I"m not sure what you mean by consciousness taking control of computer hardware, but who says computers are limited to computing blindly according to a preset rule system? Dynamic rule systems are rather the norm. What do you think scripting is? Just imagine a script that modifies its own source code while being executed. This is rather commonplace.

that's right, bask in your ignorance. It's bliss after all, right?

Dan, keeping in mind that I make no pretense that I understand a lot about computer technology, what you say makes a lot of sense to me.

BY WAY OF A PNEUMATOLOGICAL (SPIRITUAL) EXPERIMENT

Using the computer as a metaphor, and making no pretense that I have a hotline to the theistic and personal 'God', which, or who, theists claim, "hears and answers our prayers", here is what I am driving at:

IN MY OPINION, IN THE BEGINNING, G-D EXISTED AS TOTAL AND UNCONSCIOUS BEING, NOT AS A PERSONAL BEING

It is my current opinion, and my current belief, that before consciousness came into being; or before spirit, as we know it, emerged, all was like much of existence today, unconscious.

NOW, here is my experiment: In the spirit of a sincere and humble prayer, and according to Matthew 18: 19-20, I ask you, God, the following: Am I on the right path?

If I am on the wrong track, please let me know and correct me. Amen.

I await your answer, please.

that's funny, I was going to suggest the same to you

is this a rhetorical question, or are you asking me?

but this is coming from someone who's comparing computers to calculators and bean counters. I mean, come on, how naive is that?

dude, you are looking a bit stupid right now. maybe you should take a time out and count to 001011010010

I should correct myself: Dan, you're not dumb; what you said was dumb. There, now nobody's feelings needs to get hurt.

well that's the thing. Most scientists do not appreciate exactly what computers are doing. How many scientists can tell you how their computer works in terms of logic gates, much less tell you how to construct a half-adder? The nature of computation, and digitial logic, is very general. You may have heard the attempts in the physics community to derive "It from Bit". Why? Because some in the physics community appreciate the fundamental role of computation and digital logic, and appreciate that digital logic may lie behind the fundamental laws of physics.

Maybe tag team? All artificial computers conceived to date are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine, which is basically just a set of states, a corresponding set of state transitions, and a tape with symbols on it and some means for erasing and writing symbols.

(...tag)
computers are flipping switches, that's it. 1001011010100101010101101010001001010110101010001011

it's the people who imagine various rules according to which they generate meaningful action from these mindless automatons. The intelligence in a computer could hardly exist without humans making the decisions on what constitutes a meaningful pattern.
(tag...)

is this really such a serious hindrance when you may be equivalent to a turing machine. I'll skip over a discussion of hypercomputation, but merely bring it up to note that a turing machine may not be the be all and end all of computation.

computers are great for automation. Many actions that people engage in each day can be rather easily automated on a computer, thereby freeing up more time to do other things. However, computers are not limited to automation.

You say "The intelligence in a computer could hardly exist without humans making the decisions on what constitutes a meaningful pattern.", but this is not convincing. I take it you believe you and your intellect were created by some super-intelligent being/watchmaker called God since the intelligence you possess could hardly exist without being implanted by some super-intelligent creator.

no

I would say that choice of available brain structures by subjective 'intuition' is critical in the process of forming a coherent and subjectively meaningful mind. since present day computers have no such access to a coherent subjective 'intuition', they would be exceedingly hard pressed to evolve into a comparable state

Dan asks.

Dan: I am not asking you. My question is not addressed to you. It addressed to the theistic God--the one so-called "one true God" most theists say they believe in, and look to, as a personal and super-personal being who is supposed to answer all our prayer requests.

I do this, here, as a kind of experiment. BTW, I have done this kind of experiment, many times, with many individuals, on a face to face basis. I did it as recently as this morning.

Whlie I very much respect all sincerely held beliefs, I strongly suspect that the personal God of theism is a figment of our human and fertile imaginations. For many reasons, I find theism, as expressed by many quite differernt religions, an unacceptable concept.

However, because I also find atheism unacceptable I am not willing to embrace it. At this point I call myself a unitheist--and there are others who use the same term--looking for new and non-theiistic ways of expressing the god-concept. Some writers--including some learned thologians like Marcus Borg (The God We Never KNew)--use the term 'panentheism--God in an through all things. I prefer 'unitheism' because it avoids confusion with pantheism--God is the sum of all things.

My answer to the question, does intelligent design require an intelligent creator? is a cautious, yes. However, we need to do a lot more thinking about what we mean by "intelligent creator".

Does anyone have any idea what the above rhetorical question is all about?

Thanks for your response. It tells me where you stand. Be assured that though my name is 'King', I covet no kingdom, and I abhor people having to be sheeple.

And do not astronomers tell us that this is true for both the microcosm and the macrocosm? Awesome!

And the more I read about the world of the microscope and the telescope, the more awesome it becomes. At least for me it does. When I read about galaxies moving away from each other at the speed of light and, at the other end, the string theory, it boggles this object between my ears I call my brain, not to mention my mind.

When I think about the expanding universe I always ask myself: Into what is it expanding?

BTW, I hope my curiousity does not offend anyone. I should have said: it tells me a "little bit about the way you think".

In the West and Middle East, "religion" means monotheism, so when a westerner talks about "god" or theology, the first assumption is that we are dealing with evil monotheism.

Most of the right wing religious nut-case idiocy being advocated by the Republican Party right now is a symptom of this evil.

Is this written as simply a description? Or is it meant to be a value judgement?

Keep in mind that, no matter how old a concept is, an idea that is new to me, is new to me. And I am always open, by the power of reason and persuasion, to move in better directions. I am not a fixed-position thinker.

Who are the Luciferians and Heliopolitans?

are they related to the Hippopotamuses?