On the omniscience of God

[Right Divider]

100%

A.I. is 100% just math, it's the machine being programmed to transform all manner of data, including visuals and video, sounds, and texts, into math, ones and zeroes, so that it can make math models, which generate new content, that didn't go into making the math models.

No, computers use logic as well as math.

It seems like you are pontificating on something that you don't really know that much about.

 

[Derf]

It's funny that you mentioned random number generators. I was going to use that as an example of simple code that gets complicated.

In Python, you can call random() many times and get different outputs every time.

Much code these days is what is called "data driven". So the code is the same, but the output varies based on other factors (i.e., the data [input]).

Random number generators aren't even random. They are randomized by picking a different seed (starting point), which is often a time hack, because it would approximate randomness. Use the same seed, and you get the same answer.

 

[Idolater]

Random number generators aren't even random. They are randomized by picking a different seed (starting point), which is often a time hack, because it would approximate randomness. Use the same seed, and you get the same answer.

But if you run multiple quasi- or pseudo-random number generators simultaneously you get all different results, is this because at the micro-second level they're not all actually running simultaneously?

 

[Right Divider]

Random number generators aren't even random. They are randomized by picking a different seed (starting point), which is often a time hack, because it would approximate randomness. Use the same seed, and you get the same answer.

That is true. They are pseudo-random. But my point stands.

 

[Derf]

But if you run multiple quasi- or pseudo-random number generators simultaneously you get all different results, is this because at the micro-second level they're not all actually running simultaneously?

If you run the same generator with the same seed, you get the same result. There are different generators that will give a different result with the same seed, or same generators with a different seed, like the microsecond difference, as you said.

 

[Right Divider]

If you run the same generator with the same seed, you get the same result. There are different generators that will give a different result with the same seed, or same generators with a different seed, like the microsecond difference, as you said.

The point was... that regardless of the seed or the generator (algorithm) used... repeated calls to the SAME function return DIFFERENT results.

That is by design, just like AI producing different results with the same input is by design.

 

[Idolater]

Soul is not the same as mind. When God breathed into man the breath of life, he became a living soul. When the breath of life leaves us, we die and return to dust. The "soul" appears to be the whole man, at least in Genesis 2.

The soul is the most plausible solution to the problem of identity. Turns out Catholicism has believed in a soul from the beginning, because the predecessor of Catholicism (Second Temple Levantine and Diasporan Judaism) was fertile soil for the idea. The New Testament alternates between a tri-partite and a bi-partite anthropology, although one verse suggests even a four-part model isn't impossible, heart, mind, soul, etc. Catholicism teaches it's bi-partite; body-and-soul, together, is the whole person.

Hinduism believes the soul is the whole person. That's why Hinduism believes in reincarnation, it's what reincarnation logically requires in order to have any initial plausibility. As a result, Hinduism doesn't consider morality to be as urgent as Catholicism does, because Hinduism believes that we're just on an endless treadmill of reincarnation, and if we really want to get off of it (which is fine but not obligatory), then we have to perfect our soul, because it's the imperfections in our soul, which shows itself in the moral imperfections of the body, which are the seeds of karma. We need to get rid of that, to perfect the soul, and get off the treadmill. But there's no urgency to do it. There's endless time to do it. Whenever we get around to it is fine. Never is fine too.

Catholicism believes in the soul, and in the Resurrection. Catholicism believes our soul and body are one, like two sides of the same coin, except even more intimately integrated than a coin's two sides are. Our soul projects on our body, and our body [reveals] something about our soul. What our body does indicates what's on our mind, under the Catholic model of anthropology, but under Hinduism, our soul needn't have anything to do with our body at all, it can be considered 100% separate and independent even, but this is only possible under Catholicism in the case of physical mental defect and injury. In such a case then the soul is very separated from the body, but apart from that exception, we believe the soul and the body are intimately united, the one does and is, what the other wants, and vice versa. It's a two-way street, a give-and-take. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. Cooperation.

If we are able to create a being that has a mind and body and lives, we will have created a living soul, just not a human one.

Every interaction with a human is an interaction with another soul. I don't think that with A.I.

 

[Derf]

The soul is the most plausible solution to the problem of identity. Turns out Catholicism has believed in a soul from the beginning, because the predecessor of Catholicism (Second Temple Levantine and Diasporan Judaism) was fertile soil for the idea. The New Testament alternates between a tri-partite and a bi-partite anthropology, although one verse suggests even a four-part model isn't impossible, heart, mind, soul, etc. Catholicism teaches it's bi-partite; body-and-soul, together, is the whole person.

Hinduism believes the soul is the whole person. That's why Hinduism believes in reincarnation, it's what reincarnation logically requires in order to have any initial plausibility. As a result, Hinduism doesn't consider morality to be as urgent as Catholicism does, because Hinduism believes that we're just on an endless treadmill of reincarnation, and if we really want to get off of it (which is fine but not obligatory), then we have to perfect our soul, because it's the imperfections in our soul, which shows itself in the moral imperfections of the body, which are the seeds of karma. We need to get rid of that, to perfect the soul, and get off the treadmill. But there's no urgency to do it. There's endless time to do it. Whenever we get around to it is fine. Never is fine too.

Catholicism believes in the soul, and in the Resurrection. Catholicism believes our soul and body are one, like two sides of the same coin, except even more intimately integrated than a coin's two sides are. Our soul projects on our body, and our body [reveals] something about our soul. What our body does indicates what's on our mind, under the Catholic model of anthropology, but under Hinduism, our soul needn't have anything to do with our body at all, it can be considered 100% separate and independent even, but this is only possible under Catholicism in the case of physical mental defect and injury. In such a case then the soul is very separated from the body, but apart from that exception, we believe the soul and the body are intimately united, the one does and is, what the other wants, and vice versa. It's a two-way street, a give-and-take. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. Cooperation.

But the soul can exist, function, desire, worship, feel pain, inhabit places without the body?

Every interaction with a human is an interaction with another soul. I don't think that with A.I.

I'm not talking about AI, but about a potential future step. Perhaps man could create a real intelligence...if a soul is a body and breath of life, just like animals have (even if not in the image of God), might we create a creature that can think and feel and react with thought, and even be able to choose right vs wrong? And if so, wouldn't it be a soul, made in our image?

 

[Derf]

The point was... that regardless of the seed or the generator (algorithm) used... repeated calls to the SAME function return DIFFERENT results.

If that was your point, then it is incorrect. If the seed and generator are the same, you get the same result, repeatedly. Here's how you do it in Python:

Python Random seed() Method​

This function generates a random number based on the seed value. It is used to initialize the base value of the pseudorandom number generator. If the seed value is 10, it will always generate 0.5714025946899135 as the first random number.

With the standard command, you don't know what the seed is, but there's a finite potential that you could get a repeat seed, giving you a repeat result.

That is by design, just like AI producing different results with the same input is by design.

Ok.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not talking about AI, but about a potential future step. Perhaps man could create a real intelligence...if a soul is a body and breath of life, just like animals have (even if not in the image of God), might we create a creature that can think and feel and react with thought, and even be able to choose right vs wrong? And if so, wouldn't it be a soul, made in our image?

That is just pure fantasy.

 

[Right Divider]

If that was your point, then it is incorrect. If the seed and generator are the same, you get the same result, repeatedly. Here's how you do it in Python:

Boy are you dense and stubborn.

YES, the SEQUENCE is the same... but EACH call to the FUNCTION gives a DIFFERENT value.

I did a LOT a development in Python... so you're not going to "school" me on that topic.

 

[Derf]

That is just pure fantasy.

So was heavier than air flight at one time, as well as traveling across the ocean in a few hours.

 

[Derf]

Boy are you dense and stubborn.

YES, the SEQUENCE is the same... but EACH call to the FUNCTION gives a DIFFERENT value.

I did a LOT a development in Python... so you're not going to "school" me on that topic.

Each call only gives a different answer if the seed is different. I did absolutely no development in Python, but the concept is the same in all languages, in all pseudo-random sequence generators, which I spent 35 years working on. That's not to say someone can't come up with a true random number generator, but I don't think anyone has. Therefore, if the inputs are ALL the same, including random number generator seeds, you should get the same answer.

 

[Derf]

The soul is the most plausible solution to the problem of identity.

Rethinking this for a minute. If soul is the whole person, then of course the soul is the (an) answer, but not a useful one. It's like saying 1 is 1 and 2 is 2. Or like using a word in its own definition.

 

[Right Divider]

Each call only gives a different answer if the seed is different.

Not true. The "seed" is just a starting point of the cycles. The sequence gives a different result with each call to the function.

I did absolutely no development in Python, but the concept is the same in all languages, in all pseudo-random sequence generators, which I spent 35 years working on. That's not to say someone can't come up with a true random number generator, but I don't think anyone has. Therefore, if the inputs are ALL the same, including random number generator seeds, you should get the same answer.

Again, for the stubborn, the SEQUENCE is the same if the SEED is the same... but EACH time the function is called you get a DIFFERENT number for the output.

import random

print(random.random())
print(random.random())
print(random.random())
print(random.random())

Produces:

0.2848784782120367
0.04199978152652162
0.8775153931822224
0.14149849982802232

Four DIFFERENT values.

QED

 

[Derf]

Not true. The "seed" is just a starting point of the cycles. The sequence gives a different result with each call to the function.

Again, for the stubborn, the SEQUENCE is the same if the SEED is the same... but EACH time the function is called you get a DIFFERENT number for the output.

import random

print(random.random())
print(random.random())
print(random.random())
print(random.random())

Produces:

0.2848784782120367
0.04199978152652162
0.8775153931822224
0.14149849982802232

Four DIFFERENT values.

QED

Yes, because the sequence is at a different point each subsequent time you call it. The sequence is repeatable if you start with the same seed, even if you call it multiple times.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, because the sequence is at a different point each subsequent time you call it. The sequence is repeatable if you start with the same seed, even if you call it multiple times.

You still can't understand this simple idea?

My point was that computer programs are complex and that the code can follow many different paths depending on design.... even if the input is the same, the output can be made to vary BY DESIGN.

The use of the random function, as an example, was to make simple the fact that you can call the SAME function multiple times, but get a DIFFERENT result each time, BY DESIGN.

The fact that the whole sequence of the random number generator is deterministic is irrelevant.

 

[Idolater]

But the soul can exist, function, desire, worship, feel pain, inhabit places without the body?

The Ship of Theseus problem is oddly accurate as an analogy for the problem of identity, because we now know through science that the atoms and cells that constitute our body today, are all going to be different in like 10 years, and 10 years ago, they were all different then too. So we're literally physically completely different than we were in the past. Yet, aren't we most certainly still the same person? How can this be?

I'm not talking about AI, but about a potential future step. Perhaps man could create a real intelligence...if a soul is a body and breath of life, just like animals have (even if not in the image of God), might we create a creature that can think and feel and react with thought, and even be able to choose right vs wrong? And if so, wouldn't it be a soul, made in our image?

There's no problem of identity there though. It's ones and zeroes, there's no controversy. As far as I'm concerned, anyway. The soul solves the problem of identity.

 

[Idolater]

Rethinking this for a minute. If soul is the whole person, then of course the soul is the (an) answer, but not a useful one. It's like saying 1 is 1 and 2 is 2. Or like using a word in its own definition.

The solution to the problem of identity has to be mysterious, because of the nature of the problem. It doesn't permit any materialist, physicalist, naturalist proposal at all, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Idolater]

But the soul can exist, function, desire, worship, feel pain, inhabit places without the body?

I'm not talking about AI, but about a potential future step. Perhaps man could create a real intelligence...if a soul is a body and breath of life, just like animals have (even if not in the image of God), might we create a creature that can think and feel and react with thought, and even be able to choose right vs wrong? And if so, wouldn't it be a soul, made in our image?

I'm going to take a second bite at the apple here.

The ancients including Aristotle and Aquinas assigned souls to animals and plants. One of the reasons the problem of identity is so serious is because of the unsubstitutably of humans. There isn't really a problem of identity with animals and plants since they are all genuinely substitutable or "fungible", like how gold is fungible, one piece of pure gold is as good as the next, as long as they're the same level of purity. There's no soul needed because there's no hard problem of identity that the soul needs to solve, with animals, plants (etc., including microbes for example), or with computers. There's no soul (in plants, animals, and gold) because the ontological force from us all being unsubstitutable demands that our souls are real, there is no force from those other things, because there is substitutability, because there is no ontological requirement of identity. iow that souls are confined to only human beings is straight from reason alone.

The difference between us and the Hindus who came to the same logical conclusion (even though they failed to understand how the soul is antithetical to the caste system) is that we believe our souls are intimately united with our bodies, so much so that the ability to know a person's body is insightful into knowing their soul, and we see this especially played out in our courts of law, when we sentence with justification, some people to grave penalties for what their body did. We were able to find that beyond a reasonable doubt, that convict's soul was also 100% in on it, it wasn't just their body.

And so I find the image of God in us is intimately related to our unsubstitutability–meaning that we must have been created this way (with a soul), yes, but also, in some other way then, we must evoke God in who we are (we are unsubstitutable because we are each ethically independent) and as far as I'm concerned, it's the difference between being able to choose an ethic, and not being able to make that choice, that makes us human, unsubstitutable, and made in God's image.

So if our ethical independence is the image of God in us (and is our soul), I think it's highly plausible God has the choice of ethic as well. And an "ethic" btw, under my lexical stance, is a whole moral theory, it's not partial at all, and there always needs to be a justification for whatever is done, under a particular ethic. (Theodicy btw also, is kind of trying to diagnose the ethic God chooses. From reason, from Scripture, etc. What is God's ethic? We know that God's ethic has generated the Scripture, that's 100% fact. (I am NOT suggesting here, for clarity that I think God's ethic is the Logos or the Holy Spirit.)

And the reason we want to know God's ethic, is so that we can choose the same ethic God chooses. It's not mere scholarship or academia, the intent here is to make a change.