zedvictor4

Creating a God in our own image was probably an evolutionary inevitability.

If intelligent life exists elsewhere, then the same scenario will probably be being played out there too.

Nothing to get hung up about then.

Though having said that, it's probably essential that some people do get hung up about it.

As everything is probably inevitable.

No. I'm a citizen of Planet Earth.

Planet Earth is currently the only option isn't it?

And are Americans the only people allowed to express an opinion?

And you believe in God.

But have you ever stopped to consider the reality of belief.

And what political advantage am I likely to be able to gain from this particular scenario?

Notwithstanding the fact that in a conventional sense I am probably about as apolitical as it is possible to be.

"Philosophy is an analysis of the foundations of Law and Religion and Politics". Yep, this and everything else that requires a bit of thought. 

Sit a bunch of wise guys on a pedestal and of course make it well worth their while and they will come up with all sorts of wordy stuff.

Stuff that might or might not have any practical value.

And also stuff that as a species we have probably always been inherently aware of.

Yep.

No real collectivism, just a collection of inherently selfish individuals.

I think that new intelligence will refine itself very quickly.

Though I see it all as being part of an inevitable evolutionary process, rather than something sinister.

Altering social attitudes towards unaltering social delectations.

A slight shift in human data programming will inevitably result in a slight variation in data output.

Lol. 

Population growth and socio-economic influence on reproduction attitudes.

As population increases the I.Q. ratio will inevitably change also.

if you factor in differing cultural attitudes towards reproduction, then it I think that it is fair to expect a down turn in I.Q. levels.

In very simple terms, although population is increasing, clever people are tending to breed less frequently that not so clever people.

Do you wear their white undies?

What about the daily onslaught of 7.7billion human farts?

Currently; computers can only make mistakes when humans make mistakes.

I imagine that one day fairly soon it will be possible for computers/A.I. devices to make mistakes all by themselves.

"In Greek Music, the crowd noise in the beginning is VERY COMMON in the 80s and 90s".

Fantastic!

The term ultimate reality can be applied to any speculative creation scenario.

Ultimate reality is not exclusively deistic.

As I previously stated there are potentially 7.7 billion other versions available.

The only thing that I am confident about here, is that actual knowledge of the ultimate reality is not currently available.

Ultimate reality is an event that predates human theistic and scientific constructs by billions of years.

Another thought that often occurs to me is:

Have you ever stopped to consider whether an omni-sensible God would be the slightest bit impressed with ritualistic theism.

All that chanting and singing and mumbling and nodding and incense burning and water splashing and scriptural gobbledygook and verbose hypocrites in gaudy oversized frocks.

God and the Gun.

Isn't there a huge contradiction in there somewhere.

I think that the word philosophy tends to get over-defined in an attempt to make it something more than it is. 

We like to create exclusive specialisms out of things that are not necessarily exclusive or special.

Philosophy is basically processing data and coming up with conclusions.

Anyone can be philosophical.

The U.S.is as regressive as it is progressive.

The U.S. is still all about strutting it's stuff with a pair of six shooters strapped to it's hips.

The U.S. is the gung-ho Sherriff and his posse administering their self righteous justice to the rest of the World.

Worship of the gun and worship of god, a divine contradiction.

And if this is what you teach your kids, this is what they're going to grow up believing in.

I am quite confident that there is an ultimate reality.

I am also confident of the fact, that neither you nor I have a clue as to what the ultimate reality might actually be.

We can only speculate.

Your fervent and dogged belief in a supernatural deity is admirable, but extremely speculative.

So deism/theism.

Hypothesis or theory?

Insane or battle tested?

Look forward to reading your response in the morning.

Bedtime here in the U.K. so goodnight.

"Haughty"

Now that's a good word that doesn't get used very often.

Though I don't think it fair to describe sensible, rational argument as being haughty.

And I genuinely believe that you realise that no matter how hard you might postulate, your unerring faith is actually unsustainable.

At some point you will have to admit that you cannot unequivocally prove the existence of God.

Give me a clear explanation of the difference between hypothesis and theory and I will promise not to conflate in future.

Thing is:

Your last statement was a dead give away.

I know that you know that I am right.

Your obstinance cannot hide the fact. 

Simply face the truth.

You were conditioned to accept something that just cannot be proven to be true.

White undies?!

I agree entirely.

Formal debate demands a great deal of effort and valuable time. Forum discussion is much more spontaneous and honest.

Modern misconceptions based on modern social conformity.

Where you stick it or how you manipulate it or whatever you want to do with it, is unimportant.

The gratifying finale is what it's all about.

Roll over and go to sleep and goodnight! 

Once again this was more about word play.

But I was suggesting, that scientific fact is more reliable than theoretical assumption. Given both the changeability and variability of theory. 

"No, it is very easily verified when it all clicks".

This could be said about any concept based theory.

Theism clicks in your head and atheism clicks in my head.

"Theism is not a theory".

Theism is but one human thought based attempt at explaining the creation and meaning of everything.

As such, theism is a perfect example of theoretical thinking.

And Christology is just another example of head clicking relative to acquired and stored information.

Of course; acquired and stored information and more importantly how we manipulate that information varies considerably from head to head.

Your head clicking has led you to one individual conclusion and my head clicking has led me to another.

Currently we have approximately 7.7 billion individual conclusions available. 

So as things stand your conclusion has a 1 in 7.7billion chance of being the right one.

The best way to destroy enemies is to ignore them.

Midlife Crisis!

Been there, done that.

At 59 I feel more content with my life now than I have ever done before.

Default data drive has diminished and it seems that as a consequence of this the importance of socio-conceptual aspirations and assumed obligations has also diminished.

In short; I tend not to worry much these days.

Stuff that once seemed so important, no longer does.

You still haven't addressed the white undies issue.

Although I'm sure that you are being sincere.

The trouble is, most of what you espouse is unverifiable non-sense.

You've acquired and stored certain data in a way that seems to preclude rationality.

In terms of ultimate reality; I would suggest that uncertainty is that all we can be certain of.

Theism is a valid theory, but is nonetheless only theory. 

And simply espousing non-sense cannot validate theory. 

N.B. I have hyphenated non-sense in the hope that you regard it literally, rather than as a derogatory term.

When is pure mathematics not philosophy and vice versa?

At what point does thought become philosophy?

Or; when is thought not philosophy?

In fact; doesn't it all boil down to data processing?

I am an atheist because my database was not programmed accordingly.

For the same reason, I have absolutely no hatred whatsoever for organised religions.

Organised religion is just something that some people have been programmed to do.

Fair enough.

I don't think that there is a universal standard for wisdom.

You're probably as wise as you need to be.

And too much wisdom can be a little overbearing at times. 

Well I was actually indulging in a bit of word play with Mopac.

Nonetheless the sentiment behind that statement was sincere enough.

I was suggesting, with the help of a few isms, that scientific understanding is probably more reliable than unverifiable theistic dogma.

What do you think?

Person:  A human being regarded as an individual.

I would suggest that device is a more appropriate word. 

Perhaps, once A.I. devices have learnt how to replicate themselves and communicate independently they will come up with their own language and terminology.

In fact; hasn't this already happened?

Maybe it's not a case of what we want.

Maybe it's just another phase of an inevitable process.

Wisdom is the sensible application of knowledge.

Decision making with consideration for consequences.

Looking before you leap.

Otherwise it will end in tears or worse, no matter how old you are.

"Your lies don't work here".

One cannot contradict something that cannot be proven to be real. 

Contrived social hang-ups will persist for as long as inconsistent conditioning persists..

It's no good expecting people to accept something without question, when they haven't been conditioned to behave in that way.

Absolutely no offence intended at all.

But it's the men in white pants.

Or perhaps  just the white pants.

Is it a sort of negative Oedipus complex thing?

White pants always remind me (but certainly not in a sexual way) of my dad or older men in general. 

That's not a fundamental right. That's just a personal opinion.

The fundamental principle is that life lasts as long as it does.

Some life lasts for a moment and some life lasts for hundreds of years.

Personal relates to a person.

Perhaps your Freudian Slip was indicative of something more sinister than just a simple oversight?

Sorry to be picky.

But, "A.I's personal rights"?

Who actually has the authority to decide fundamental rights?

As there certainly doesn't appear to be a human consensus regarding the morality or immorality of abortion.

Excellent.

I hope there isn't a schism between us though.

Regards.

Deism and theism are simply retro-mysticism as opposed to atheism which could be regarded as neo-pragmatism or even continuo-pragmatism. 

Scientifically expounded realism and constructive truisms easily negate fickle humanism.

Nonetheless compounded data input and consequent irrational obstructionism will obviously persist for as long as it is allowed to persist.

Mysticism and associated sensationalism obviously inhibit material evolutionism to a lesser or greater extent. Though these days one is patently aware of a diminishment of existentialism and an increase in the rapidity of both the exponentialism and inevitablism of non-organicism.

If there are any deistically associated truisms, they are more likely to be resultant of human constructivism rather than being based upon universal

precedentialism.

Predispositionism is an obvious ongoing consequence of theistic humanism. Whereas atheism is a development of rationalism, particularly when referenced alongside forward thinking pragmatism and realism.

Functionally equivalent is a comparatism.

Just another ism because we can.

Brain generated from acquired, stored and assimilated data.

What is wealth?

Wealth is essentially greed dressed up as success.

Therefore greed tax should be the primary focus of your taxation system.

In fact, is ASTAP something that you have made up?  As I cannot find any references to it.

The evolutionary process demands intelligence and the process dictates that we currently require 7.7 billion human devices. How population levels might alter in the future will be relative to the future demands of the process. 

Limited Earth resources and a time limited solar system will eventually dictate how the process will move forward. Though I would imagine that necessity would have exceeded our usefulness long before them.

One day we will all be redundant.

Of course; that is assuming that everything has purpose.

I think that it is somewhat naive to assume that we will always have a say in the matter.

I would suggest that the primary objective is intelligence, and not the devices that facilitate intelligence.

Rights are merely conceptual bi-products of intelligence.