If the technological singularity comes, should the Church withdraw from making moral pronouncements on technology?

[anEvilAtheist]

EasterJoy;8379797:

Even as fast as change is taking place, it is quite possible that the consequences of prior changes will catch up with us well before the problem presented here becomes an issue.

That’s the way it should be IMO. If we worried about every (mostly unforeseeable) change before developing technologically, there would be no such development.
So? Those problems will be dealt with as they arise; as they always have been.

ICXC NIKA

I disagree. If there is a singularity in which artificial intelligence (AI) becomes better at designing AI then humans and thus the intelligence of AI grows exponentially, it may be too late. If the AI wants to do evil things, humans may no longer be able to stop it. That’s why some of those who think the singularity is going to take place are focused on designing friendly AI.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… quickly : technology seems to have all the answers , and i use it out of necessity , but as to this singularity , a time will come when science and medicine and other sciences realise they have not solved a single problem meaning to solve a problem you must solve it perfectly , completely and permanently , all we get is an endless increase of problems as none in the world today can solve a single problem in reality , and at this time the insanity mans engaed in will halt whilst he takes stock of all his mistakes and is forced to look for a new approach for the answers to all problems , so the real definition of technological singularity should mean – technolgy has solved the first single problem , then it is possible to have this delusional singularity perhaps …

… but the truth be known mans knowledge is not of any use at all on it’s own , man already has all the knowledge he will ever need to solve all the problems within his ability as a finite mind , what man needs to do is understand and appreciate such knowledge and then progress can be made , he has only very little of this understanding and apppreciation left in his fallen mind and that is a chaotic mess – hence this is why the world is such a mess , and why he cannt solve the first singular problem , but we must try i suppose and credit for that , having lost the preternatural gifts the mind is stuffed quite frankly though , so don’t hold your breath knowledge and technology are the answer , they are part of a giant delusional utopia some are striving for , barking up the wrong tree though …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

So do you think that if artificial intelligence appeared to be conscious, the Church should treat such entities the same way it treats humans? Would robots be allowed to enter RCIA, take communion, and marry in the Catholic Church?

If they appear to have immaterial souls, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be welcomed into the Church.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… al is just another expression of mans original rebellion wanting to be god , we are not the creator but we participate in the work of creation , we are not god but we work for god , ai is an impossibility although you can make more and more advanced machines / rbots etc , ai requires a living mind and man cannot do that and never will , he may find scenarios where he thinks he can like cloning but he never will …

… as to my critique of this singularity theory in my last post just above can anyone give me even one example where man has solved a single problem perfectly , completely and permanently ??? , just one will do , technology or other , but don’t give me a reply where god was the one solving the problem , i’m asking about man , and think first before replying , i’m off for a while but will check back later dear friends …

… may god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

… my dear friends ,

… al is just another expression of mans original rebellion wanting to be god , we are not the creator but we participate in the work of creation , we are not god but we work for god , ai is an impossibility although you can make more and more advanced machines / rbots etc , ai requires a living mind and man cannot do that and never will , he may find scenarios where he thinks he can like cloning but he never will …

We wouldn’t make an immaterial soul. However, no one has shown me any proof that God would not place an immaterial soul in a sufficiently advanced machine. We don’t really know and so I try to avoid absolutes in these kinds of questions.

… as to my critique of this singularity theory in my last post just above can anyone give me even one example where man has solved a single problem perfectly , completely and permanently ??? , just one will do , technology or other , but don’t give me a reply where god was the one solving the problem , i’m asking about man , and think first before replying , i’m off for a while but will check back later dear friends …

I remain very skeptical of the singularity but as far the various theories regarding it, I don’t think any of them require a complete and perfect solution. I suppose lots of proponents propose utopias and what not but the basic theory behind the singularity really isn’t that unrealistic. We design a machine that can then design a better machine. The better machine then designs an even more advanced machine, and so on. The process picks up speed and then we lose control and the ability to predict what will happen. Whether that ends up as feasible or not is anyone’s guess.

 

[GEddie]

I disagree. If there is a singularity in which artificial intelligence (AI) becomes better at designing AI then humans and thus the intelligence of AI grows exponentially, it may be too late. If the AI wants to do evil things, humans may no longer be able to stop it. That’s why some of those who think the singularity is going to take place are focused on designing friendly AI.

OK, I get your point.

I imagine however that on this specific issue, there are more people worrying about the “singularity” than in fact working to bring it about. I’ve never seen “singularity” expressed as any governmental or corporate goal, but have seen a snowstorm of philosophy about it.

That said, I don’t believe in the singularity. My uncle predicted in 1983 that computers “outthinking the human mind” would exist in two years. They’re not here. Interfacement of such technology with the human mind/body is even farther from realization: we don’t even have robotic eyes, or satisfactory robotic limbs, yet.

I find it interesting that one would self-identify as an atheist yet believe in the singularity; the second, to my mind, demands more faith than the first.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[Spock]

Just some food for thought. Why is “murder” considered bad, or immoral? Because it is irreversible. If, by some technological advancement we could reverse a premature death (or murder), its relevance would drop drastically. It might turn to be a small misdemeanor.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

OK, I get your point.

I imagine however that on this specific issue, there are more people worrying about the “singularity” than in fact working to bring it about. I’ve never seen “singularity” expressed as any governmental or corporate goal, but have seen a snowstorm of philosophy about it.

That said, I don’t believe in the singularity. My uncle predicted in 1983 that computers “outthinking the human mind” would exist in two years. They’re not here. Interfacement of such technology with the human mind/body is even farther from realization: we don’t even have robotic eyes, or satisfactory robotic limbs, yet.

I find it interesting that one would self-identify as an atheist yet believe in the singularity; the second, to my mind, demands more faith than the first.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

When did I ever say that I believed in the singularity? I think it’s an interesting idea, so I’ve been reading what people on all sides have been saying about it. I don’t yet have a firm position.

 

[cerad2]

If they appear to have immaterial souls, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be welcomed into the Church.

But how would you get around the gender issue? Men and women have very specific roles in the Church and I don’t see how the Church could possibly deal with a race of “its”.

 

[GEddie]

When did I ever say that I believed in the singularity? I think it’s an interesting idea, so I’ve been reading what people on all sides have been saying about it. I don’t yet have a firm position.

Ok, point taken. I assumed (bad idea) that one doesn’t worry philosophically about outcomes one does not believe in. I have never been concerned about the philosophical aspect of alien visitations, for example.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

But how would you get around the gender issue? Men and women have very specific roles in the Church and I don’t see how the Church could possibly deal with a race of “its”.

It doesn’t seem insurmountable. We’d face the same problem with a group of asexual extraterrestrial intelligences. Better minds than mine will work it out, I’m sure. Though the fictional Data on Star Trek was “anatomically correct.” I don’t know if that is a solution or not.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Ok, point taken. I assumed (bad idea) that one doesn’t worry philosophically about outcomes one does not believe in. I have never been concerned about the philosophical aspect of alien visitations, for example.

ICXC NIKA

But worrying about outcomes one doesn’t believe in is the very foundation of Pascal’s wager.
(I don’t know whether you find the wager convincing, but I know a lot of Christians do.)

 

[GEddie]

It doesn’t seem insurmountable. We’d face the same problem with a group of asexual extraterrestrial intelligences. Better minds than mine will work it out, I’m sure. Though the fictional Data on Star Trek was “anatomically correct.” I don’t know if that is a solution or not.

The Church is for human beings; there is no reason to believe that AIs or aliens would want, or for that matter need, to be a part of it.

And Data, after all, was a humanoid robot not an alien. Big difference.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

The Church is for human beings; there is no reason to believe that AIs or aliens would want, or for that matter need, to be a part of it.

What makes a human being…human? IIRC, Aristotelian philosophy, at least in its Thomistic variety, says it is the possession of a rational soul that makes us human beings. Anything with a rational soul is, therefore, “human,” at least in a metaphysical sense. Anything with a rational soul would, presumably, be of interest to both God and His Church.

 

[GEddie]

What makes a human being…human? IIRC, Aristotelian philosophy, at least in its Thomistic variety, says it is the possession of a rational soul that makes us human beings. Anything with a rational soul is, therefore, “human,” at least in a metaphysical sense. Anything with a rational soul would, presumably, be of interest to both God and His Church.

Although you’d say I should be more humble than to disagree with STA, I’d say that being human also requires possession of a human body and (except for Adam and Eve), an origin from the human generational cycle. Aliens and AIs have neither.

Most significantly, it is from the latter that we are stuck with what we call “original sin.”. The Church is a source of means to overcome original sin. Presumably beings not descended from A&E would not have original (or possibly even actual) sin; why then would they need the Church?

ICXC NIKA.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

We wouldn’t make an immaterial soul. However, no one has shown me any proof that God would not place an immaterial soul in a sufficiently advanced machine. We don’t really know and so I try to avoid absolutes in these kinds of questions.

… hi dear friend , i wrote a comprehensive reply but lost it , yahhhh , just quckly though , man is meant to live as god intends and do gods will , and this world man is creating is opposed to gods will and plan , it’s unnatural , it is a theological impossibility that god would work with man to create life apart from procreation of course , i’m talking about machines etc too , we’re being punished for desiring this right now so how could god say yes ??? , an absolute impossibility this q i think dear friend …

I remain very skeptical of the singularity but as far the various theories regarding it, I don’t think any of them require a complete and perfect solution. I suppose lots of proponents propose utopias and what not but the basic theory behind the singularity really isn’t that unrealistic. We design a machine that can then design a better machine. The better machine then designs an even more advanced machine, and so on. The process picks up speed and then we lose control and the ability to predict what will happen. Whether that ends up as feasible or not is anyone’s guess.

… quickly : it’s talking about an evolutionary process happennning to machines like man etc , but evolution is nonsense i;'m afraid , a machine canot evolve the necessary problem solving skills to do this without a living soul or mind etc , even then it needs more than knowledge , it must understand the knowledge or the knowledge is useless , and it then must appreciate what it understands or it does not know if and to what degree the knowledge is useful or not , and why create more and more machines like evolving , why not just improve itself the original machine …

… the theory is flawed in it’s denial or misunderstanding of the liviung soul or mind and the assumption that evolution is the path to progress , i had a lot more to say , why don’t our computers keep at least snapshots of the last say 2 hrs work we do on them so we don’t lose all our work in crashes etc , it can keep updating the snapshots and one can choose to use a little memory for it or not – one can choose , how oft i’ve lost so much work before i saved it , anyway that’s my thoughts very briefly dear friend , may god bless and love you , john …

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Although you’d say I should be more humble than to disagree with STA, I’d say that being human also requires possession of a human body and (except for Adam and Eve), an origin from the human generational cycle. Aliens and AIs have neither.

I’m actually quite undecided about the whole issue. Maybe you are correct. Still, I’ll have to study Aquinas quite a bit more before I’d dismiss his opinion on this issue. I’m really just getting started with Thomism.

Most significantly, it is from the latter that we are stuck with what we call “original sin.”. The Church is a source of means to overcome original sin. Presumably beings not descended from A&E would not have original (or possibly even actual) sin; why then would they need the Church?

I do agree that AI wouldn’t possess original sin, since that is passed through natural generation. I have no idea about any hypothetical ETI, including the question of actual sin. I think it depends on what their first parents did. As far as AI go, if they have freewill (a necessity if they are truly rational souls) they could at least in theory commit their own sins, in which case one might be able argue they’d need the Church to deal with those sins.

… quickly : it’s talking about an evolutionary process happennning to machines like man etc , but evolution is nonsense i;'m afraid , a machine canot evolve the necessary problem solving skills to do this without a living soul or mind etc , even then it needs more than knowledge , it must understand the knowledge or the knowledge is useless , and it then must appreciate what it understands or it does not know if and to what degree the knowledge is useful or not , and why create more and more machines like evolving , why not just improve itself the original machine …

… the theory is flawed in it’s denial or misunderstanding of the liviung soul or mind and the assumption that evolution is the path to progress , i had a lot more to say , why don’t our computers keep at least snapshots of the last say 2 hrs work we do on them so we don’t lose all our work in crashes etc , it can keep updating the snapshots and one can choose to use a little memory for it or not – one can choose , how oft i’ve lost so much work before i saved it , anyway that’s my thoughts very briefly dear friend , may god bless and love you , john …

I have no idea whether the singularity will really occur or what the moral status of AI will be. I’m not certain where any of our technology is really headed. I just see no reason to dismiss the possibility based on today’s limited knowledge.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I’m actually quite undecided about the whole issue. Maybe you are correct. Still, I’ll have to study Aquinas quite a bit more before I’d dismiss his opinion on this issue. I’m really just getting started with Thomism.

I do agree that AI wouldn’t possess original sin, since that is passed through natural generation. I have no idea about any hypothetical ETI, including the question of actual sin. I think it depends on what their first parents did. As far as AI go, if they have freewill (a necessity if they are truly rational souls) they could at least in theory commit their own sins, in which case one might be able argue they’d need the Church to deal with those sins.

I have no idea whether the singularity will really occur or what the moral status of AI will be. I’m not certain where any of our technology is really headed. I just see no reason to dismiss the possibility based on today’s limited knowledge.

… my dear friend ,

… my own view is that man has well and truly enough knowledge to solve all the problems within his ability now but having lost the preternatural gifts his understanding and appreciation of knowledge are greatly diminished being only 5 oir 10 % of normality now and that little bit is very messy and chaotic , ths is why the world is in a real mess largely , though the fall was the loss of reality and this is just part of it , god took away our paradise by making all non - reality , and of necessity and not just punishment , evil or imperfection cannot exist or that is a reflection on the creator and any imperfection in god means god does not be , also god cannot become a man and suffer and die to redeem us but in this delusion outside reality he can , eventually and soon i think we will get reality back , this is our big mission as a church in my opine , so as man acquires more knowledge don’t hold your breath i’d say , all he does is solve no problems and just keeps mutiplying them , time we stopped for a while i think , we’re headed for disaster at present , but how long before the end comes anyway ??? , not long in my opinion , we’ll see , that’s my thoughts dear friend …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Theres a guy trying to create a brain and says hes got 8-9 yrs left or something. I think the singularity group is in solcal…they had a convention and apparently there was only one biologist interviewed…he was absolutely adamant that consciousness could not be replicated with wires…i think this group is headed up by that guy who used to work for micro-soft…hes a first class nut who thinks that he is going to transplant his mind into a computer.

its the entropy or always present molecular disorder in the brain which must be present …they would have to mimic this process…with tissue

the greatest minds in the world are trying to replicate consciousness and basically the
inside scoop is…they do not have a clue where to even start.

speed is one thing…what there talking about don’t forget is allot of dramatized hype …
also…communication is huge due to internet ect…

the big ticket is meaning…people need meaning …theater is starting to get the picture because all they care about is money and …meaning sells…things are turning around a little…theater controls quite a bit…once theme starts to gravitate toward meaning culture will become a little richer…i think things can be looked at in a positive way somewhat…theres a little more thoughtfulness finding its way through…we are going through a tough stage morally and its mostly due to a lack of access to vent that people have…

remember…many cultures we are evolving out of had city squares and more social interaction’s through the hundreds of years which allowed people to get a grip on their feelings…feelings have quite a bit to do with ethic-morality nurturing ect.

now things are turning around communication wise and people are starting to discover the value of meaning in a holistic way…which of course is normal, natural, and therefore enjoyable…

many corruptive influence’s are loosing popularity as theres no gain, simply loss, failure, expectation and so on…thoughtlessness ruins the world with anti hope. hope is a big ticket.
so if anything my feeling is very positive for man who is interested in living a full life in todays changing world…there will always be something which we are supposed to be in awe about…comunication is mans best bet for something to be positive about

in a way the deviation from wholesomeness has become un-attractive and ugly…man can see for himself the fruits of negativism in the forlorn countenance of those promoting anti god like themes no doubt about it…
in order to feel good which everybody likes…you gotta think good and be good:thumbsup:

 

[colmywaykurtz]

hes a first class nut who thinks that he is going to transplant his mind into a computer.

A few years ago, when I used to haunt World Net Daily a lot, I remember Hal (“The Late Great Planet Earth”) Lindsey posted an editorial once about the possibility of digitized consciousness and it being a virtual form of immortality. He felt that this would be the “escape hatch” for society’s economic and political elite, leaving the rest of us to suffer “permanent death” while they went on.

I just think it’s interesting that such thinking is finding its way into popularity in Protestant evangelical circles. Is there any form of bizarreness that can’t be entertained once you do away with a supreme ecclesiastical authority?