I’ve always thought of the “evolution / creation” thing in programming terms. When I write a program, then desire to write another program, I often invoke code from the first to create the second. It’s an efficient process, and I would expect God to operate efficiently. If you view the source code of the websites I’ve created over the years, you’ll notice recurring code snippets, a sort of “digital homology” if you will. Does the fact of code re-usage—analogous to Darwin’s homologous resemblance—necessarily entail the conclusion that one website “randomly mutated” into the others? Of course not. Rather, the fact of re-usage is precisely what we would expect from a supra-intelligent Creator creating with respect for efficiency. Though there is a fact of the matter one way or the other, what we believe WRT evolution is all in the color of our lenses. Evolutionists typically view the evidence through atheist-colored glasses, then attempt to usurp the evidence as supportive exclusively of their preferred metaphysical conclusion. But that’s not right. In the words of that great character, Sherlock Holmes:
Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing… It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different… There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
This is just a test post to see if I successfully connected TWIM to it’s Twitter account. At the old TWIM, posts would automatically create a Tweet, but I noticed today that this hasn’t been happening since February! Not that my whole 19 followers probably noticed, but hey.
UPDATE: it works! Here’s the URL in case you want to follow TWIM on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WarfareIsMental
Heard about Google Glass yet? “The digital world at every moment!” they proudly proclaim. It makes me sad that with all the problems our world is facing, the most powerful companies in the world seems primarily concerned with turning out cooler and more convenient gadgets year after year. Two things: we need another flood, and I hope I die before there’s no natural humanity left.
I came across the following in some Ruby documentation and thought it was poignant WRT (a)theism:
This pattern is true of every Ruby object: trace back the class hierarchy far enough and every class in Ruby ultimately inherits from BasicObject, which has no superclass itself.
Happy belated New Year! I don’t know about you, but I sure had a nice rest. Once I noticed that people were finding the new TWIM (presumably through Google searches), I had to step into high gear and get back in action. My apologies if the blog has seemed “dead” for a while. I assure you I’m now fully up and running and will now be responding to comments and posting in my usual manner.
If you were a regular at the old TWIM, you might have noticed that I’ve given it yet another facelift. Although, this time it’s actually more than a facelift. We went from a WordPress-hosted, generic, rigid, ugly, hardly-customizable theme to a self-hosted hand-crafted theme! The “stock” WordPress blog definitely had it’s pluses and minuses, but in the final analysis there weren’t any existing themes that had the look or features I wanted. So I wrote my own. That’s the cool thing about WordPress: a basic coding / graphic design skill set allows you one to do almost anything. It’s definitely a little Beta, but at least now I can do pretty much whatever I want with this blog (technically speaking). Please have a look around and let me know if you come across anything that looks or works funky. Are any areas hard to read? Any broken links? Any weird paragraph formatting? Page(s) not displaying correctly in some browser or device? Leave a comment describing whatever it is, and also your system, device and/or browser if you don’t mind. So far the theme seems to work well in the major browsers and on iPhones.
So what else is new?
Read More →
I’ve been thinking about AI for the past few days, and I find the following questions interesting:
1) If Ian Pearson is correct and we are able to download human consciousness onto machines by 2050, wouldn’t this effectively prove that consciousness can exist outside a human brain, e.g., that some type of mind-body dualism is correct?
2) This is more of a technical question, but, what, exactly, would we be downloading? The original, so to speak? A replica? A set of algorithms that recreates the original?
3) Could we falsify the claim that any given machine is conscious?
4) Wouldn’t claims of conscious machines have to be assumed, in the same way we assume the existence of other minds?
A few days I go I received an email from bossmanham:
I took Luke’s blog off of my Google reader feed a while back because he was getting boring and predictable, but moseyed on over yesterday. I probably shouldn’t have been, but I was a little surprised that he’s focusing so much time on machine ethics. I guess that’s what you get when inventing your own ethics, but I was wondering what your thoughts were since you’ve followed his blog longer than I have?
Where to begin?
Read More →
P1 Conscious entities are currently the only entities we know of that can write a series of intelligent statements in a specific language;
P2 Human DNA contains a series of intelligent statements written in a specific language;
P3 A conscious entity is currently the only entity we know of that could have possibly created humans.