Artificial Intelligence & Religion

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

I've changed the quote to reflect the topic, but wanted to quote it in some form...

When superintelligent AI arrives, should religions try to convert it?

For debate:

Should they?

[bluethread]

From the article here:

I've changed the quote to reflect the topic, but wanted to quote it in some form...

When superintelligent AI arrives, should religions try to convert it?

For debate:

Should they?

I hate to complicate such a simple question. However, unless something miraculous occurs, the cascade effects in AI would be based on a random number generator and/or preprogramed responses. If something miraculous does occur, we are left with the question of how that can happen. If not, the AI will always be limited by the programming.

That said, one can introduce the concept of a deity and allow the AI to take it from there, or one could direct the AI, in which case it would not truly be independent AI. In short, we have all of the questions that have been posed on this forum regarding predestination and free will. Can programmed AI truly be considered to have independent thought? Is it possible to have AI without programming or at least "random" programming, in the tradition of John Cage and Jackson Pollack?

[ttruscott]

From the article here:

I've changed the quote to reflect the topic, but wanted to quote it in some form...

When superintelligent AI arrives, should religions try to convert it?

For debate:

Should they?

Conversion is not for those who think differently but for those with an enslaving addiction to evil who must repent to be saved from the judgment upon that sin.

First it must be proven that an AI can sin, that its essential nature changes by that sin to become addicted to sin in general and then we might see our way with more clarity.

Peace, Ted

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

To be fair, framed against the idea of nature v nurture, one could say we're limited in all kinds of different ways. The connecting points of our neurons could simply be translated into super-tiny transistors and placed in a brain simulation and it could be relatively identical... once we have a more appropriate understanding of basic thought processes.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

To be fair, framed against the idea of nature v nurture, one could say we're limited in all kinds of different ways. The connecting points of our neurons could simply be translated into super-tiny transistors and placed in a brain simulation and it could be relatively identical... once we have a more appropriate understanding of basic thought processes.

That is my point. If all is just the interaction of billions of random interactions that somehow create patterns of interactions, that in turn interact with further random interactions to create even more complicated patterns of interactions, then how do we emulate that fine tuning without designing it? Then, if we do design it, can it truly be said to work the same as how humans work? If it does then actually develop non-empirical concepts, will those be seen as proof of cognition or faulty design? As with Cage and Pollack, how do we avoid undesired results without introducing at least some bias? I short, how does one design something in a relatively short time, that is supposed to be like something that developed without design over millions of years?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by JoeyKnothead]

I'm thinking converting Skynet might have worked out better than trying to switch it off - it might not be as good a movie though.

[SailingCyclops]

From the article here:

I've changed the quote to reflect the topic, but wanted to quote it in some form...

When superintelligent AI arrives, should religions try to convert it?

If the AI is truly intelligent, no "conversion" to an illogical thought process would be possible, hence no "conversion" to lunacy is possible.

[jeager106]

I am gonna hate myself for getting involved in this foolishness but here I go yet again.
What part of ARTIFICIAL do you not understand ?

definition of: ( I kept it simple. : not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural

: not happening or existing naturally : created or caused by people

AI isn't flesh and blood, nor does AI have feelings, nor curiosity, nor the desire to explore just to "see whats out there".
AI can't "know" that "it" was built my mankind unless the builder programs
the AI which is nothing more than a machine.
Yes, I agree it's a very, very, sophisticated machine, but still a machine.
AI cannot procreate itself in the same manner as humans.
Even though Commander Data was programed in sexual techniques, he could not create a baby. He could create another android in his image, but not a living baby Data. Data was the most advanced AI ever in science fiction yet longed to be human.
Of course Data couldn't really long for anything. He was a machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

There are many, many, web articles and sites on AI but I picked the least complex as reference.

Perhaps you are merely toying with Christian believers in a sophomoric display
"got 'cha"?

[jeager106]

From the article here:

I've changed the quote to reflect the topic, but wanted to quote it in some form...

When superintelligent AI arrives, should religions try to convert it?

If the AI is truly intelligent, no "conversion" to an illogical thought process would be possible, hence no "conversion" to lunacy is possible.

Honestly! Was it necessary to refer to religion as lunacy?
I find that kind of comment to be as rude as it is crude and beneath your dignity.
In the short time I have been aboard here I have yet to see any theist refer to an agnostic, anti-theist, atheist, as a lunatic, or fool, or self delusional or in any such negative way.
Surely a mature adult can rise above such comments.
I feel I have made friendships with at least couple of members here with whom I strongly disagree. Many are very much agnostic at least, or a profound atheist by comments yet I have mentioned on this public board how I dearly appreciate fine debate skills and keen, razor sharp, minds. Many here have taught me much.
From the PMs I have received from atheists donating points, credits, attaboys, I feel most welcome here.
Generous those fine people are.
Would you please try to refrain from berating those of us who believe in deities?

[SailingCyclops]

Honestly! Was it necessary to refer to religion as lunacy?

You know? I look around and see religion burning people, beheading them. I see religious people killing doctors, and working hard to deny many basic human rights, especially to women. I see profound ignorance impeding human progress, especially in the fields of medicine and education, all in the name of some religious belief or other. Isn't this all the work of lunatics? The word comes from the howling at the moon. I see no difference between howling at the moon and howling at some invisible big daddy god in the sky. It's all lunacy to me.

My question to you is why do you find my statement "rude"? It's not rude to tell the truth as one sees it. If you were to change the context of what I said to a non-religious context you would no longer be offended by my use of the word lunacy, right? Why is that? Because only in a religious context/setting can lunacy be seen as sane. An example:

You see a man sitting on a park bench talking to an invisible alien about planet Zeta and the glory of the coming alien invasion (he truly believes). He tells you he speaks to this alien every night and he tells him what to do and how to live while he awaits alien arrival day on earth. You would rightly call him a bit of a lune, perhaps schizophrenic, definitely a bit off in the head, right? We also know that proper treatment can cure him of his insanity.

Now change the context of that very scene to a religious context, and suppose, the man was now talking to god instead of to an alien. Now you would no longer refer to him as crazy or a lunatic right? What's the difference exactly?? To me, there is no difference, they are both equally lunatic. So you see, my perception is that only in a religious context can crazy be seen as sane.

What's so special about religion which you believe makes it immune to criticism and ridicule? Why do you think religion is beyond reproach? Why should I give religion any more respect than I give any other crazy idea?