World religion and computer modelling

It's been a interesting month in the world of Articial intelligence and computer modelling. Deepmind, a leader in AI development recently announced that it has developed a neural approach to relational reasoning. This is a fantastic step forward, however it got me thinking what would happen if we applied similiar computational models to religion.According to wikipedia there are approximately 4200 worldwide religions and belief systems worldwide .. could AI assist humanity with identifying what we all have in common and to help in both AI's/human evolution and understanding?
Just wonderng

deepmind.com...

e61e46abebeb01d409348b755752e61c68e22711f91e7d3ea564c47f73afb333

At a glance, that's a pretty interesting thought.

Initially it would make sense, let the AI distill all the differnt beliefs down to one coherent , rational religion.

Although, I worry that maybe the AI will just become a God in itself..

Believing this super computer can tell me what I should believe Is only slightly better option than believing the local preacher...

It might have more rationality than the preacher , but I'm still being told what to believe, and I'm not sure I like that.

Cool thoughts


a reply to: DpatC

a reply to: DpatC

I'm sure of it and suspect it has been done already on human computers and the quantum devices of the ETIs of the UFOs. The powers that be, high and low, know what is coming.

There is no single impediment to the so-called Disclosure of the origins of the UFO more than the formal and informal religious views of humans the world over. That one item blocks rational thinking and the subsequent improved personal philosophies and governmental policies in about every aspect of human existence.

In the West, those problems can be largely overcome by minor revisions to existing religions and education to the semi-religious with factual information and honest, discussions across all quarters of the civilization.

n large areas of the rest of the world, any talk hinting of Disclosure will be deemed a Western conspiracy and will be rejected and countered with extreme efforts. That new area of conflict will only increase the resolve of those that remain stuck in barbaric religions.

Computers don't 'believe' anything.

That requires suspension of disbelief.

"Okay HAL, we're opening a new file."

"We'll call it 2 + 2 = 5."

a reply to: DpatC

Lots of ancient and pre modern era texts describe exactly what you're talking about. Back before stopleaks were put on this information and its source materials. Its man vs machine. Nature vs unnatural. Real vs synthetic.

Read a bit of Rudolf Steiner and see how far ahead of the game you really are OP. Seriously. The idea of electric automatons ruling humans is as old as the "evil is killed by water" trope. So many stories are based on machines controlling spirituality. Der Sandmann being a favorite of mine.

a reply to: DpatC

i like the cut of your jib...but...mankind is not ready for those kinds of answers. being disillusioned by a genius level artificial intelligence does not soften the impact.

Maybe when Skynet uploaded, it will usurp all the nations arms like it was Legion. I do wonder how far, human an machine can inter twine, from biology to virtual consciousness even though immortality not really in my sights.

As for religion and future technology...Who's knows, like talking weapons, a very common theme with major gods like Vishnu, or Marduk. The Marvel comic Thor hammer had a mind of it own...almost like a guardian angel and conscious, or Devil if on the wrong side. A.i guidance system vs psychological support?

Personally, an a.i would be a great organizer, and would rid a lot of discrepancies in religions vs actual history, because of memory and it can multi task like a well built asura like avatar.great for comparative

Do you reject what science tell you to believe? No because science tries to account for error as best as it can, sticks to logic and evidence. Science is about rationality, reason, and demonstration. Whonsays that spiritual matters cant be handled the same way? What man can do rhis? Ai might be the solution.

Its not that ai would be rhe ultimate dictator and force things down our throats saying we have to believe it. It would make its case and we would face the evidence amd decide if it was enough to support the claims and thus be worthy of belief.

In fact we would best look at it as a race. Man will keep doing their best to use science and spirituality to explain tye world and the best way forward, and AI will do the same, each one 'racing' against the other butnin friendly competition united in the search for truth

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this computer scientist does not have a neural approach to relational reasoning.

As to your question: Absolutely not! The idea of AI isn't even coherently formulated, let alone a plausible concept to most origin of life researchers who actually realize in their work the importance dissipative processes as that relates to the emergence of conscious thought.

In short, if emotional or affective need can't be created, because such processes are intrinsically related to dissipative processes, than that means non-carbon based "models" are just hyped up Bull$hit which ignorant people - being ignorant, lacking the requisite knowledge to make sense of the claim, and more or less conditioned by Hollywood film - cannot detect the BS nature of.

And no. Human's involved in understanding Human nature (such as myself) are the only creatures capable of probing human phenomenological experience; the sheer idea of transferring human self-organization, to a non-human machine, speaks to the horrendous degree of dissociation that seems to animate human beings today. They are essentially operating within a dualistic INCOHERENT metaphysics.

Incoherent means "does not cohere", i.e. isn't coherent. Dualist, psychologistic approaches to consciousness i.e. most of AI research, is simply a fantasy of computer-age gnostics, who, eventually, will have to admit the fundamentally complex non-reductive, and thus, impossible to imitate nature of living processes.

Do you know, for instance, that 1 cortical neuron has as many as 100 billion molecules? Do you also know that it is a well known and accepted neuroscientific fact that individual neurons flash in and then out of neural representations? For instance, if 1 neuron, tracked by subcortical electrode implants, flashes on (i.e. initiates an action potential) when a picture of Tom Cruise is shown, for instance, it will not flash a moment later when an intervening image has been shown, indicating that individual neurons are more or less "invariant", i.e. are replicas of one another, meaning that individual memories are not associated with single neurons, or even a group of neurons, but is distributed in a statistical manner, that, being so complex, is fundamentally unpredictable.

AI people like to ignore the assumptions that are being made about how the brain actually works. As a system of 86 billion neurons, too much of the complex of what we are is simply non-reducible.

This is a gnostic fantasy. Fantasy and science do not go good together; a good scientist is one who can tell the difference between what is real, versus what they (i.e. themselves) want to be real.

We live in the age of #ty reasoning, unfortunately. It seems to be a natural concomitant of capitalism, competition, and the profit motive.