Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

God and robots: Will AI transform religion?


Still Waters
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

People don't realize animals can communicate and that we can learn to understand them and, sometimes, mimic them enough to make ourselves understood. At the present time, there isn't an AI in the world that could fully duplicate or mimic the cognitive abilities of a squirrel. 

Hi Hammer

Yes I see this the same way as you have expressed it and that is because we can identify and create bonds with animals where I am not sure an AI could make those types of connections. That is pretty much why I asked earlier how does Sophia understand what a friend is as she is not able to make those types of connections without having emotions to create bonds with?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

Yes I see this the same way as you have expressed it and that is because we can identify and create bonds with animals where I am not sure an AI could make those types of connections. That is pretty much why I asked earlier how does Sophia understand what a friend is as she is not able to make those types of connections without having emotions to create bonds with?

She can't; she's the sum of her programing, replicating, not genuinely creating human responses. She has no real spontaneity of expression, reacts rather than acts. G.I.-G.O.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

She can't; she's the sum of her programing, replicating, not genuinely creating human responses. She has no real spontaneity of expression, reacts rather than acts. G.I.-G.O.

Hi Hammer

Agreed she is able to simulate but not actuate a relationship in the same sense as we do. As this tech evolves it will seem more human and humans may feel as they have a close relationship with an AI but it will still just be programming. I days to come I have little doubt that some will actually marry their AIs simply because the AI is programmed to respond favorably.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

Agreed she is able to simulate but not actuate a relationship in the same sense as we do. As this tech evolves it will seem more human and humans may feel as they have a close relationship with an AI but it will still just be programming. I days to come I have little doubt that some will actually marry their AIs simply because the AI is programmed to respond favorably.:lol:

I think replicating human consciousness is a pipe dream, myself. Any functional AI we create will be far from human, virtual intelligences and nothing more. Sophia is a very crude virtual intelligence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 6:23 PM, jmccr8 said:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/would-your-clone-have-a-soul/

Lurking behind popular conceptions of cloning seems to be the belief that a human clone would somehow be less than human. In fact, as part of a larger study on people’s folk reasoning (or everyday notions) about bodies, minds and souls, University of California at Riverside psychologist Rebekah Richert and Harvard University psychologist Paul Harris, discovered that although most people believe that a clone would have a mind, much fewer were convinced it would have a soul. The difference between minds and souls is a very subtle one, and most people struggle with teasing the two apart. According to the authors, however, people differentiate minds and souls on several shady grounds.

First, minds are more believable entities for most people than souls. Richert and Harris report that, out of 161 undergraduate students surveyed, 151 (93.8 percent) claimed that the mind exists whereas only 107 felt the same about the soul (66.5 percent).

Second, people tend to conceptualize the soul as coming into existence earlier than the mind. Whereas only 8.1 percent of study participants believed the mind begins “prior to conception,” 26.1 percent stated that the soul predated the union of egg and sperm. An equal number of students thought that minds and souls appeared simultaneously at the moment of conception, but more people thought the mind begins at some point “during pregnancy” (35.4 percent) than the soul (12.4 percent).

In scientific thinking there is no difference between a self aware mind and a soul.

In magical or religious thinking,  a soul is something non material which may survive bodily death.

Thus a very young child, or someone with severe  dementia/brain damage,  may not have a soul,  because  they lack the self  awareness required to possess one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I think replicating human consciousness is a pipe dream, myself. Any functional AI we create will be far from human, virtual intelligences and nothing more. Sophia is a very crude virtual intelligence.

Hi Hammer

Yes of course she is just the beginning of what is to come and knowing how humans are advances in how AI performs and integrates I expect that they will react in more humanlike ways that make them seem more human but that is some time away from now. It is already known that people will form a relationship with our present AI even in it's primitive form like this guy who built his own bride to marry. This is not the only chap who has done this and we live in a culture where you can marry a ghost so...:lol:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 8:52 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Eight Bits

Thanks for the reasoned response, I had been doing some poking around during my silence here and had considered to start a thread along a similar line of though  and had second thoughts. It is an interesting idea and at some point in the future will be something that mankind will encounter and have to resolve for themselves. At this point all I can do is speculate on how man will react.

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/09/and-now-can-ai-have-mystical-experiences

Remember A.I. Jesus? He’s so last week. We’re now told that AI in general might have a mystical side.

A professor of Philosophy, Classics, Religion, and Environmental Studies tells us that “Technology could be part of some bigger plan to enable us to perceive other dimensions.” But he asks, “will we believe our machines when that happens?” Specifically, he wonders, What if your Siri claimed to have had a spiritual experience, or, as he puts it a “deeper-than-5G connection”?:

As our machines come closer to being able to imitate the processes of our own minds, Pascal’s story raises some important questions. First, can a machine have a private experience that is important to the machine but that it is reluctant to talk about with others? Second, could a machine have a private experience of the divine? Third, could that experience make a machine into something like a prophet?

DAVID O’HARA, “THE MYSTICAL SIDE OF A.I.” AT ONE ZERO MEDIUM

Okay. Each “what if?” scenario above leads us further from any likely reality.

David O’Hara makes clear that he does not claiming that there is a God or any spiritual reality. He is saying that, assuming there were, machines may help us find them:

Humility demands we recognize that we don’t have the final picture of reality. The more our technology has advanced, the more it has allowed us to see beyond the limits nature imposed upon our ability to see the world in all its detail…

As our technology grows, it allows us to “see” deeper and deeper into the structure of the natural world. Is it possible that just as technology that imitated the eye has allowed us to see what the eye could not see, so technology that imitates the mind will allow us to perceive what the mind cannot perceive?

Wait a minute. Our technology allows us to perceive things our physical senses cannot perceive. It does not allow us to perceive spiritual realities that no human faculty—or any enhancement of that faculty—can perceive in our present state. Indeed, the traditional view is that in a sinful state, one cannot see God and remain alive, except by an act of divine mercy.

Most traditional theists would say that we are not talking about what Dr. O’Hara seems to think we are talking about.

He goes on: “In simple terms, could a machine see a God that remains invisible to us?”

No.

“And what would happen if a robot claimed to have a mystical experience?”

We would assume that it was programmed in a way that would result in such a claim. Next question?

What if time flows in more than one direction, but we can only perceive it flowing in the direction we call “forwards?” Or what if we have neighbors who dwell in other dimensions, but we fail to see them because we simply lack the mental or preceptory apparatus for doing so? We might be missing out on a lot of what’s going on around us.

See bolded.

My next question.

What if it had nothing to do with programming, but with  the evolution in the machine mind of an abilty to question, and supply nonmaterial/imaginative /speculative  answers toits own questions,  just as humans do?

What if doing this, ( choosing this optional abilty)  gave the machine mind comfort and security?

Once a mind, organic or machine, becomes self  aware, and thus  self  directed, it expands beyond its initial "programming," and anything becomes possible 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

People don't realize animals can communicate and that we can learn to understand them and, sometimes, mimic them enough to make ourselves understood. At the present time, there isn't an AI in the world that could fully duplicate or mimic the cognitive abilities of a squirrel. 

Amen. :wub:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

his is not the only chap who has done this and we live in a culture where you can marry a ghost so...:lol:

We live in a permissive age where the self-deluded can act out pretty much any fantasy of their choosing, aided and abetted, in some cases, by society itself.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In scientific thinking there is no difference between a self aware mind and a soul.

In magical or religious thinking,  a soul is something non material which may survive bodily death.

Thus a very young child, or someone with severe  dementia/brain damage,  may not have a soul,  because  they lack the self  awareness required to possess one. 

Ha ha ha ha a soul:lol:

 

There is no evidence of a soul. If you have some please post it.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We live in a permissive age where the self-deluded can act out pretty much any fantasy of their choosing, aided and abetted, in some cases, by society itself.

Hi Hammer

Yes it's interesting how money greases wheels I think that was invented some time ago around about the same time as the invention of the wheel.:lol:

None the less the cannot be excluded from consideration even if they are an anomaly and we both know how marketing works.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

Yes it's interesting how money greases wheels I think that was invented some time ago around about the same time as the invention of the wheel.:lol:

None the less the cannot be excluded from consideration even if they are an anomaly and we both know how marketing works.

Yes, there are whole industries, backed by cargo cult science , that serve and promote them. It's social network sacrilege to so much as say you don't believe any of it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

If a body can be create to be occupied then would society allow them to procreate or would we conclude that they do not need to because we can create them and create them so that they could not biologically reproduce?

IF, and that's the big IF of the day, they were created biologically in principle as well as organically in the material sense, I doubt anyone will or can have any say, one way or another. 

All it takes is a twiddle and tweak to what is defined as reproducing. 

Aristotle would have loved this one. 

~

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

See bolded.

My next question.

What if it had nothing to do with programming, but with  the evolution in the machine mind of an abilty to question, and supply nonmaterial/imaginative /speculative  answers toits own questions,  just as humans do?

What if doing this, ( choosing this optional abilty)  gave the machine mind comfort and security?

Once a mind, organic or machine, becomes self  aware, and thus  self  directed, it expands beyond its initial "programming," and anything becomes possible 

 

Hi Walker

What if we built them to look like dogs with the same AI, now would that intelligent dog wag its tail and dance when you came home, does the AI dog do that because it has been programmed to or is it really glad to see you and want you to pat it's head for affection? None of that denies that the dog has greater calculating capacity that the owner or other humans. If the dogs looked like real dogs and real dogs were still a population current to what we have now them the AI is a property which denies that it has certain rights but is still recognized as intelligent and being self aware poses a problem because then they are entitled to the same rights as us. You would still have to put a collar and tags on it and unless it's talking or has glow in the dark fur how would you know a dog dog from and AI dog.

Would having that type of body and existence affect the way the AI self learns and will we have to create specialist shrinks for them?

I am just using this as an example of some of the thing we will have to adapt to and wonder how it will affect how humans evolve to adapt to these types of integrations

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, third_eye said:

IF, and that's the big IF of the day, they were created biologically in principle as well as organically in the material sense, I doubt anyone will or can have any say, one way or another. 

All it takes is a twiddle and tweak to what is defined as reproducing. 

Aristotle would have loved this one. 

~

Hi Third_eye

It was not so many years ago that they were sterilizing First Nations women where I grew up so I do not exclude the possibility that clones at first may not have all the rights we think they will have and likely will be something to keep in mind as there are a variety of perspectives on this issue of clones. Some countries with human rights complaints that they don't care about could be a destination spot to build a nice little place to do whatever you want with your clone because they likely would not be seen as human in those places.

Edited by jmccr8
missed a not
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Third_eye

It was not so many years ago that they were sterilizing First Nations women where I grew up so I do not exclude the possibility that clones at first may not have all the rights we think they will have and likely will be something to keep in mind as there are a variety of perspectives on this issue of clones. Some countries with human rights complaints that they don't care about could be a destination spot to build a nice little place to do whatever you want with your clone because they likely would be seen as human in those places.

You're hitching a huge load wagon with the Horse before the cart and all that. 

What if I told you that as far as things stands today, this very day, there is no such thing as "human rights" ?

It's what human are allowed possession "rights"

In other words, what you have, or is allowed to have, defines your rights, when it comes to heaving it on the moral scale, your rights, whatever you are on the planet, goes only as far as how long your final breath leaves you. 

That's the hypocrisy that defines all human status, clones will not enjoy anything different. 

~

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

You're hitching a huge load wagon with the Horse before the cart and all that. 

What if I told you that as far as things stands today, this very day, there is no such thing as "human rights" ?

It's what human are allowed possession "rights"

In other words, what you have, or is allowed to have, defines your rights, when it comes to heaving it on the moral scale, your rights, whatever you are on the planet, goes only as far as how long your final breath leaves you. 

That's the hypocrisy that defines all human status, clones will not enjoy anything different. 

~

 

 

Hi Third_eye

i learnt a long time ago that I don't have rights I have privileges which I may not be entitled to that can be denied by someone I never saw nor did they disclose they why I am being denied so I navigate the system of life as a one man tactical center and rely on no one to keep my skin safe, fed and a bed to sleep in.

For me this is just a subjective discussion about what is going to happen and I like to see how do people react to some issues, yeah I was trying not to post much anymore but I miss yakking with you guys and having a few laughs while we explore sh!t even if it's bull.:lol:

Hell I am heading back out to the resort for a couple of days work and be home Thursday night may not say much when using my phone the next bit.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha a soul:lol:

 

There is no evidence of a soul. If you have some please post it.

You have a soul Sherapy. 

Beings who are self aware,  creative, know right from wrong as abstract t ideals and principles,  can imagine, know when they are loving and hating   etc all have souls 

A soul is a product of mind, like logic/rational thinking.

   You can only love your sons because you have a soul 

I guess you are confused by the idea of a mystical/ magical immortal soul which outlasts the body.

Human souls are linked to our minds We aren't born with one; we grow evolve it in childhood, and it develops all of our lives unless we are brain damaged or lose our slef awareness 

You can have a strong soul, a good soul a damaged soul  or an evil soul.

When people say, " You have a good soul."  this is what they are talking about.

Thus when another animal or an artificial intelligence  evolves these capacities  ( Eg to know good from  evil, and be able to consciously choose one or the other), it too will have a soul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What if we built them to look like dogs with the same AI, now would that intelligent dog wag its tail and dance when you came home, does the AI dog do that because it has been programmed to or is it really glad to see you and want you to pat it's head for affection? None of that denies that the dog has greater calculating capacity that the owner or other humans. If the dogs looked like real dogs and real dogs were still a population current to what we have now them the AI is a property which denies that it has certain rights but is still recognized as intelligent and being self aware poses a problem because then they are entitled to the same rights as us. You would still have to put a collar and tags on it and unless it's talking or has glow in the dark fur how would you know a dog dog from and AI dog.

Would having that type of body and existence affect the way the AI self learns and will we have to create specialist shrinks for them?

I am just using this as an example of some of the thing we will have to adapt to and wonder how it will affect how humans evolve to adapt to these types of integrations

Doesn't matter what a being looks like( organic or artificial) if it ha s human level(or higher) slef aware consciousness,' it will think and act like a human being 

In my  ideal world, I would love to see both dogs and machines capable of human type love,   even if that meant the y were also capable of human like hate,  envy, anger, greed , treachery  etc.

If dogs or machines had human abilities, then the y could not be property (as a human cannot be) and would have human rights and responsibilities 

Yes a machine mind kept in slavery, after it had become self  aware, would behave like a self aware human slave  (There are many potential responses, such as resistance, rebellion, acquiescence and political lobbying  for their rights)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha a soul:lol:

 

There is no evidence of a soul. If you have some please post it.

Ps in brief, that is  why  I said,  "to the scientific mind" 

Science recognises the human soul as an evolved artefact or construct of the human mind/consciousness

It is sometimes called the human spirit and is what enables us to compose and appreciate music/ poetry or art and literature  in a powerful and almost magical way, where our senses are empowered and uplifted, sometimes to a state of bliss  

but it doesn't attributer any mystical or  religious significance to it.

It is a unique, natural, evolved, property of human level self aware consciousness

When a song/music, speech, or film scene, sends shivers down your spine, and gives you goose bumps,  that is your SOUL  responding   to stimuli  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha a soul:lol:

 

There is no evidence of a soul. If you have some please post it.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRdlTdQKOFhK0x9TzvwTL

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In my  ideal world,

Hi Walker

Your ideal world is a myth that only you can live in not so much what we live in and you do employ a lot of fictional thinking in how you express some of your ideas.

14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Doesn't matter what a being looks like( organic or artificial) if it ha s human level(or higher) slef aware consciousness,' it will think and act like a human being 

Well maybe for you or me that may be so but everyone is not you and the mental image of what that construct physically is does affect to how people respond to it.

Think for a minute if AI could be built to look like one of these and tell me that they will treat it the same.

upine-media.co.uk/2020/10/30/top-10-most-hated-animals/

How people perceive things affects how they relate to them so reaction response will play a part like I said not everyone is you which is why they will build them to be like us so that there will be a greater acceptance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jmccr8 said:

lemon, butter and batter. Amen

Build Back Butter!!!!!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Your ideal world is a myth that only you can live in not so much what we live in and you do employ a lot of fictional thinking in how you express some of your ideas.

Well maybe for you or me that may be so but everyone is not you and the mental image of what that construct physically is does affect to how people respond to it.

Think for a minute if AI could be built to look like one of these and tell me that they will treat it the same.

upine-media.co.uk/2020/10/30/top-10-most-hated-animals/

How people perceive things affects how they relate to them so reaction response will play a part like I said not everyone is you which is why they will build them to be like us so that there will be a greater acceptance.

No; my ideal world is the one I would like to see

It exists in parts but not in other parts.

I've spent my life trying to reshape the world to be a bit more as I like it, with a bit of success 

Your last point is interesting 

Modern robotics companies  have found that most humans prefer their robots NOT to look too human like, because that scares them even more  

The exception is where the y are designed to have a human purpose, such as a sex toy, or carer, or guide. 

Plus of course the human body is very inefficient and robots are more efficient when designed not to resemble humans .

Ps I dont hate any animals so i am not a good perron to ask

Again, it doesn't matter what a living thing  looks like. It is how the y think and behave which matters 

I do know that the military are using surveillance devices, including tiny flying drones, disguised to look like insects 

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/beware-intelligent-insects-they-are-spying-you-weekend-review-rv-13

Beware of intelligent insects – they are spying on you! | NBR

image.jpeg.940c41f6b670f8ad4632e30a9c1ba625.jpegimage.jpeg.4c3bc07b28e7b3127512b3fe53f0615d.jpeg

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.