zurew

Most of them dont explicitly endorse logical positivism and roughly 50% of them are physicalists. But its true that most of them are scientific realists.

This is very low tier apologetics https://actualized.org/insights/why-the-universe-cant-be-eternal The dude there dont have enough spine to represent the non-theist side well. And of course he also doesnt steelman the infinitist view (which btw some physicists take). Even if we go with the assumption that the Universe had a beginning , you would still need to establish that it had to have a cause and even if you managed to do that (which isn't trivial btw), you would still need to rule out many different versions of infinite regress and even if you managed to do that, you would still need to rule out a bunch of non-theist non-personal alternatives .

Maybe its possible, but maybe you dont need to make AI conscious for it to become generally intelligent and maybe its enough to just make it autopoietic. But if you can make AI conscious and or if you can make AI autopoietic, then with that you will also probably bring all the intelligence scaling issues that comes with a thing being conscious and with a thing being autopoietic - so I think you should definitely lower your credence about how much and how fast the intelligence of AI will be and can be scaled.

Yeah its some really crazy shit https://www.instagram.com/p/DI-ChF4NDI9/?img_index=

https://www.instagram.com/p/DMDttuQJ79I/?img_index=1

The thesis about abiogenesis doesnt get him where he wants to go - at best that shows that once inorganic stuff becomes organic, then it can gain certain capabilities.

Under your model - what do you take laws of physics to be?

It is in the sense that you can get around it by for instance bending space itself. FTL is consistent even with our current understanding of physics.

Once you can show an embodied agent, who can maintain itself in the real world and can do most of the task a regular human can, thats when you can probably say that you have an AGI. Right now at best you only have a really good math nerd who cant fucking tie your shoes. 2 digit IQ people are 10000 times more capable to execute real world tasks comapared to the AI who solved the math problem. The AI who supposed to be generally intelligent is too retarded to grab you a coffee or to lock your door with a key.

AI dicksucking is a 1000x more gay and cringe.

People who make claims and then refuse to elaborate on said claims are the mature and spiritually developed ones, and they are the ones who are doing REAL spiritual work, in contrast with immature and undeveloped people who waste time asking for clarification rather than just project their own semantics on everything and then label that as an activity of "thinking for themselves".

If you were then to ask those same people whether God is existence itself, then the vast majority of them would reject that characterization. You would be lucky if there would be 1 from 10000 who would cashout the term "God" in a similar way as Leo does. Also terms like "all powerful" , "all-knowing" and "transcendent" are not univocal concepts. Regular people understand "all-knowing" as something related to propositions, but thats not what most people mean by it here.

In that case, its my bad for misinterpreting your message.

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school. For clarity, I don't think you are stupid for not knowing those things until now (or perhaps you simply forgot them—there are probably a bunch of concepts I've forgotten as well), but I think it shows for most of us that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because many people lack even a basic understanding of how language works.

It can be, depending on what he means by it. If by language we mean something sub-semantic and sub-syntactic (something interchangeable with Meaning) and an interface through which the world is represented and aspectualized (relevance realized), then it goes very deep. If by language we only mean semantics, then it doesnt go that deep. But of course a representation (doesnt matter how complex) is not the same as the thing that is represented. But I think it is often times overlooked or underappreciated here , that you can have very complex non-propositional representations as well.