Distributive Computing: Artificial Intelligence

[JimG]

We cooperate with God in bringing about new souls in reproducing.

This is quite true. Humans are not capable of creating a supernatural soul, yet God endows each of us with a supernatural soul upon conception.

So it is not out of the realm of the possible that he would similarly endow a highly complex AI with a rational soul. That would be a startling development, but then we would have to evangelize them. Perhpas robots would make good missionaries!

 

[aristotle]

Perhpas robots would make good missionaries!

LOL! I pray we never have to find out!

I just have so much fear about the scientific establishment; just because we can do something does not mean we should.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But if it could be done (and why couldn’t it?) should it be?

My thoughts are that it would be immoral because it separates the right act with the right end. Life is supposed to be produced from life by certain biological processes, as a matter of natural law. It seems a violation of natural law to produce life outside these biological functions.

If life is not being produced, bur rather a sort of separate intelligence or consciousness, then it seems that an attribute of the soul would exist without the soul itself, and this would be clearly disordered, and thus sinful.

I agree with the second half of your post. I believe that selfawarness has a natural resting place in respect of physical being. Imagine a human-mind in a birds body. It might be interesting at first, but it would ultimately be disabling and oppresive in terms of our creativity. I think that it is a good sign of design that we ended up in the body that we did; for it is reflective of our minds ability and expression.

Is A.I. possible; it might seem so, but that’s because we take self awareness for granted.

Why can’t it be done?

Why should an “object” become self aware, just because it is complex? Why do we think that information and memory is all that we need in order to be self reflective? There is no reason to think that information can be aware of itself. We are aware of the information, but we are not the information. Its is next to meaningless to portray personal being as a script of numbers. I am not 00010; this is merely the means and the language by which we process data–it is not me. It is not the ultimate reality of “Aristotle”. To speculate about A.I., is to under-estimate the reality of self consciousness. The quality of Human consciousness far outweighs the reality of matter and energy. To reduce personhood to the level of object, and to say energy is the ultimate reality of my person, is simply evidence that people really don’t know what they’re dealing with.

Can we create A-I? Well…women help create people everyday. The right organic mixture may win favor with Gods will; but a computer is a complete no go. We know that consciousness occurs in relation to organic being. Some kind of Frankenstein monster might be more likely. This idea that we can create a human mind by mixing the elements sounds very similar to the ideas of alchemy; that one can turn lead into Gold. It is assuming that mind is reducible to physical parts and mechanistic complexity, rather then existing in “relation” to a specific type of physical nature. One should not have to explain why it can’t work; one should just be aware of the illogicality of the idea in the first place. It is a false science, a short-sighted naturalistic assumption. Are time would be better spent speculating the unification of man and machine. Some kind of cyborg or hybrid is my dream. Imagine human beings with wings, or women with a cybernetic womb and Nano-technology in the blood stream!!!

 

[brycelaliberte]

Why should an “object” become self aware, just because it is complex? Why do we think that information and memory is all that we need in order to be self reflective? There is no reason to think that information can be aware of itself. We are aware of the information, but we are not the information. Its is next to meaningless to portray personal being as a script of numbers. I am not 00010; this is merely the means and the language by which we process data–it is not me. It is not the ultimate reality of “Aristotle”. To speculate about A.I., is to under-estimate the reality of self consciousness. The quality of Human consciousness far outweighs the reality of matter and energy. To reduce personhood to the level of object, and to say energy is the ultimate reality of my person, is simply evidence that people really don’t know what they’re dealing with.

Self-consciousness is an infinite leap in logic. It cannot be made, but we are still aware of ourselves. Self-consciousness does not arise, either. Self-consciousness is implanted into the soul, which is then given a body.

I think the important thing to remember is that we aren’t bodies with souls, but souls with bodies. So I should think that creating a body (a highly complex machine in this case) doesn’t equal a soul being given.

And by the way, 00010 is 2. Though more properly, you would probably want to say 00000010, or a byte of information equalling 2. (If I remember correctly)

 

[JimG]

The quality of Human consciousness far outweighs the reality of matter and energy. To reduce personhood to the level of object, and to say energy is the ultimate reality of my person, is simply evidence that people really don’t know what they’re dealing with.

This is quite true, and it used to be almost self-evident, but that was when realist philosophy was routinely taught as part of a core curriculum. Anymore, while true, it’s far from self evident to those who have been raised on an scientist philosophy.

 

[mapleoak]

Computers are not capable of thought. They are pure logic circuits which can do nothing, but follow script.

 

[JimG]

Computers are not capable of thought. They are pure logic circuits which can do nothing, but follow script.

Yes, that’s true. But there are those today who seem to think that is exactly what the human brain does, and further that human thought is nothing more than the workings of the brain. It’s the result of an unspoken and perhaps unconsidered materialist philosophy.

 

[Contarini]

People seem to think that this is science fiction. But these people are about to make it happen.

They’re about to try.

Have you read “The Quest of Saint Aquin” by Anthony Boucher?

Edwin

 

[paxromana]

On the contrary it is a noble endeavor.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If they could simulate the pope on a computer, then we would have an infallible computer!

 

[Matthias123]

If it did have a rational soul then couldn’t a robot become the pope?

I don’t want to have Pope IBM XII.

 

[Kevin85]

I just wanted to give my two cents. For a little background, I am a computer science graduate and one of my main areas of interest is AI. The first point of note in this article is they are trying to reverse engineer the human brain using a distributed computer system. This is indicative of trying to cure AIDS with Folding@home, will it ever happen? Maybe. Is it likely? Not very! Thankfully, the human brain is not a simple object which one might open up, look at, and say “Oh, now I see how vision works!” It is far more complicated. Although many of our functions are implemented using electrical impulses, there are also other subtleties which arise. For example: why is it that brain chemistry has a direct affect on conditions such as depression. Why can someone continue to function normally while missing half of their brain? Each of these things (electrical impulses, brain chemistry, medical conditions, etc) might appear logical and reversible on the surface, but put them all together and you have a immensely complex system. Reverse engineering that to such a degree as to simulate it is extremely unlikely at our current level of technology.
In addition to this, when people hear someone say “Artificial Intelligence,” the general image is that of Data from Star Trek, or Johnny 5:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Isn’t that scary! The fact is, however, that our level of AI is not even close to achieving that level of cognitive ability. To give you an idea, a good example of a complex ‘AI’ system is that of the computer “Deep Blue” which was designed by IBM to beat Kasparov in chess. That was one of the most powerful super computers at the time, and granted it did calculate the game graph to many thousand levels, it still only did one thing: play chess. In the end it comes down to the fact that although we might be able to simulate a seemingly ‘human intelligence,’ it is very unlikely that we will ever be able to actually create one, at least in our lifetime. There will definitely be moral and ethical dilemmas if it is ever achieved, but I will leave that to you to discuss.
-Kevin

 

[Caesar517]

I don’t think we can ever create something that is equal to (or superior to) ourselves. Computers are tools designed to help us preform tasks more efficiently. As our technology increases, the efficiency of computers increases as does their value as tools.

To create a true AI, I think we would need a 100% full understanding of ourselves, as a true AI would be a duplicate of the human brain.

God created us in his image. We cannot understand God. Therfore we cannot truly understand our own ‘image’. So I don’t think we can duplicate it.

I think we can (and should try to) come close. God gave us the gift of science with which to explore the universe (in all aspects, not just locations) that He created. To do so glorifies His name.

Of course, many things that God gave us can be subverted by Satan to evil ends. I see no reason to think that improving our tools (computers) should be considered as such.