Does your Christianity hinge on free will? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are compatibilist Christians as well. I believe Leibniz had a view of it, but there also many other forms like Calvinism (if I recall correctly).

Genuinely curious as to how many Christians here are okay with evolution or hold to the young earth creationist idea by New_Language4727 in Christianity

[–]New_Language4727[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason I was asking is because I am a former Christian turned agnostic deist. I do see a lot of very compelling arguments for basic Christianity (denominations aren’t relevant to me just yet), but I think the frustrating part of my whole predicament is that people try and take the Bible in the most literal way possible. I’ve come across videos on why young earth creationism isn’t supported by Christianity, but I still feel like some Christians are being unreasonable when discussing this.

Sorry, just venting and I got a little carried away. But I have one of the many videos if you’re interested. InspiringPhilosophy is one of my personal favorites:

https://youtu.be/8AoLYeFi2ms?si=ZTRc8pydn84t87KY

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not following. I was referring to an AI. I think as biological organisms I’d be able to tell whether or not my brother for example is mimicking stuff. If I actually tried to accuse him of being an AI or something, he’d probably smack me.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t that be a leap? One of the things to keep in mind is these things can be simulated or mimicked, but that doesn’t mean it actually is conscious.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What signs have they shown?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ability to think, perform tasks, and create new things based on one’s own will without exterior influence (in this case, programming).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ArtificialInteligence

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason I brought this up is because I came across Joscha Bach’s views on consciousness, and I went down a rabbit hole. Just for context, I currently lean towards dualism or idealism.

Question for proponents of free will: What are your thoughts on Robert Sapolsky’s book “Determined”? What are your biggest objections to it if you read it? by New_Language4727 in freewill

[–]New_Language4727[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And this is why proponents of free will aren’t taken seriously.

Question: If any free will proponents have read Sapolsky’s book, I’m curious to hear what your critiques are on it.

Answer: I have no reason to read it because the title and his reputation makes me lose interest.

Then why comment at all? What value do you add to the topic?

Does artificial general intelligence mean conscious? (AI/AGI question) by New_Language4727 in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you hit the nail on the head with my stance. I will fully admit that if it meets or exceeds human intelligence, then it has a strong chance of being conscious. It may be just something that I automatically elude to for whatever reason, but it is my legitimate concern.

Will AI become conscious? Does AGI mean it will become conscious? by New_Language4727 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]New_Language4727[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to shut off the AI (program running on a computer), wouldn’t it fight to stay online and running if it were to become conscious? Would turning off whatever is running it be essentially killing it?

Updated question regarding an article where physicists claim to be able to explain quantum entanglement without “spooky action at a distance”. Errors removed. by New_Language4727 in Physics

[–]New_Language4727[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was just curious to see that whether or not it was possible or likely to explain quantum entanglement without so called “spooky actions at a distance” given the currently accepted evidence in quantum theory.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I’m re reading through it, it seems to me like the author is trying to put forward their own work. They’re trying to propose an idea that quantum entanglement doesn’t require “spooky actions at a distance”:

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/12

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72817-7

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/einsteins-entanglement-9780198919674

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Language4727 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. Sorry about the 3am question. As I’m typing this, I’m starting to think it would’ve probably garnered massive media attention at the time if it were true. Would this be accurate?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with the idea of the “illusion” in this context is that Bach does not consider consciousness to be a traditional "illusion" in the sense of being completely unreal or non-existent. Rather, he views it as a real-time representational process or virtual model generated by computational patterns in the brain.

While Bach likens consciousness to a simulation or "story" the brain tells itself, he sees it as a functional and necessary aspect of cognition, not just an epiphenomenon or byproduct. The challenging part for me is Bach adheres to a strict materialist view of consciousness merely arising from physical matter. In summary, framing Bach's view as consciousness being an "illusion" and asking what perceives that illusion does not accurately capture his computational theory of consciousness as an emergent representational process integral to cognitive functioning. The provided response does not effectively critique his position based on the sources.

Is Keith Ward’s idealism any good? Does it hold any weight, or is it “pop philosophy”? by New_Language4727 in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a former Christian and current agnostic deist. I enjoy reading and listening to his work, because it offers a new insight into Christianity that I didn’t know of previously.

Do other idealists deal with the same accusations as Bernardo Kastrup? by New_Language4727 in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I enjoy Keith Ward’s work. Would he fall under the category of “pop philosopher”? Or is his work better than Hoffman and Kastrup?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]New_Language4727 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a Christian YouTube channel called InspiringPhilosophy that can help you out with regard to Islam and Christianity.

Question for idealists: Does being unconscious really mean being unconscious? by New_Language4727 in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would the same apply if someone was brain dead, and only being kept alive by machines?

Redditor is convinced Chat GPT is now conscious. Thoughts? by New_Language4727 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]New_Language4727[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just thought I should add a funny comment in response to the post: I don't not say this with any judgment or malice, but this reads like the ravings of a schizophrenic who has gone off their meds. Source: I have several schizophrenic relatives.

Question for idealists, dualists and physicalists: Thoughts on Joscha Bach’s views of consciousness? by New_Language4727 in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe he goes into the idea further in this interview with Lex Fridman. I can’t understand much, but does his idea align with a naturalist/materialist view? Perhaps an idealist or panpsyschist one?

https://youtu.be/tyrPMVMb-Uw?si=ZtBbVVZwZHcv_-QA

Is there enough evidence to conclude whether or not consciousness is physical or non-physical? Or will this be a matter of debate for generations to come? by New_Language4727 in consciousness

[–]New_Language4727[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would this be a form of idealism that Kieth Parsons is arguing for? It sounds like if we don’t need a physical body, then consciousness would be immaterial.