3
0

Neil DeGrasse Tyson announces belief in God


 invite response                
2016 Apr 22, 11:35am   26,248 views  92 comments

by Shaman   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

This should make Dan's tiny head explode....
According to NDT it is highly likely that we are living in a simulation created by a being or beings that are orders of magnitude greater in intelligence and ability. Lemme see, wasn't that the go-to definition for gods??!
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-theres-130300649.html

Comments 1 - 40 of 92       Last »     Search these comments

1   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Apr 22, 11:46am  

Should we be nicer to our pets and farm animals with the knowledge that we may be someone else's pet or science experiment?

Maybe Dan is running the simulation. He joined the matrix as a 6 figure middle aged office drone to sex up teens. He's now using NDT to pave the way for his coming out party.

Take that Jesus, Joseph, and Muhammad.

2   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 11:47am  

If this is your definition of God (why not) then it is sooo materialistic as to effectively destroy religion.
Then none of the beliefs, rituals, prayers, institutions, sacred texts and buildings have any reason for existing.

I would add such belief could free a tyrant to exterminate half the scum that pullulates on this planet. Just bits after all.

3   Tenpoundbass   2016 Apr 22, 12:00pm  

What amazes me is the some men of Science can fully believe in String Theory, Alternate Universes, Wormholes, time travel, quantum realities and what all.
But the concept of a creator and a spiritual after life is preposterous.
But the idea that Spock could materialize in your office, molecule by molecule and implore you to return to the USS Enterprise with him, could be a plausible reality. Given the right set of SiFi circumstances.

If anything, by now you think Science would finally be curious and ask. Well then who or what in the hell is creating all of the hydrogen and helium fuels all of the stars that creates all of the other matter in the universe?

4   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Apr 22, 12:08pm  

Tenpoundbass says

String Theory, Alternate Universes, Wormholes, time travel, quantum realities and what all.

Physicists have a long history of deriving theories based on mathematics and then proving those theories correct decades later using experiments. Religions have zero such successes.

5   Tenpoundbass   2016 Apr 22, 12:22pm  

YesYNot says

Physicists have a long history of deriving theories based on mathematics and then proving those theories correct decades later using experiments. Religions have zero such successes.

None of what I mentioned above are laws of the natural world. They are only theories, and if you don't know the difference then perhaps this topic isn't for you.

6   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 12:42pm  

Tenpoundbass says

What amazes me is the some men of Science can fully beive in String Theory, Alternate Universes, Wormholes, time travel, quantum realities and what all.

But the concept of a creator and a spiritual after life is persposterous.

Do we have to go through a discussion about what science is?
For example: wormholes are a mathematic possibility based on the theory of relativity that is observed to be correct on other points. There is a rational path from here to there. There is no reason to jump to the existence of something like "a god".

7   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Apr 22, 12:45pm  

Tenpoundbass says

They are only theories, and if you don't know the difference then perhaps this topic isn't fo

You missed the point. When there is a shit load of theoretical evidence for something, physicists usually find experimental evidence decades later. The theoretical evidence involves lots of math, not someone dreaming up shit in their imagination. The theories are not something to have faith in. They are used to guide experiments and develop laws. That is the difference. Even when theories end up as dead ends, they often lead to new math that is useful in other situations. Again, religion has no similar successes.

8   indigenous   2016 Apr 22, 12:59pm  

"Physicists have a long history of deriving theories based on mathematics and then proving those theories correct decades later using experiments. Religions have zero such successes."

Not if they use a priori .

9   Tenpoundbass   2016 Apr 22, 1:12pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

There is a rational path from here to there. There is no reason to jump to the existence of something like "a god".

So you're saying because it's mathamatically possible to show that Bowser lives inside a giant Mushroom Kingdom then Mario World exists?

10   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Apr 22, 1:15pm  

indigenous says

Not if they use a priori .

You are presenting the option of an argument with a dolt about a topic he doesn't understand that will add nothing to the thread. Enticing.

11   marcus   2016 Apr 22, 1:28pm  

I think the closer we get to having true AI (if that's possible), and then the AI programs that are self improving and writing programs better than their own and so on,.....once that happens, or once it's even known for certain to be possible, I think the view that this is some kind of a simulation or program will become a way more mainstream theory.

But that won't really answer the question of what "I" am or why I'm here. I wouldn't have to be part ofthe program. I could be an artificial being essentially playing a game in which I get to experience being "an organic" who is a lot like our original creators.

They asked the highly advanced artificial beings, if you could go back and experience any time in history, where would you want to go ? The most popular answer ? "I would like to go back and know what it was like to be a human, right before they created our kind, while they were still purely organic beings."

12   Y   2016 Apr 22, 1:35pm  

hehehe..
indigenous says

Not if they use a priori .

13   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 1:41pm  

marcus says

I could be an artificial being essentially playing a game in which I get to experience being "an organic" who is a lot like our original creators.

If you were an other being, presumably you would know it.

14   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 2:01pm  

marcus says

But that won't really answer the question of what "I" am or why I'm here. I wouldn't have to be part ofthe program.

There are 2 things that can't presumably be explained by science. The first is the existence of something (we discussed that in this other thread) vs nothing.
The second is the question of consciousness. Let me right away define consciousness as having a personal experience of the world, so being you is "like something". For example you could wonder (as a philosopher did) "what is it like to be a bat?". The point is there is something it "is like" as opposed to "what is it like to be a chair". A chair doesn't experience anything.

The question of AI then is "would 'being an intelligent program' be like something?". Keep in mind a program is just a sequence of instructions executed automatically. It's a thing. Even if it perceives an image, it just moves pixels "values" from a sensor to memory. This leaves nothing to have an experience. Even recognizing objects - or itself - would be just some conditions becoming true and some bits turning to 1 from 0 or something like this. There is nothing inside to experience anything.

But then again, you could look at a brain and say the same. Pain for example is just a signal reaching your brain. But when you feel it, it is not just a signal, you experience something that is more than a bit of information reaching your brain.

It presumably can't be explained by science because, let's say a computer really has an experience, then there is no way for us to know that. We would be just looking from the outside and seeing signals. We don't know if something really has an experience. Even if the computer says it has an experience, you couldn't know if this is just a weird epiphenomenon and you are really confronted to some kind of zombie.

15   indigenous   2016 Apr 22, 3:50pm  

YesYNot says

You are presenting the option of an argument with a dolt about a topic he doesn't understand that will add nothing to the thread. Enticing.

The individual who believes strictly in the a posteriori slant on things, saying anything else does not exist... Enticing...

16   marcus   2016 Apr 22, 4:06pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

If you were an other being, presumably you would know it.

If I was an immensely intelligent "artificial" being immersed in some kind of game that allows me to experience being human, an experience so limiting compared to who I really am, why would I want to remember who I am during that experience ? For that matter, how could I ? Since I am intentionally limiting my perspective, which is part of the whole point of the experience.

17   Tenpoundbass   2016 Apr 22, 4:25pm  

YesYNot says

When there is a shit load of theoretical evidence for something, physicists usually find experimental evidence decades later. The theoretical evidence involves lots of math, not someone dreaming up shit in their imagination. The theories are not something to have faith in. They are used to guide experiments and develop laws. That is the difference. Even when theories end up as dead ends, they often lead to new math that is useful in other situations. Again, religion has no similar successes.

No but science should appreciate that is is part of the human brain's evolutionary process, and is an innate part of our souls.
Every culture from the dawn of time separated by continents and mountains, believes in something. It's like trying to be dismissive of humor because the nonsense that often funny is impossible and impractical. But the humor emotion accepts the anecdote unconditionally without over rationalizing it, and find humor then laughs. In fact, it is the mentally ill mind that misses the humor by putting the rationale of the anecdote before the humor in the joke.

The Lefts collective organized campaign of anti religion. Is really nothing short of a religion its self.
If you don't believe that, then you just conceded that you have mental problems.

18   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 4:34pm  

marcus says

why would I want to remember who I am during that experience ? For that matter,how could I ? Since I am intentionally limiting my perspective, which is part of the whole point of the experience.

If you were playing a character in a VR game, wouldn't you still know you're Marcus?

19   marcus   2016 Apr 22, 5:43pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

If you were playing a character in a VR game, wouldn't you still know you're Marcus?

When I dream, it sometimes seems that I'm someone else. And often I don't know that I'm dreaming, and even if I do, I simultaneously don't - that is I go with it.

The kind of ("artificial") being I'm describing (and of course this is just silly sci fi fictional conjecture) would be so far advanced compared to us that we can't even imagine what they are. The idea that they might find value in a very limited experience, during which they are totally and very temporarily not themselves doesn't seem so strange to me. IT would be a more sophisticated immersive game that allowed you to not even remember who you are (or allowed you to imagine yourself someone else), than one in which you knew who you are the whole time.

20   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 6:06pm  

marcus says

The idea that they might find value in a very limited experience, during which they are totally and very temporarily not themselves doesn't seem so strange to me.

If they had such a reduced experience, without remembering who they are, by definition they wouldn't be themselves while it happens. Then it's like someone else is having the experience. Even if they remember it later they don't get a chance to influence it which has to ruin the fun.

Anyway all this is pointless speculation. The only real question is what I said about consciousness. Can a computer have an experience of reality? Could an alien like you imagine possibly 'play' a computer in our world?

21   marcus   2016 Apr 22, 6:13pm  

I don't know. We don't even know if true AI is possible, let alone whether a computer might eventually be a sentient being. But if that's possible, and if it's possible they can improve themselves and or create better versions of themselves, then who knows what's possible. In that case, all we would know for sure is that there might be some extremely intelligent "beings" out there.

I guess we would have to also consider that it's possible, that we are going be the very first ones to set these artificial life forms into existence.

22   indigenous   2016 Apr 22, 6:31pm  

Remember the Unmoved Mover, splains the whole deal.

23   Heraclitusstudent   2016 Apr 22, 6:40pm  

I'm fairly certain true AI is possible. I'm working on it. But I'm still puzzled by the question of whether and how a sense of experience could arise from software perceiving the world and itself. At the end of the day, a program is a bunch of functions crunching data structures. That's all there is. Where and in what sense would an experience arise from that is a hard problem. But the same is there for the brain.
I guess you just have to trust that forming an immersive and constantly refreshed knowledge structure, of the world around plus the computer own internal processes, is in fact an "experience". Though it's hard to be sure.

24   Tenpoundbass   2016 Apr 22, 7:02pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

At the end of the day, a program is a bunch of functions crunching data structures. That's all there is.

That's why AI will never be possible by traditional algebraic computer systems. Intelligence often requires accepting one data type for another.
That kind of stuff will always crash a computer system. 1's and 0's on silicone isn't going to cut it for AI.

Jan Hendrik Schon's organic transistors seemed promising but that was just a fraud. AI is going to require organic processors and semi conductors.
A computing system that has biological components that you can stimulate or agitate various components to invoke various regions of the AI brain to simulate emotion or critical thought.
You would want AI to react with brain region activity and emotions, rather than waiting for the AI database system to query for the next proper response.

25   marcus   2016 Apr 22, 7:22pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

But I'm still puzzled by the question of whether and how a sense of experience could arise from software perceiving the world and itself.

I think it could happen if some learning was set in motion that was directed towards the goal of experiencing. But a precursor to it or a part of it might be paying attention to many things that are not part of the current problems or questions being addressed. If a current question or problems or multiple problems are all that are being addressed, then I don't see how experience as we think of it occurs. But if as much info including irrelevant info is being perceived as possible and choices are being made as to what to pay attention to, and if there is a curiosity function which has freedom to choose what to be curious about but also the ability to quickly change direction and reasons for curiosity, then maybe that leads to experience, based on comparisons and assessments made about all the things one is paying attention to.

Those are just a couple of ideas. But I would imagine over time the components of experiencing things can possibly be learned by machines. Maybe another requirement is the background processing we call the subconscious mind. That would have to be difficult to program. But maybe it too can be learned somehow

But also, wouldn't AI machines have to develop the ability to evolve on their own, before you could get to something close to sentient ?

26   MisdemeanorRebel   2016 Apr 22, 9:12pm  

indigenous says

Not if they use a priori .

Jesus H Christ.

What groundbreaking, repeatedly verifiable theories has Praxeology discovered?

27   indigenous   2016 Apr 22, 9:33pm  

thunderlips11 says

Jesus H Christ.

You have already decided it is bunk so I won't waste much time other than to say they are the axioms of economics. Which is much much more than I can say for Keynesian or MMT

Look up videos on you-tube called praxgirl they explain it well.

28   MisdemeanorRebel   2016 Apr 22, 9:57pm  

indigenous says

You have already decided it is bunk so I won't waste much time other than to say they are the axioms of economics. Which is much much more than I can say for Keynesian or MMT

Look up videos on you-tube called praxgirl they explain it well.

Axioms, if valid, should give Austrianism a near-perfect prediction record. Where's the hyperinflation at? Also, why isn't gold at $10B/oz?

I already made fun of Praxgirl years ago on this board.

Praxeology is not a science. Science starts with observations, not axioms. Science is subject to revision based on observations, Prax is set in stone by it's a priori assumptions.

29   indigenous   2016 Apr 22, 10:04pm  

I think the Austrians did not account for the global dispersion of the dollar, i.e. spreading out the inflation.

2 I don't think they accounted for the dip in the demographics.

I still think that it is a better discipline than the alternatives.

Not the least of which is the influence of the Fed.

This article from an Austrian:

I have made this point in several venues and on the pages of the Lara-Murphy Report for years, but some people may be new to this perspective. In the chart above, we see that the “monetary base”–which measures the total amount of currency held by the public, plus the electronic reserves that banks have on deposit with the Fed–has moved in lockstep with the S&P500 index since 2009.

This correlation underscores our view that the alleged recovery in the US economy, and the surge in stock prices, is built on quicksand. You don’t foster prosperity by having the central bank create money “out of thin air” in order to buy government debt and mortgage-backed securities.

Some wags have looked at the above chart and said, “Ah, so you guys should be in favor of QE4, right?” No. Each round of asset purchases merely digs us into a deeper hole, and will make the eventual reversal that much more painful. At some point, world investors will stop viewing Treasuries and the USD as “safe havens” and then the Fed will truly be out of options. If the people in charge have common sense, they will stop before that point. Thus far, it seems that Janet Yellen has assumed the role of the central banker who takes the punch bowl away and ruins the party.

https://lara-murphy.com/connection-fed-stock-market/

30   Waitup   2016 Apr 23, 1:38am  

YesYNot says

Religions have zero such successes.

Maybe some day humans will scientifically evolve enough to prove religion and AF et al. will shit their pants!

31   indigenous   2016 Apr 23, 5:45am  

Waitup says

Maybe some day humans will scientifically evolve enough to prove religion and AF et al. will shit their pants!

Nobody has disproved the unmoved mover. They think they have because technology blah blah.

32   Strategist   2016 Apr 23, 5:47am  

Quigley says

This should make Dan's tiny head explode....

34   indigenous   2016 Apr 23, 7:26am  

thunderlips11 says

Praxeology is not a science. Science starts with observations, not axioms. Science is subject to revision based on observations, Prax is set in stone by it's a priori assumptions.

You do not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori.

And now you will start in with the Euclidean geometry blah blah BTW it appears to me that Euclidean geometry is a priori.

35   indigenous   2016 Apr 23, 7:31am  

thunderlips11 says

Praxeology is not a science. Science starts with observations, not axioms. Science is subject to revision based on observations, Prax is set in stone by it's a priori assumptions.

This is a great article that splains some of that stuff, not that you will read it:

http://patrick.net/The+a+priori+method+in+economics++In+defence+of+Ludwig+von+Mises+%28essay%29

36   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2016 Apr 23, 7:49am  

As I explained before indigenous came around to misuse his favorite words and pollute the thread with nonsense, scientists uses both a priori and a posteriori. Going around ignoring one of these forms of knowledge is stupid. Misusing the words to try to make yourself sound intelligent is the trademark of a childlike mind.

37   indigenous   2016 Apr 23, 8:50am  

YesYNot says

Misusing the words to try to make yourself sound intelligent is the trademark of a childlike mind.

Agreed, you and the others should quit doing it.

38   Ceffer   2016 Apr 23, 11:15am  

When DeGrasse starts believing the little voice coming out of the drain hole in the sink is God, I'll be impressed.

39   Dan8267   2016 Apr 23, 1:00pm  

Quigley says

Neil DeGrasse Tyson announces belief in God

You can tell a thread is trolling when the very title is a blatant lie. The actual title of the article is Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation which
1. Means something completely different from what you claim.
2. Also seems inaccurate given the first three minutes of the video, which I am watching right now. Tyson just scoffed at the idea and almost fell on his ass laughing.

Quigley says

This should make Dan's tiny head explode....

You wish. Let me tell you all the places where you went wrong.

1. It it utterly irrelevant whether or not any individual including Tyson or myself believes in a god.

I make this point first because it's most important. Argument from authority means nothing to me, Tyson, or any STEM professional in the world worth his salt. I don't believe Tyson's statements because I respect him, I believe Tyson's statements because of the proof and evidence he provides and I respect him because he consistently demonstrates the truth.

It would not matter even if I believed in your false god, your god would still be false. Reality is objective; it does not depend on you. Oh, and before some troll like Marcus tries to use the phenomenon of time dilation, no, time dilation is objective and depended on the reference frame, not the opinions of the observer.

Of course, irrational fools will never understand that appeal to authority means nothing. The entire basis of their false and ridiculous beliefs rests on appeals to authorities: parents, clerics, popes, fictional characters, and authors of some bad work of fiction.

2. Tyson does not actually announce his belief in "God" -- yours or any others -- as you claim he did.

Well, I guess outright lying isn't beneath you. Do you realize that it's trivially easy to reveal your lies? You are referencing the written word in a news article and a video of a person's actual behavior. How stupid are you?

3. No one believes any person is perfect -- except maybe the religious.

I have no problem with the idea of Tyson being wrong about something. Again, I believe his statements because of the evidence for them, not because of who said them. And a person being wrong on one particular thing does not mean he's wrong about another particular thing. Newton was right on physics and wrong on alchemy. A scientist being wrong on something does not invalid any of his correct statements or the science that proves those statements.

4. A computer simulation, or the software or persons creating that simulation, does not constitute a god by the criteria of any religion including the big three terrible religious families of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Subpoints, A simulation
1. is natural, not super-natural
2. is not omnipotent as simulations, by definition and necessity, have limitations in the form of rules including laws of logic and in the form of finite resources
3. is not omniscient as the simulation does not know what is going to happen in the future. Simulations have to crank out results and therefore are learning, and learning is mutually exclusive with omniscient by definition.
4. is not omnibenevolent. In fact, a simulation is the quintessential example of an amoral system.
5. would have no plan like your false god is said to.
6. would not interact with its creations. So Jesus would have to be bullshit, as would Noah's ark and the flood.
7. demands no faith, relationship, or worship like your false god.
8. would not construct a "soul" and leave no physical evidence for it.

Thirty minutes in and Tyson still has not claimed to believe we are a simulation, nonetheless that he believes in a god. Did you even watch the video you referenced?

40   Dan8267   2016 Apr 23, 1:02pm  

indigenous says

Remember the Unmoved Mover, splains the whole deal.

The unmoved mover explains nothing. Also, the simulation hypothesis explains nothing as well. Both are simply adding an unnecessary and pointless step. We should not multiply entities needlessly.

Comments 1 - 40 of 92       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions