Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  13

  JWs not so new format for getting across their message . . .

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  god is going to fix everything.

  you would just not believe how great he is going to make it.

  it's going to be the greatest.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  
  
• 
  13

  JWs not so new format for getting across their message . . .

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  god is going to fix everything.

  you would just not believe how great he is going to make it.

  it's going to be the greatest.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  God can't even beat iron chariots (Judges 1:19). How's he going to defeat ISIS?
• 
  13

  JWs not so new format for getting across their message . . .

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  god is going to fix everything.

  you would just not believe how great he is going to make it.

  it's going to be the greatest.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Hispanics love Him. They think He's absolutely the best! You would just not believe how many Hispanics love God. If every Hispanic in Mexico gave just one stone to God you could build a wall from San Diego California all the way to Brownsville in south-eastern Texas. That's how much the Hispanics love God. Trust me.
• 
  13

  JWs not so new format for getting across their message . . .

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  god is going to fix everything.

  you would just not believe how great he is going to make it.

  it's going to be the greatest.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  God is going to fix everything. You would just not believe how great he is going to make it. It's going to be the greatest. I know God and I know He's going to make everything great again. Trust me.

  He has all the best tools. He has tools you wouldn't even believe exist - that's how fantastic His tools are. If you could see His tools you'd be blown away. God's tools are absolutely the best. Trust me.

  We are God's organisation. We are absolutely the best organisation there is. No organisation can compete with us. We're so organized by the time it's over you'll be sick of organization. That's how great God's organisation is. Trust me.

  
  
• 
  40

  What Religious Trajectory Are The JWs Following?

  by millie210 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was reading another thread and the comments got me thinking.... https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5656910430732288/pictures-tell-thousand-words.

  comments such as oldskools: more like digital colonialism channeled through one of the weaker and less important institutions western society has to offer.. .

  some have compared the orgs future path to the world wide church of gods.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  If there is a fast decline, the more cultlike their trajectory will be.

  I completely agree. I think we're just now seeing the beginning of this with ever growing message of "obey" along with more and more focus on staying away from apostates and DFd ones. Now they're even making a bigger deal out of not associating with "inactive ones".
  

  I wonder what their paranoia will bring next? Recommendations that kids be home schooled? Increase in disfellowshipable offenses? Elders instructed to go on the offensive against apostates?

  
  

  
  
  
• 
  12

  A philosophical question

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  on the internet i keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation.

  while i think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - i don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.. .

  for example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Why not?

  Because positive claims require positive evidence. The person claiming that we could be in a simulation needs to demonstrate that it's possible for consciousness to emerge from a simulations.

  how would the simulated entity tell what is real

  I'm not sure that a "simulated entity" could tell anything because I'm not convinced that a "simulated entity" would be capable of a subjective first person experience. Being a" simulated entity" may well be like being like a rock - that is to say, like nothing at all. Asking "what it's like" is question begging. It assumes the premise it's attempting to demonstrate.

  
  

  I have yet to hear from you a good reason why simulating a brain wouldn't produce consciousness.

  Because simulations are mathematical descriptions of complex systems over time. They don't actually have the properties of the things they're describing. We can build a simulation of the inside of our sun - but that doesn't mean that nuclear fusion is actually going on inside of the computer - or that if you could somehow get inside the simulation you would have an identical experience of - or anything remotely equivalent to - nuclear fusion.

  Conscious minds require physical brains. If we're going to say that simulated brains could produce consciousness than we're going to need some kind of evidence to support that conclusion.
  
  
  
  
• 
  12

  A philosophical question

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  on the internet i keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation.

  while i think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - i don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.. .

  for example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  What's to stop someone from simulating that same sensory input to the roach brain without the robot body? How would the roach know the difference?
  - OEJ

  
  

  The roach brain would be a physical brain. Not a simulated brain. There is a huge difference. I'm NOT talking about the Matrix where we're all brains floating around in a vat hooked up to a bunch of electrodes. Rather, the simulation hypothesis proposes that our brains would be part of the simulation. Not a physical computer architecture that's setup mimic a brain - but instead a full on simulation.

  We can simulate lots of things. But none of those simulations have the properties the actual things have. In the near future we're going to simulate a human brain (The Human Brain Project). But that doesn't mean the simulated brain will have the properties of actual brains (e.g. subjective first person experience). It doesn't mean it will be able to experience pain, or feel pleasure, or love. It will be a simulation of how a brains work. Not an actual working brain.

  Simulating an earthquake inside a supercomputer doesn't cause actual tremors inside the server room. Simulating a blizzard doesn't produce actual snow. And I have yet to hear a good reason why simulating a brain would produce actual consciousness.

  Perhaps we could build a physical brain that would be conscious. But that's not the same thing as a simulation of a brain that is conscious.
• 
  12

  A philosophical question

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  on the internet i keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation.

  while i think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - i don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.. .

  for example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I assume you've read about Bostrom's trilemma
  

  - SBF

  I have. And it is predicated upon the assumption that simulated brains would be capable of consciousness. I've yet to see any demonstration of that such a thing is possible. If we don't have physical brains than what is it that's experiencing our first hand subjective experiences?
  

  But to go one step further and say the universe does not even exist beyond a simulation created by a mathematical model, well surely that would be an explanation looking for a question to explain.
  - Sheperdless

  I'm not sure this is a valid critique of what the proponents of the simulation hypothesis are suggesting. Rather, what they're proposing is that the universe that we perceive is inside a computer simulation. It doesn't say the universe does not exist beyond the simulation. Our "reality" would be embedded in a deeper and truer reality.

  
  

  Scientists have been able to fully map and simulate the neurons of a roach - how would their simulated roach tell that it was in a simulation?
  -OEJ

  
  

  I really feel like everyone who has taken the time to reply (and thank you guys for doing so) has genuinely missed the point which I was making. Why would we assume that simulated roaches would experience anything? Simulating a roach is not the same thing as being a roach. I don't see any evidence that simulating something in a computer would ever give the simulation the actual properties of its real life counterpart.
  
  

  There's evidence that our universe has a finite "resolution" (plank scale) like you'd expect from a simulation.
  -OEJ

  We could accurately model our universe without going anywhere near the mind boggling smallness of the Planck Scale. I think one might even be able to argue that the universe having such an extraordinarily high fidelity is an indication it's not a simulation. It'd be like using a 64 bit processor to run an 8 bit game. Complete and utter overkill.

  
  

  is reality Mind or Matter?
  - S_JW

  As far as I know all minds are composed of matter. Thus it would follow, if those really are the only two options, that reality is matter.

  
  

  In other words, what is the nature of reality?
  - S_JW

  I suppose overly broad questions deserve overly broad answers: Reality is the interactions of space/time and energy.

  
  

  This led to philosophers trying to determine what makes us human in the first place
  - S_JW

  If by "human" they mean our species - than our genes are what make us human. But if by "human" they mean something else than they need to clarify exactly what they're asking. Identity is never one thing.

  how can we even prove we exist.
  - S_JW

  We start with Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" and work from there. And we have different inputs of sensory information (sight, sound, touch, etc.) that all converge on there being an objective reality which we experience.

  We live in a Empirical world, where Sight, sound, taste, touch and smell determine reality, but nobody really questions that assumption.
  - S_JW

  This is not true. Every night when we go into REM sleep we experience all kinds of sights, sounds, tastes, etc. But we don't use our dreamed experiences are actually real. Rather, we determine reality by consistency, continuity, and the ability to repeatedly demonstrate the proposed explanations of events. We DON'T think that dreams, hallucinations, or pareidolia are accurate representations of reality even though we perceive them in an identical manner to how we experience real sensory inputs.
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
• 
  12

  A philosophical question

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  on the internet i keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation.

  while i think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - i don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.. .

  for example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  On the internet I keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation. While I think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - I don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.

  
  

  For example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer. But it doesn’t mean the computer will then actually have the properties of those weather patterns (e.g. wind, humidity, snow, etc). Likewise, we could simulate a human brain inside a computer - but that doesn’t mean the computer would then have the properties of a human brain (e.g. consciousness).

  
  

  Mathematical models are descriptors. They describe how something might behave. But they don’t have the necessary quantities of space/time and energy to actually do the things they’re describing.

  
  

  I am, thus far, NOT convinced it’s possible for us to be inside a simulation. But I wanted to get your guys feedback on this. Am I missing something? Is there any actual evidence that a simulation could ever produce something like consciousness?

  
  

  
  

  (I should note that I’m completely open to the idea we may be able to build machines capable of self-awareness in the future. But that’s NOT the same thing as simulating a machine that would be capable of self-awareness. Building is a physical system with high volumes of different types of energy moving through it. A simulation is not.)

  [Also, if you’re simply going to argue we don’t know that it’s “impossible” for us to be in a simulation - than please don’t waste my time. The lack of proof of impossibility in no way demonstrates possibility]
• 
  37

  How Long Does This Religion Have Left?

  by pale.emperor in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the generation that will be no means pass away have passed away.. the 144,000 were sealed up in 1935, oh, no wait, we got that wrong, we still have some.. russel is the faithful and wise servant... oh, no he wasn't it was me, rutherford... no, actually, we got that wrong it's knorr... erm, no we mean the governing body.. shunning is pagan, true christians would never do that (1946)... oh, actually, we should do that too.. the revelation book has been re-written.. the un is the satan's visible organisation.. wtbs signs up for fellowship with the un in 1991.. exposed in the guardian newspaper so ends it's fellowship in 2001.. the greatest man book is now obsolete and replaced with another jesus book.. the mags are reduced in pages.. encouraged to use tablets instead of actual books to save paper (money).

  halls being sold off.. congregations sharing halls.. society owned buildings being sold off.. video pertitioning for money only last year to fund a new building.. bethelites reduced.. missionaries sent back home.. young members leaving.. long time members discovering the history and leaving.. how long do you think this religion has left?

  i cant see it being here in another 100 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  In regards to the OP, what do you mean by "have left"?

  Have left to what?

  To grow in numbers? Probably not more than a year or two. They're very rapidly approaching stagnation.

  To decrease in numbers? Probably not more than four or five years. Their methods of recruiting outsiders has seriously been curtailed by their reliance on directing people to their website and by their cart ministry. And 2/3 of their children leave the organisation. It won't be long until they have more leaving the organisation than joining it.

  To change their tactics? The Organisation has always been transitory. What it was ten years ago it won't be in ten years from now. Hopefully part of their future changes will be getting rid of the two witness rule for rape victims and mandatory reporting to the authorities when there may have been a crime committed.

  To be profitable? All indications are they are spending more than they can afford and are taking dirastic steps to try and decrease their overhead. It may be some time before they are able to turn a profit again - if ever. Right now they're cannibalizing their assets to stay afloat.

  To admit they've been wrong about every prediction they've ever made? When pigs fly.