Why more slippery than AI? still a sentient being on this planet, and self aware. For sure it would be afraid of deah as you are.

---

---

Originally posted by red 5
Why more slippery than AI? still a sentient being on this planet, and self aware. For sure it would be afraid of deah as you are.

Whose to say that A.I. will want the same things as a human being? As far as I can tell the need to compare A.I. with humans is based on some notion that they will desire the same things. There's a thought that A.I. will be like Pinnocio and want to become a "real boy" but who says it will want that? What exactly would a robot with A.I. desire, and what value is their desire? Does it want a wife and kids, job security, protection from electromagnetic frequencies?
This is why I hate philosophy

How can a robot be afraid even? That's a distinctively animal trait. This is like I was saying, we're trying to personify an artificial creation by giving it human traits. It isn't human. A.I. would have perfect control over itself, so fear wouldn't be possible.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by ghaleon12]

This is a brilliant thread.

To those trying to answer this rhetorical question, the point is that the idea of "saving" a soul is bull#. I am not going to comment on the truth of that position, but I am impressed by the cleverly subtle way of saying it.

BTW, would we call anti-AI discrimination racism? Techism? Chipism? Would the AI's have their own savior myth? Jesus Cray, perhaps? Would we have biological supremacy groups burning laptops in front of computer rooms? Would machines string together pieces of animals and use them as bio-games? Sony fartstation III, anyone?

Some of these concepts are a bit muddled. If a man causes Human DNA to spin out a new sentient being, that does not make the being man made.

The being is a product of the same methodology as has ever been in the known universe. Now if man assembles a being of entirely his own design using nanobots and printing layer after layer of atoms in a 3d Matrix, that is a man made entity.

We can tamper with the creative forces, that does not make us the author of creation.

I don't buy the whole "Soul" thing. It is an empty word. A nervious system which supports sentience is the nearest thing to a "soul" in function which I have ever heard of. Not to say man does not transcend his meat bag nervous system, but it apparently is integral to our individuality. You could expect to transplant a liver without transplanting the personality, not so the nervous system.

Do you discredit your own God, by saying that he does not or will not reward all beings who attain sentience with a "Soul". Do you know the mechanism and method of "Soul transference". How presumptuous.

Can not the pattern of all unique sentient potentials pre exist an could that not be the essence of the soul. Any being with any pattern of sentience would then attain the status of architype, and be immortal in that sense.
You are the embodyment of an immortal architype in that train of thought.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

It is interesting how there actually have been some strange occurances where people get transplanted organs and they take on traits and memories of the donor. They sometimes switch food preferences or become suicidal in one case I read. But that's a whole different story

Believe me, our Government has been making human clones for many years.
They just don't want the general public knowing about it, because it will bring up issues just like this topic.

The next thing you know is, that the Government will be telling us that UFO's and extra terrestrials don't exist either !

Originally posted by ghaleon12
It is interesting how there actually have been some strange occurances where people get transplanted organs and they take on traits and memories of the donor. They sometimes switch food preferences or become suicidal in one case I read. But that's a whole different story

That could be stricky biochemical. If you take the carbourator out of an old chevy that backfires, you might find the car you moved it to now backfires. Did you move the car's soul?

Originally posted by Cyberbian

Originally posted by ghaleon12
It is interesting how there actually have been some strange occurances where people get transplanted organs and they take on traits and memories of the donor. They sometimes switch food preferences or become suicidal in one case I read. But that's a whole different story

That could be stricky biochemical. If you take the carbourator out of an old chevy that backfires, you might find the car you moved it to now backfires. Did you move the car's soul?

Well in my quote, I never mentioned anything about a soul. Just thought it was interesting because you mentioned about transplanting a liver. It's an interesting topic though.

One thing I don't get though, is what exactly would A.I. want? In some circles, humans are described as nothing more than a "will to receive". How would that fit in to a robot that has A.I.? Anything that it wanted it could instantly have, by just creating its own experience.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ghaleon12]

This has nothing to do with clones, which are in effect a twin of something. Also, its not exactly correct to say the Creator isn't involved. God likes to work through us. Medically inducing a cell to divide does not limit soul or life.

I was browsing and saw this topic title. I just had to comment. I think this is a funny question but also a very true statement at the same time. I could see the Religious community putting their say in it.

Originally posted by ghaleon12

Originally posted by Cyberbian

Originally posted by ghaleon12
It is interesting how there actually have been some strange occurances where people get transplanted organs and they take on traits and memories of the donor. They sometimes switch food preferences or become suicidal in one case I read. But that's a whole different story

That could be stricky biochemical. If you take the carbourator out of an old chevy that backfires, you might find the car you moved it to now backfires. Did you move the car's soul?

Well in my quote, I never mentioned anything about a soul. Just thought it was interesting because you mentioned about transplanting a liver. It's an interesting topic though.

One thing I don't get though, is what exactly would A.I. want? In some circles, humans are described as nothing more than a "will to receive". How would that fit in to a robot that has A.I.? Anything that it wanted it could instantly have, by just creating its own experience.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ghaleon12]

Now that is a great question! What would AI want?

if they had a spirit yes, but since only God gives spirits then no, this body is just technology we inhabit to contact this world.



Keeper

Originally posted by asmeone2
Let's get hypothetical.

If we created artificial intellegence (whether intentionally or not) would it be subject to the same rules of salvation?

Let me get my usual disclaimer in place: My response is strictly my own opinion. It does not represent, in any way, the official policy of the Southern Baptist Convention, nor of any doctrinal body.

In my opinion, no, an Artificial Intelligence wouldn't be "saved" or "lost" in the same way that a human being would be, primarily because I don't think the constructed intelligence would have a soul, any more than my minivan or my PC has a soul (though I must confess that occasionally, my PC does seem to be demon-possessed! ). It would be (at least at its activation), a machine, nothing more (or less) despite its intelligence.

Could 'original sin' be eradicated from the programming?

Why would it need to be? The machine's ancestors had no part in the original sin, no matter how far back you trace their lineage. A constructed intelligence has no connection to the original sin, therefore, it should carry no portion of the burden from it.

If we programed these machines to pray, woudl God listen?

Again, in my opinion, no. Then again, I don't believe Buddhist 'prayer wheels' work, either...for the simple reason that prayer should be an utterance of the heart, not some simple, mechanical action. Prayer should be inspired by real need, or real gratitude, or real respect for Divinity...not simply the turning of a crank, or the execution of a program. Also, in my opinion, coercive prayer, whether it be in the form of forcing your children to pray, or (in the hypothetical set forth in this discussion) the execution of a program over which the machine has no control, makes the 'prayer' nothing but empty words. As an old preacher once put it from the pulpit of my parents' church, "There are a lot of prayers that don't make it to the Throne of the Almighty...there are a lot that don't make it past the church roof."

The interesting question (for me, at least) would be "what if the created intelligence started to pray on its own?". In that case, I'd have to revise my opinion on whether it had a soul, and on whether or not God would be listening....

Imagien a supercomputer dedicated to nothing but prayer... would this influence world events?

In my opinion, no, for the reasons stated above.