Originally posted by twhiteheadThinking involves change. A fixed mind, cannot think. It is a follows by definition.
It makes no sense because you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
[b]I don't see how that follows. God's mind is fixed, if he has definitely decided on something. I don't see however why God's ability to think requires that his mind not be fixed.
Thinking involves change. A fixed mind, cannot think. It is a follows by definiti ...[text shortened]... nowledge.
If you reject b) due to God being all knowing, then a) must be your conclusion.[/b]
I don't see why thinking has to involve change at all.
And you must decide between:
a) arbitrary decision making.
b) decisions based on a change in knowledge.
No, I don't. I addressed this only a moment ago.
2 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastGödel's Incompleteness Theorem is not wordplay, it's actually one of the crowning achievements of 20th century mathematics and perhaps also among the most underrated achievements.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is not wordplay, it's actually one of the crowning achievements of 20th century mathematics and perhaps also among the most underrated achievements. I think it was what caused Bertrand Russell to give up mathematical research. It has repercussions in nigh every field of inquiry, both scientific and (I think) spiritual.
wordplay going on. I mean, it's interesting, but rather divergent from the topic at hand.
I didn't say it was wordplay; I said your interpretation of omniscience and the following reductio ad absurdum was wordplay. You may refer back to my post and check the syntax if necessary.
One certain conclusion that can be drawn from the theorem is that, if a hypothetical god were "omniscient," then the god would not function as a Turing machine. I mean, that's a pretty fun fact they should put on the caps of Snapple bottles or something.
How so? As I see it, if we take the Turing test as the criterion for intelligence, God has to be able to think. God's omniscience would in fact make it impossible to fail. Since he would know exactly how to pass the Turning test, then provided that God wanted to pass the test, he would. No human would be able to distinguish God from a rational human.
Originally posted by Conrau KThere is a difference between a TUring machine and the Turing test concept.
[b]Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is not wordplay, it's actually one of the crowning achievements of 20th century mathematics and perhaps also among the most underrated achievements.
I didn't say it was wordplay; I said your interpretation of omniscience and the following reductio ad absurdum was wordplay. You may refer back to my post and che ...[text shortened]... pass the test, he would. No human would be able to distinguish God from a rational human.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
"A Turing machine is a theoretical device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Despite its simplicity, a Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, and is particularly useful in explaining the functions of a CPU inside a computer."
Originally posted by JS357Yes, I realise that but I have no idea why Soothfast would be concerned whether God could function as Turning machine. The whole point of the Turing machine is that it functions in such a way that it is impossible to distinguish from a human. It doesn't matter whether God functions as a Turing machine but whether God passes the Turing test. Turing's whole point is that if something passes the Turing test, we must out of courtesy recognise it as intelligent.
There is a difference between a TUring machine and the Turing test concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
"A Turing machine is a theoretical device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Despite its simplicity, a Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, and is particularly useful in explaining the functions of a CPU inside a computer."
Originally posted by Conrau KThis point may be academic but you really need to get more information about what a Turing machine is. It isn't a machine that can pass the Turing test.
Yes, I realise that but I have no idea why Soothfast would be concerned whether God could function as Turning machine. The whole point of the Turing machine is that it functions in such a way that it is impossible to distinguish from a human. It doesn't matter whether God functions as a Turing machine but whether God passes the Turing test. Turing's whole p ...[text shortened]... that if something passes the Turing test, we must out of courtesy recognise it as intelligent.
But for all I know, sooth might have meant to be referring to a machine that can pass the Turing test, so your reply to him is on the same wavelength he is.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357This point may be academic but you really need to get more information about what a Turing machine is. It isn't a machine that can pass the Turing test.
This point may be academic but you really need to get more information about what a Turing machine is. It isn't a machine that can pass the Turing test.
But for all I know, sooth might have meant to be referring to a machine that can pass the Turing test, so your reply to him is on the same wavelength he is.
Yes, as I said, I realise that. What I am saying is that Soothfast probably meant Turing test. Why would it matter whether God could function as a Turing machine? Can you see my point? I am conjecturing what Soothfast meant over what he actually said.
But for all I know, sooth might have meant to be referring to a machine that can pass the Turing test, so your reply to him is on the same wavelength he is.
Yes, I know.
(Either way, whatever he meant, if the Turing test is accepted as a basic test of intelligence, God always has to pass. The theist can just respond that the problems of omniscience present no problem to the idea of God thinking because, as far as he can tell from the Turing test, God always thinks. The problem only arises when the people try to 'get into the mind of' God, just as when they try to do the same with a theoretical AI machine.)
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, good. I don't argue that God doesn't think at all, but I think God would, if existent, think in some ways we don't think and would not think in some ways we do think. Human thinking occurs in so many ways or modes -- visualizing a lion in one's imagination, adding numbers in one's head, trying to remember (unsuccessfully) where I left my keys, deciding whether to quit a bad habit, replaying a tune in one's head, I could go on. One general way I would say God does not think, is any way that would change God's store of knowledge, whereas we do that all the time. Sometimes I think a way God would think that we don't, is that what God thinks, IS reality in its entirety. I mean IS as identity, not complete similarity. We can only fantasize that to be true. Of course I am coming at this from a nontheistic position and it's only my concept of what God would be, that I am considering. Your God may vary.
[b]This point may be academic but you really need to get more information about what a Turing machine is. It isn't a machine that can pass the Turing test.
Yes, as I said, I realise that. What I am saying is that Soothfast probably meant Turing test. Why would it matter whether God could function as a Turing machine? Can you see my point? I am ...[text shortened]... t into the mind of' God, just as when they try to do the same with a theoretical AI machine.)[/b]