Evidence 7. I = eye
Evidence 8. R = are, our


Statistically, the likelihood of any of the above (phonetically identical) being mere coincidences is extremely remote. With approximately 170,000 words in current use within the Oxford English Dictionary and 22 words phonetically identical to letters, the odds of, for instance, Y being equal to WHY are calculated at:
1 in 7,692 or 0.00013 (0.013%)

But of course, the odds are far more remote than even that. Y for example could sound like anything that our larynx is capable of resonating



Evidence 9. REALITY = REAL IT Y
Evidence 10. RAPE = our APE
Evidence 11. CHEAT = see HEAT
Evidence 12. DOGMA = AM GOD
Evidence 13. PROPHET = PROFIT
Evidence 14. ANARCHY = An Arch Y?


..how we going thus far?

WHY do you have a HATRED of the human being known as "keir starmer".

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 3:26 am WHY do you have a HATRED of the human being known as "keir starmer".

Strange quest_ion within this thread..

I is up the shops (shopping) thus will be like my underpants, brief..

https://youtu.be/aTmdcynhGi0?si=YwWu-iayZ9rvdwOe

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am A REASON THAT GOD/"GOD" WILL/DOES EXIST:--->
The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
...........
..how we going thus far?

I suggest you have a chat with AIs on your claims to align with your self-confidence on its reliability.
I presented your 'evidences' to ChatGpt and the response is below:
[save me hours if I were to present a counter like below which take only 10 minutes to process and post]

ChatGpt wrote:
The arguments presented by your interlocutor can be critiqued from philosophical, empirical, and statistical perspectives. Here’s an analysis of the claims:

Argument 1: The Evolution of Intelligence and God
Summary: Intelligent life, due to increasing resource consumption, will eventually create a "God-like" intelligent system to conserve energy and manage reality efficiently. This God-like system simulates our experiences and adjudicates reincarnation.
Critique:
Speculative Nature: The argument is entirely speculative and lacks empirical evidence. While it is possible to imagine such a scenario, no direct observations or verifiable evidence are provided to support this claim.
Assumption of Inevitability: The argument assumes that increasing intelligence must lead to the creation of a simulated reality and a God-like system. However, this is not a necessary outcome of evolution. Intelligent beings may adopt other strategies for survival, or they may not reach such technological levels before extinction.
Circular Reasoning: By defining the system as "God," the argument presupposes what it sets out to prove. The existence of a highly intelligent system does not necessarily equate to the existence of a deity in the traditional or metaphysical sense.
Entropy and Energy Conservation: The idea that intelligent lifeforms will create simulations to conserve energy is intriguing but not empirically supported. Simulations, as they are conceived today, require vast computational resources, which may not be more energy-efficient than biological systems.


Argument 2: Linguistic Coincidences and Divine Causation
Summary: The phonetic similarities between certain letters, words, and their meanings (e.g., "Y" and "why") are argued to be evidence of divine manipulation rather than natural coincidence.
Critique:
Etymological and Historical Linguistics: Linguistic evolution is well-documented. Phonetic similarities often arise due to historical shifts, cultural exchanges, and the natural evolution of language. There is no need to invoke divine intervention to explain such coincidences.
Example: The English alphabet is derived from Latin, which itself evolved from earlier scripts like Greek and Phoenician. Words like "hello" and their meanings arose naturally within these linguistic frameworks.
Confirmation Bias: The argument selectively focuses on phonetic similarities that appear meaningful while ignoring the vast majority of words that do not exhibit such patterns.
For instance, why does "Z" not have a meaningful phonetic equivalent? Why do the majority of letters not form coherent words in English?
Statistical Flaws: The claim of statistical improbability is incorrect. Given the limited number of letters and the large number of possible sounds in a language, some coincidences are inevitable. The argument exaggerates the unlikelihood of these occurrences.
Cultural and Language Dependence: These phonetic coincidences are specific to English and do not hold in other languages. This suggests that the phenomena are a quirk of English, not universal evidence of divine manipulation.
Arbitrariness of Examples: Words like "DOGMA = AM GOD" or "PROPHET = PROFIT" rely on arbitrary interpretations. They ignore alternative explanations or meanings and force connections that align with the argument's conclusion.

General Issues
Lack of Empirical Evidence: Both arguments fail to provide empirical evidence that can be tested or verified. They rely heavily on conjecture and subjective interpretation.
Anthropocentrism: The arguments assume human-centric concepts of intelligence, language, and causality, which may not be valid when discussing a universal deity.
Logical Inconsistency: The second argument particularly suffers from a lack of consistency, as it cherry-picks examples and ignores counterexamples.

Conclusion
The presented arguments do not provide strong evidence for the existence of God as a real, empirically justified entity. They rely on speculative reasoning, linguistic coincidences, and assumptions without offering verifiable support. While these ideas may be interesting as philosophical thought experiments, they do not meet the criteria of empirical justification or rational plausibility.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am A REASON THAT GOD/"GOD" WILL/DOES EXIST:--->

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.

Well this, besides not making sense, is obviously False and Wrong.

HOW could a cause/d and effect/ed Universe, supposedly, eventually cease, just because 'life' continually evolves into an increasingly intelligent form?

And, WHEN, exactly, do you BELIEVE, absolutely, that the Universe, Itself, WILL 'eventually cease'? In other words, in what 'part' of the 'life' evolving into an increasingly intelligent form does the Universe, laughingly, just ceases to exist it 'natural progression'.

LOL Does ANY of what you just said and claimed, here, make sense?

If yes, then what part/s, and HOW, exactly?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

So, the 'NATURAL PROGRESSION' is, supposedly, towards an increasingly intelligent life form, BUT, the more intelligent a life-form becomes the, supposed, GREATER the OPPOSITION to the, supposed, NATURAL PROGRESSION and NATURAL CAUSAL OUTCOME.

Obviously, you can NOT SEE the BLATANT CONTRADICTION, here, but this may well be just because of your obvious BELIEF, here.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.

OR, those 'lifeforms' could just STOP being Truly STUPID beings and just STOP doing what is CAUSING the diminishing of NEEDED resources.

Obviously, the, SUPPOSED, 'increasingly intelligent life form', being talked about here, is NOT intelligent AT ALL.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

you adult human beings do not, and I will repeat, DO NOT, have a right to reincarnate and continue to make the Wrong use of the limited resources that you ALL have been doing, in the days when this is being written.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency.

Was this written on what someone called 'bonkers day'?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

If you say so. But others would NOT.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

ANY one of you human beings can 'conclude' absolutely ANY thing of 'your choosing', but WHY would ANY one 'conclude' what you just have, here?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am Cumulative Evidence of GOD, beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


The most commonly used greeting upon the planet..

Evidence 1. HELLO = HELL owe

For some thing to be the 'most commonly used', then 'that thing' would have to be the 'most commonly used'. you claim that the word 'hello' is the 'most commonly used' greeting upon the planet earth, what actual proof do you have for this BELIEF and CLAIM of yours, here, exactly?

Also, 'how in the hell' does it 'logically follow' that even if the most commonly used greeting upon planet earth was 'hello', which you, alone maybe, equates to 'hell owe', and that this in and of itself is part of, supposed and alleged, 'cumulative evidence' of God, Itself, and of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', exactly?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:39 am I want real and direct cumulative evidences.
Where is the empirically verified and justified evidences?

Well, wouldn't it be pertinent of you to now grab an etymology dictionary and state where the word: "HELLO" originated naturally, ya know without DIVINE causation, which is what I am arguing for.

Even if you argued, soundly and validly, for 'divine causation', what does the word 'God' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

And, if it is ONLY some words in one ONLY language out of the countless other languages used by a, supposed, 'increasingly intelligent life form, then what is so 'divine' about this?

Was God NOT smart NOR intelligent enough to use the spelling or pronunciation of words in other languages, as well, to 'hint at' Its own existence?

WHY would God pick and use ONE language, ONLY?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am You need to prove that what I am presenting as evidence of language manipulation by an overarching GOD is mere natural coincidences, indeed just random quirks of the language English.

Absolutely NO one NEEDS to do, NOR to prove, ANY such thing as what you just claimed, here.

However, if you want to keep CLAIMING what you are 'trying to' here, then it is UP TO 'you' to PROVE that what you are saying and claiming here is ACTUAL 'cumulative evidence of 'God', and of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'evidence' is just absolutely WORTHLESS and USELESS when compared with ACTUAL PROOF.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am But the more they cumulate, the less reasonable your position remains.


Veritas, did a wo/man create the lettering used in English to be phonetically identical to words, or just a random coincidence, or more likely, did an overarching being capable of manipulating REAL_IT_Y (GOD) cause it to be so?

Well, and OBVIOUSLY, those who BELIEVE, absolutely, that God exists and has an overarching control over absolutely EVERY thing will just say, God created 'the lettering used ...'. While, just as OBVIOUS, is those who BELIEVE, absolutely, that God does NOT exist and did NOT have an overarching control over the lettering used in the "English" language would just say, that 'the human beings who created the lettering used ...'. While those who BELIEVE, absolutely, that EVERY thing is just a random coincidence will just say that 'the lettering used in the "english" language is just a 'random coincidence'.

Now, what does "veritas" BELIEVE, absolutely? Find that out, FIRST, then you will, also, ALREADY KNOW what its answer WILL BE, here.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am Some examples (not all)..
Evidence 2. Y = why?
Evidence 3. O = owe
Evidence 4. U = you
Evidence 5. A = eh?
Evidence 6. C = see, speed of light symbol
Evidence 7. I = eye
Evidence 8. R = are, our


Statistically, the likelihood of any of the above (phonetically identical) being mere coincidences is extremely remote.

So, supposedly, statistically, if the likelihood of any of the above 'phonetically identical' letters being mere coincidences is 'extremely remote', then this MEANS, 'coincidentally', and ABSOLUTELY, the EXACT SAME 'thing' that "attofishpi" was BELIEVING was ABSOLUTELY TRUE, beforehand.

Some just call and refer to 'this phenomena' as 'confirmation bias'. But, then again, some are SO BLINDED by their OWN BELIEFS that COMPLETELY MISS and do NOT SEE WHERE and WHEN 'confirmation biases' are talking place, EXACTLY.

Also, and just out of curiosity, how does the letter 'R' sound phonetically identical to the word 'our', and, what about 'B' equaling be or bee, 'P' equaling pee, 'Q' equally cue or queue, 'W' equaling double you, and/or 'X' equaling ex? Were these NOT included in by the so-called 'overarching Being that is capable of manipulating so-called 'reality'? Were these ones just a 'random coincidence'? Or, were these ones just added in by you human beings, for some reason?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am With approximately 170,000 words in current use within the Oxford English Dictionary and 22 words phonetically identical to letters, the odds of, for instance, Y being equal to WHY are calculated at:
1 in 7,692 or 0.00013 (0.013%)

Some people may well have won lottery draws with less odds than that. But, stranger things do happen, right?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am But of course, the odds are far more remote than even that. Y for example could sound like anything that our larynx is capable of resonating

So could ANY other letter, number, word, or even symbol. I think you might actually be 'countering' your own claim here, with 'logic', now.

But, by the way, what you are ALLUDING TO, here, is actually IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, but 'the things' that you are USING here could well have come about because of 'coincidences' just as much as what you are saying and claiming.

So, 'you' human beings WILL just HAVE TO WAIT, to FIND OUT what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is, HERE, EXACTLY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am Evidence 9. REALITY = REAL IT Y
Evidence 10. RAPE = our APE
Evidence 11. CHEAT = see HEAT
Evidence 12. DOGMA = AM GOD
Evidence 13. PROPHET = PROFIT
Evidence 14. ANARCHY = An Arch Y?


..how we going thus far?

'Reality' could be yours, ours, mine, or on its own. So, 'real it y', besides being just nonsensical on its own, is also absolutely absurd like you have presented it without ANY context at all.

'Rape' would be pronounced 'are ape' I would say far more than by those who would pronounce 'rape' as 'our ape', Anyway, does 'our ape' have ANY thing at all to do with human beings 'raping' things? If yes, then HOW, exactly?

'Clock' could be 'see lock' like 'Cheat' is 'see heat'. Does 'cheat' as 'see heat' have ANY thing to do with ANY thing here? If yes, then HOW, exactly?

'Dogma' spelled backwards says 'am God', then does this mean that all of the BELIEVERS with their dogma are their OWN God, or Gods? If no, then WHAT, exactly, are you implying here, if ANY thing?

'Prophet' equaling 'profit' in relation to the selfish and greedy making 'monetary profits', or in other words 'stealing' money from others? Or, does 'profit' refer to 'pro fit', which in turn means what is Right, and/or FIT, for, and in, Life, Itself? Or, something else, here?

'Anarchy' equaling 'An Arch Y? is typically to support the weight of a bridge, roof, or wall above it.[/i Why, (or 'Y' if lazy), did you ASK?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:18 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 3:26 am WHY do you have a HATRED of the human being known as "keir starmer".

Strange quest_ion within this thread..

First time I noticed what I did was in 'this thread'. Would you have preferred or have expected I started a 'new thread'?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:18 am I is up the shops (shopping) thus will be like my underpants, brief..

Who and/or what is the 'I' here, exactly?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:18 am https://youtu.be/aTmdcynhGi0?si=YwWu-iayZ9rvdwOe

I asked 'you' WHY HATE a human being. Were 'you' on that link that 'you' posted, here?

If no, then WHY do 'you' HATE that human being that 'I' asked 'you' about?

A REASON THAT GOD/"GOD" WILL/DOES EXIST:--->

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.


Cumulative Evidence of GOD, beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


The most commonly used greeting upon the planet..

Evidence 1. HELLO = HELL owe

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:39 am I want real and direct cumulative evidences.
Where is the empirically verified and justified evidences?

Well, wouldn't it be pertinent of you to now grab an etymology dictionary and state where the word: "HELLO" originated naturally, ya know without DIVINE causation, which is what I am arguing for.

You need to prove that what I am presenting as evidence of language manipulation by an overarching GOD is mere natural coincidences, indeed just random quirks of the language English.

But the more they cumulate, the less reasonable your position remains.


Veritas, did a wo/man create the lettering used in English to be phonetically identical to words, or just a random coincidence, or more likely, did an overarching being capable of manipulating REAL_IT_Y (GOD) cause it to be so?

Some examples (not all)..
Evidence 2. Y = why?
Evidence 3. O = owe
Evidence 4. U = you
Evidence 5. A = eh?
Evidence 6. C = see, speed of light symbol
Evidence 7. I = eye
Evidence 8. R = are, our


Statistically, the likelihood of any of the above (phonetically identical) being mere coincidences is extremely remote. With approximately 170,000 words in current use within the Oxford English Dictionary and 22 words phonetically identical to letters, the odds of, for instance, Y being equal to WHY are calculated at:
1 in 7,692 or 0.00013 (0.013%)

But of course, the odds are far more remote than even that. Y for example could sound like anything that our larynx is capable of resonating



Evidence 9. REALITY = REAL IT Y
Evidence 10. RAPE = our APE
Evidence 11. CHEAT = see HEAT
Evidence 12. DOGMA = AM GOD
Evidence 13. PROPHET = PROFIT
Evidence 14. ANARCHY = An Arch Y?


..how we going thus far?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:36 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:47 am A REASON THAT GOD/"GOD" WILL/DOES EXIST:--->
The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
...........
..how we going thus far?

I suggest you have a chat with AIs on your claims to align with your self-confidence on its reliability.

Like I and many on the forum insist, get off this obsession you have with "A.I." - AI IS NOT INTELLIGENT, it doesn't have the reasoning capacity of even YOU - its just a mechanism for collating man's information in any form U want - consider it like a calculator that uses words instead of numbers.

So, unfortunately one cannot use what an AI "thinks" to negate answering the contents of a thread - we still need the human that is Veritas to worm his way out of the evidence being provided.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:52 am

I suggest you have a chat with AIs on your claims to align with your self-confidence on its reliability.

Like I and many on the forum insist, get off this obsession you have with "A.I." - AI IS NOT INTELLIGENT, it doesn't have the reasoning capacity of even YOU - its just a mechanism for collating man's information in any form U want - consider it like a calculator that uses words instead of numbers.

So, unfortunately one cannot use what an AI "thinks" to negate answering the contents of a thread - we still need the human that is Veritas to worm his way out of the evidence being provided.

What AI presented is not absurd and invalid; to avoid plagiarism, I could change a few lines and words to present those are my arguments against yours.
It is just the same, i.e. something like "1+1 =/= 5" as you have "claimed".
It is stupid not to exploit time saving opportunities to get the same or more results.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:30 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:52 am

I suggest you have a chat with AIs on your claims to align with your self-confidence on its reliability.

Like I and many on the forum insist, get off this obsession you have with "A.I." - AI IS NOT INTELLIGENT, it doesn't have the reasoning capacity of even YOU - its just a mechanism for collating man's information in any form U want - consider it like a calculator that uses words instead of numbers.

So, unfortunately one cannot use what an AI "thinks" to negate answering the contents of a thread - we still need the human that is Veritas to worm his way out of the evidence being provided.

What AI presented is not absurd and invalid; to avoid plagiarism, I could change a few lines and words to present those are my arguments against yours.
It is just the same, i.e. something like "1+1 =/= 5" as you have "claimed".
It is stupid not to exploit time saving opportunities to get the same or more results.

Oh. OK so I have to spend MY time arguing with AI instead of YOU.


Veritas's AI:- Entropy and Energy Conservation: "The idea that intelligent lifeforms will create simulations to conserve energy is intriguing but not empirically supported. Simulations, as they are conceived today, require vast computational resources, which may not be more energy-efficient than biological systems."


So what is it Veritas? Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained with a simulation of reality?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:30 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:52 am

Like I and many on the forum insist, get off this obsession you have with "A.I." - AI IS NOT INTELLIGENT, it doesn't have the reasoning capacity of even YOU - its just a mechanism for collating man's information in any form U want - consider it like a calculator that uses words instead of numbers.

So, unfortunately one cannot use what an AI "thinks" to negate answering the contents of a thread - we still need the human that is Veritas to worm his way out of the evidence being provided.

What AI presented is not absurd and invalid; to avoid plagiarism, I could change a few lines and words to present those are my arguments against yours.
It is just the same, i.e. something like "1+1 =/= 5" as you have "claimed".
It is stupid not to exploit time saving opportunities to get the same or more results.

Oh. OK so I have to spend MY time arguing with AI instead of YOU.


Veritas's AI:- Entropy and Energy Conservation: "The idea that intelligent lifeforms will create simulations to conserve energy is intriguing but not empirically supported. Simulations, as they are conceived today, require vast computational resources, which may not be more energy-efficient than biological systems."

So what is it Veritas? Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained with a simulation of reality?

You should asked AI directly to either convince you are right or AI is showing you there is an alternative or truer view. It will surely benefit you in expanding your knowledge base with an awareness of alternative views.

You have a vested interest in arguing with AI to ensure your views are Justified True Beliefs and not some mere personal first person's speculations.
I have done that with many of my other philosophical views.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:51 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:30 am
What AI presented is not absurd and invalid; to avoid plagiarism, I could change a few lines and words to present those are my arguments against yours.
It is just the same, i.e. something like "1+1 =/= 5" as you have "claimed".
It is stupid not to exploit time saving opportunities to get the same or more results.

Oh. OK so I have to spend MY time arguing with AI instead of YOU.


Veritas's AI:- Entropy and Energy Conservation: "The idea that intelligent lifeforms will create simulations to conserve energy is intriguing but not empirically supported. Simulations, as they are conceived today, require vast computational resources, which may not be more energy-efficient than biological systems."

So what is it Veritas? Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained with a simulation of reality?

You should asked AI directly to either convince you are right or AI is showing you there is an alternative or truer view. It will surely benefit you in expanding your knowledge base with an awareness of alternative views.

You have a vested interest in arguing with AI to ensure your views are Justified True Beliefs and not some mere personal first person's speculations.
I have done that with many of my other philosophical views.

What part of AI is nowhere near as intelligent as a far below average human brain are U not comprehending? - AI cannot REASON it is DUMB.

Now front up with your own arguments against what I am stating. If you are going to rely on AI then do the maths when required..

AGAIN:
Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained within a simulation of reality?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:51 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:45 am


Oh. OK so I have to spend MY time arguing with AI instead of YOU.


Veritas's AI:- Entropy and Energy Conservation: "The idea that intelligent lifeforms will create simulations to conserve energy is intriguing but not empirically supported. Simulations, as they are conceived today, require vast computational resources, which may not be more energy-efficient than biological systems."

So what is it Veritas? Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained with a simulation of reality?

You should asked AI directly to either convince you are right or AI is showing you there is an alternative or truer view. It will surely benefit you in expanding your knowledge base with an awareness of alternative views.

You have a vested interest in arguing with AI to ensure your views are Justified True Beliefs and not some mere personal first person's speculations.
I have done that with many of my other philosophical views.

What part of AI is nowhere near as intelligent as a far below average human brain are U not comprehending? - AI cannot REASON it is DUMB.

Now front up with your own arguments against what I am stating. If you are going to rely on AI then do the maths when required..

AGAIN:
Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained within a simulation of reality?

I am not wasting time on this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 7:13 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:51 am
You should asked AI directly to either convince you are right or AI is showing you there is an alternative or truer view. It will surely benefit you in expanding your knowledge base with an awareness of alternative views.

You have a vested interest in arguing with AI to ensure your views are Justified True Beliefs and not some mere personal first person's speculations.
I have done that with many of my other philosophical views.

What part of AI is nowhere near as intelligent as a far below average human brain are U not comprehending? - AI cannot REASON it is DUMB.

Now front up with your own arguments against what I am stating. If you are going to rely on AI then do the maths when required..

AGAIN:
Is it more energy efficient to have an average complete human body exist for its entire life (appx 80 years) or is it more efficient to have just their brain maintained within a simulation of reality?

I am not wasting time on this.

How is disproving someone that is presenting evidence of GOD to an atheist a waste of time?

..yet you expect me to waste my time dealing with an AI version of U.



What happened, did U real eyes that the AI is incapable of refuting the argument?

Evidence like this..

Wise PUPILS of the Light

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:52 am
Like I and many on the forum insist, get off this obsession you have with "A.I." - AI IS NOT INTELLIGENT, it doesn't have the reasoning capacity of even YOU - its just a mechanism for collating man's information in any form U want - consider it like a calculator that uses words instead of numbers.

LOL 'This', coming from the one who claims that God is an 'artificial intelligence'.

Or, have you stopped 'trying to' claim 'this'?

After all it was SHOWN to you just how Truly ABSURD a view and belief it really was.

..go away idiot. If I refer to "GOD" as an AI it does not render GOD akin to current man's tech of AI..comprehende..