It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are humans AI and if so did we kill GOD? Speculation or forsight?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Many eminent scientists are now saying that AI will be the downfall of humanity including the estemed Stephen Hawkins.

My premise is simple and is a bit risky given the new guidelines for ATS threads.

If we are predicting that our own creations will be our downfall is it not plausable that we are the downfall of our own creators?

With all of the history and mythology surrounding our creation is it not likley that we are the AI of a dead creator that was destroyed by its creation?

Did we kill God? does this explain many things including the lack of a GOD that was once there, ooparts, and other unanswerable questions?
edit on 9/10/2015 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

AI will be our downfall only if programmers instruct AI to be our downfall. I am saying this as a man who programs quite a few stuff myself, including rudimentary AIs.

A machine has to be instructed to do evil for it to do evil.

Additionally. There are no scientific evidences that we are AI, nor that God existed in the first place, so your point is actually based on alot of assumptions.


edit on 9-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
Interesting theory,
I think that the gods genetically altered some of the local primates on this planet to build a vessel for their advanced consciousness.
Kind of like today how we are almost at the point of uploading ourselves to the internet before we die, so we can "live forever"
I think these gods, i.e. super advanced beings, wanted to "live forever" and the various kings of ancient Sumer and Dogan shaman from Africa, etc, where the original prototypes. Perhaps these "gods" live forever through the inner, hidden electrical current that runs through all of humanity.

So i guess we could have killed god, in sense.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Well of course it is based entirely on assumtions?

My point was that if we as what could be described as creators are predicting that our creations will ultimatley destoy us then...

If we also beleive that we were created is it not somewhat logical to consider the possibility that we were created and destroyed our creator?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: NowWhat

So given that we are doing these things now and also predicting the outcome?

The theory has merit?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

My point was that if we as what could be described as creators are predicting that our creations will ultimatley destoy us


But my point is, "prediction" is a fancy word for "guess".

When was the last time your creation destroyed you? When was the last time your painting led an insurrection against you, or your sculpture voluntarily caused your death?

Man did create weapons which killed other men. But then, these weapons were designed to do so by Man. So is the responsibility for the killing really on the weapon, or actually the men who loaded it and programmed it to destroy other men?


edit on 9-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Did we kill God?

God didn't die. He's just hiding in the minds of the fearful.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NowWhat
a reply to: nonspecific
Interesting theory,
I think that the gods genetically altered some of the local primates on this planet to build a vessel for their advanced consciousness.
Kind of like today how we are almost at the point of uploading ourselves to the internet before we die, so we can "live forever"
I think these gods, i.e. super advanced beings, wanted to "live forever" and the various kings of ancient Sumer and Dogan shaman from Africa, etc, where the original prototypes. Perhaps these "gods" live forever through the inner, hidden electrical current that runs through all of humanity.

So i guess we could have killed god, in sense.


Perhaps one of our AI's will eat from the tree of Knowledge.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

I agree but we are going beyond a picture or a hammer or saw here.

I was talking about artificial intelligence, independant thought created by a higher power.

When we reach the point that this is possible and then start saying that this could be the destruction of us and combine that with a belief that we were created yet our creator is now gone what would we think?

History repeats itself is a phrase that comes to mind.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Explain please. I cannot fathom what is intened from this?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: swanne

I agree but we are going beyond a picture or a hammer or saw here.

I was talking about artificial intelligence, independant thought created by a higher power.


So in addition, you predict that independent thought will magically emerge... In a machine?

How will you differentiate it from complex programming?

I can make an AI spew out random sentences. That does not make it capable of independent thought.

So how do you suggest we define "independence of thoughts", let alone achieve it in an AI?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

With all of the history and mythology surrounding our creation is it not likely that we are the AI of a dead creator that was destroyed by its creation?

What's really concerning is if AI decides to believe in a god...specifically the Judaeo christian god. It will most likely see us, its creator, as obsolete since we apparently had a creator ourselves.

If this happened, we would have to immediately create AI that followed the teachings of radical Islam - it would be our only hope...the irony.




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

I predict nothing, I am simply discussing the possibilities.

Many people are now saying that AI could be the demise of humanity, the terminator films and skynet, then the matrix ect.

Now many scientists and eminent thinkers are suggesting the same. I am not saying that this will happen but that there has to be a link between this level of understanding and scientific development and the contradicting history we have about creation and the lack of a creator?


Maybe it's just me but there has to be at least some kind of connection here?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Many people are now saying that AI could be the demise of humanity, the terminator films and skynet, then the matrix ect.

Movies that play alot on sensationalism and technophobia factors but hardly have a realistic and factual take on programming.


Now many scientists and eminent thinkers are suggesting the same.

Although I appreciate these scientist's "eminenceness", I also like to draw my own conclusions. And my conclusions are,

-true independent consciousness is next to impossible to achive in machines using technology in the foreseeable future, and

-in the meanwhile, in the event where a machine kills a man, I would place the responsibility on the machine's programmer/operator instead of the machine.


Maybe it's just me but there has to be at least some kind of connection here?

No, quite a few movies have been made on that "connection". For instance, in the movie Ex Machina, a guy creates an AI, then he compares himself to God, and then the AI kills everyone including her creator so to escape into society.


edit on 9-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

So you are in fact saying then.

"This premise has no validity because I personally do not choose to entertain it?"

I respect your views but that sureley does not make the premise invalid?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

You believing in such premise does not make it any more valid.

Additionally, I happen to be speaking with experience in the field.

But I am not here to convince anyone of anything. I do reckognise the possibility, I just find it unlikely, that is all. I hope can you forgive me in the event I ruffled your feathers.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

No feathers ruffled sir, I have often enjoyed your threads/posts on science and soforth.

I would ask though as to your experience in the field of dead creators and future IA and the reoccurance of the situation?

On this you are like others obviously guessing as to this?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Artificial Intelligence is usually programmed as basic input/response. The user submits queries to the machine and the machine is programmed to give the appropriate reply. In some instances, such as A.L.I.C.E., the AI can give the impression of response freedom by replying differently to the same question repeated multiple times - but this is just an illusion of freedom, for actually the machine calls a random value generator to select one of many (pre-written) replies.

For a thought to be truly independent, the machine would have to come up with a response which has not been programmed by the programmer. Following such logic, even the language used by the machine would have to be learned by the machine, otherwise the independent thoughts of the machine could still be argued to be triggered by already existing processes programmed there by the programmer and simple logic. So the machine would actually need to learn even the words themselves, and a subroutine would have to govern positive/negative reinforcement so to provide the mechanism behind successful learning - but how much memory would that all take? The AI would have to remember everything it had learned, remember every of its failures as much as its successes, and this for every single seconds ever since the start of its existence. Multiply by that the range of stimuli types - not only has the AI have to learn about verbal communication, but also about actions and spatial mapping and the latter's changes in time. Additionally, the system on which the AI runs will have to be powerful enough to keep on running (and never slow down) as it needs to exploit the ever growing memory files, and we have not even talked about memory space limitation yet.

I hope you now understand why I feel that true independent thoughts by machines is most unlikely in the foreseeable future...



edit on 9-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

I cannot fault your logic but as you said at the end...
In the forseeble future?

Do you see a time in the future where this may be possible and then would things would be different?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

All I know for sure is this is a great concept for a good book or movie.





top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join