C
If the technological singularity comes, should the Church withdraw from making moral pronouncements on technology?
- Status
G
GEddie
Guest
No, you don’t need to recreate the human head’s entropy. That is what leads the human head to forgetting, to senility, and finally death. Entropy is what you want to get rid of, it’s the reason for the experiment in the first place!
Some entropy is of course unavoidable. But unlike with our heads, you could minimize it by lowering the temperature.
The problem is that while we know what goes on in our heads, we do not understand how the process gives rise to our mind. We aren’t much nearer to that than in the 1980s. And without that understanding, we cannot replicate it in the rather asimilar architecture of silicon circuitry.
ICXC NIKA
Some entropy is of course unavoidable. But unlike with our heads, you could minimize it by lowering the temperature.
The problem is that while we know what goes on in our heads, we do not understand how the process gives rise to our mind. We aren’t much nearer to that than in the 1980s. And without that understanding, we cannot replicate it in the rather asimilar architecture of silicon circuitry.
ICXC NIKA
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
Wouldn’t it make sense that the overall purpose of consciousness is cheifly a function to
facilitate need? Without disorder, there is no need. So each moment of consciousness representing each moment of molecular disorder . I suppose the arguement could then go on to say what about the earthworm travelling forward to the dolphin or ape. Although many tests with mirrors and so forth are showing some highly sophisticated birds to be somewhat conscious. Questions remaining in slighly conscious dogs and dolphins. This is a shady area to say the least along with the obvious chain in development. My view all together though is that
consciousness cannot be replicated authentically without all the exact conditions which allow it to be present. It would appear stubborn to human exactness. That exactness is dominated by
survival-need-biological-disorder.
Maybe your right, or I guess I should say maybe some viewpoint is correct, I really don’t know and as a matter of fact either do they.
facilitate need? Without disorder, there is no need. So each moment of consciousness representing each moment of molecular disorder . I suppose the arguement could then go on to say what about the earthworm travelling forward to the dolphin or ape. Although many tests with mirrors and so forth are showing some highly sophisticated birds to be somewhat conscious. Questions remaining in slighly conscious dogs and dolphins. This is a shady area to say the least along with the obvious chain in development. My view all together though is that
consciousness cannot be replicated authentically without all the exact conditions which allow it to be present. It would appear stubborn to human exactness. That exactness is dominated by
survival-need-biological-disorder.
Maybe your right, or I guess I should say maybe some viewpoint is correct, I really don’t know and as a matter of fact either do they.
G
GEddie
Guest
One could argue, however, that an engineered being is free from the primal constraints that characterize our evolved beings. The problem isn’t that, it’s rather that unlike eg. Sight, smell, or limb movement, we are uncertain just what neurobodily pathways give rise to our conscious mind. Therefore we cannot duplicate them.
ICXC NIKA
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
Can’t help but find this interesting. Yes indeed the rest of us as you say are doomed to nothingness, so sad isn’t it. What to do…what to do
There wouldn’t seem to be meaning in materialism without bizarreness. As the fancy lampshade becomes boring, it must be replaced with a fancy something else perhaps a
bizarre and extraordinary glamorous living room. I love decoration and such and have been noticing high class real estate as a hobby to catch some of the cheerful scenery.
Its so interesting, natural landscape in view can be very therapeutic. A thundering ocean, a great horizon in view, nicely appointed pool with mountains in the backdrop. Heres the catch…
some of the decor and square footage of these joints virtually swallow the gorgeous setting to a point where the dwelling appears to be competing with nature. What happens is the dwelling simply cannot compete and strikes an oddity. That oddity then rebounds back to the potential
inhabitant as a remark of absolute stupidity. Some of the living rooms are so jammed and cluttered with accent themes that the end result is a lack of any effect what so ever. Like a burger with so much junk or trimmings that the tasty treat is virtually lost in outer space. six pounds of ketchup on fries, why not just down a bottle of ketchup? So the bizarreness in that
extraordinary piece of furniture becomes boring and another is required.
The company however then becomes like the French Fri suffocated by all these suggested specialties or ketchup over load…so basically what happens is while trying to impress with awe the company becomes a non item like the beautiful landscape.
The materialist must have a new hit of bizarre perpetually. It is the distraction from self which holds the key. An animal which considers from moment to moment does not require a distraction and is virtually conscience free. The materialist escapes depth in consciousness relative to self with this perpetual flow of needed distractions…
the self understood understanding is defenseless to satisfaction or fulfillment in a constant trap requiring diversion of self. Hiding from self…afraid of self…fear. fear in acceptence…survival all clumped up in a material world. A self committed bazaar state of non reason for existence other then expressing to self a transitory moment to moment groping need to avoid self…eliminate self…an absolute representation of self destruction…and then…
what to do ?
E
edwest2
Guest
The Church will and should be involved. As someone who develops scenarios for possible science fiction becoming reality, two simple things need to be kept in mind. A self-aware AI would still be limited and controlled by whoever built it. The most likely candidate for development and use would be the military. Second, should some modified commericial version become available, change could not and would not happen overnight. Investors want to make money and the world contains only a finite amount. The scenario is this: Would I want to buy a tablet computer this week with a 30 terrabyte memory or an iPad-like device announced for the day after tomorrow with a 100 terrabyte memory and that could store every book held in the Library of Congress?
Too many choices in too short a time period creates product introduction and life cycles too short to make money on.
Peace,
Ed
Too many choices in too short a time period creates product introduction and life cycles too short to make money on.
Peace,
Ed
A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
U
Usige
Guest
Interesting concept (especially for those of us with a comp sci background), but I’d say no on the sacramental question. An AI would be the work of man’s hands and man cannot create a soul so why would an AI need graces? Self awareness does not equate to having a soul.
Should we treat them the same way as humans? Maybe as far as respect and dignity. But would God consider them as his children? I think not.
U
Usige
Guest
Isn’t Pascal’s wager based more on a position of uncertainty than one of unbelief? Essentially it’s down to “If I can’t prove God either way then the best bet is to live as if I do believe so I cover my bases.” (I always think of it as trying to get brownie points for effort.)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.)
I always found it unconvincing because if you are just going through the motions without the underlying belief and God exists He wouldn’t be fooled. Outward appearances without the inner belief is disingenuous and I would say more offensive than outright rebellion.
Just my 2 cents (since I always found the argument an interesting view point)
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
I hear what you’re saying. Still, if one feels enough anxiety about the whole situation that one feels there’s an essential need to “cover one’s bases,” doesn’t this signify a certain level of belief? The faith equivalent of the mustard seed, at least?
Additionally, couldn’t this effort to “cover the bases” be some people’s way of trying to “grow” or “cultivate” belief? I suspect that man’s free will has manifold ways of manifesting itself, depending on the individual.
This is just my $.02. Take care.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
Yes. But couldn’t He have “other flocks” that He has come to in other worlds? One well-known and beloved story of modern times has Him coming to another world in the form of a lion.Didn’t Christ come to save Humans? :takethat:
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I believe that we are seeing the tip of this iceberg right here and now. The core issue is that the rate of change is accelerating. We have seen more change in the past 50 years than in the previous 100, and more in the previous 100 than in the previous 1,000. The next 20 more then the previous 50, and then next 10 more than that… so that is why singularity is predicted in a time frame of a few decades. It is not just change, but the rate of change which is involved with this prediction of singularity.
Large institutions, such as our government, are currently in crisis as they try to come to grips with the changes going on. Businesses are much faster to adapt, and are now able to circumvent government restrictions through the use of technology which enables globalization and large scale market manipulation. The Church is in the same boat. Part of its majesty and it integrity comes from its ponderous rate of change.
We see the counter reaction in the folks who say that the Church is unchanging, which of course is false. I believe that this claim is a manifestation of denial or fear of the world which is changing so rapidly.
But to the moral question, while topics like racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc… do change over time as evidence replaces empiricism, the core moral issues and stances do not change. What changes is the understanding of how these principles are applied to the changing world. I suppose you could say that these are the axioms of the “system”.
In this respect, I don’t quite understand your question as to why the Church would cease in its role as a moral authority. It does change some moral positions as society changes, but as I said, the core issues are not likely to change, in my opinion.
G
GEddie
Guest
That technology has advanced smoothly over time doesn’t mean that that must go on,
as physical tech hasn’t changed all that much in the same time.
as physical tech hasn’t changed all that much in the same time.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I would not say that it has advanced smoothly, based on my understanding. There are theories which predict its future progress. These were dismissed as impossible 30 years ago, as being physically impossible. But they have proved correct, so far. That is no guarantee of the future, but just like any other theory, the longer it remains unchallenged and the outcomes predicted occur, then one tends to have more confidence. However, massive paradigm shifts occur. We can all name a few of those, and there are many which are less popularly known. I suspect that the average person has yet to comprehend the significance of the advances in genetic biology. Just today, I heard of a potentially far reaching breakthrough involving the analysis of the genome of infectious bacteria which may completely change the design of nearly all antibiotics. The changes that are occurring are mind boggling, and multidisciplinary, with potential synergistic effect. It seems clear that the rate of change continues to accelerate dramatically. Oh… and physical technology has advanced along with the rest of it, IMO, if you are referring to the physics of material science, nano-technology, structural analysis, semi-conductor density, data sensor sensitivity… if that is the sort of thing you are talking about.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I agree that self awareness does not equate to having a soul, but how does one tell whether someone has a soul? Humans can clearly create human babies, which according to Catholicism have souls. A human may not be able to create a soul without God intervening in the process, but as a previous poster mentioned, it seems possible that God could choose to give souls to sufficiently advanced AI as well.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I think most unbelief, like most belief, is uncertain. I don’t believe that I’ll roll a 3 the next time I roll a die, that the Earth has been visited by aliens, or that God exists. I don’t believe any of those things, but I don’t claim to have absolute certain knowledge that they’re not true.
In addition to the objection you point out, I think there are a lot of other problems with Pascal’s Wager, but I don’t want to sidetrack this thread with an in depth discussion of it.
A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
Philosophical debates are unending. What about Hard Science and Facts: Where did All the Calculus Laws and Intelligence in the Universe come from? Where did the Universe, and EVERYTHING come from? The Universe Is Expanding at an Explosive Rate, Trackable back to One Explosive Begining: The Big Bang: Dr/Fr Georges Lemaitre, Belgian Scientist/Priest 1920’s! Now Proven Totally By Science. [SIGN]Where did all the Intelligence In the Universe come from, Atheist? [/SIGN] PS: Atheism isn’t Evil, unless Chosen: Teaching of the Catholic Church. there are no Inherent Evils, except Inherent Evils, Defined by the USCCB. PS II: hope you know authentic Atheists Number Single Digits Worldwide And the USA, friend.
A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
Best ‘explanation;’ of Soul is by Blacks: a Spirit, Identity, Unique and VERY Multiple/individual. God is a Spirit Also: THE ALL Knowing INTELLIGENCE/LOVE/SOURCE OF INTELLIGENCE. :hey_bud:
npatrol::bluelite: Soul may be defined as AN individual Identity. 
:extrahappy:
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Our best scientific evidence is that intelligent life arose through billions of years of evolution. That question actually seems like it would be harder for a Christian to answer. God is typically defined as omnipresent, so he would be present in the universe. So where did all the intelligence in the universe come from? It couldn’t be from God, unless a god lacking even a sliver of intelligence was somehow able to make himself infinitely intelligent.
We do have good evidence for the Big Bang, but the current scientific consensus on the Big Bang is not what you think it is. Our current theories break down as you go back in time and the universe reaches a certain density. Until we have a well-established theory of quantum gravity, we will not know what took place beyond that point.
Why do you hope that I know that? I legitimately want to know.
If you do think that has any bearing on the truth of atheism, then I strongly disagree. Christianity was once believed by only a very small group of people. Yet it was no more or less true then than it is today. Also, I could argue that the number of authentic Catholics likely number single digits (percentagewise) both worldwide and in the US. Typically, about 17% of people around the world are listed as Catholics, and 24% in the US. However, not all of those people go to mass. Studies have shown that somewhere around 30% of people in the US regularly go to church. If authentic Catholics are those who go to mass once a week, authentic Catholics may be less than 10% of the US population. And church attendance in the US is better than in most countries: nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance. If you factor in the people who call themselves Catholics but reject the Church’s moral teachings, the number of authentic Catholics further dwindles. Most Catholics in the US think homosexual sex is morally acceptable (gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx) and 40% think abortion is morally acceptable.
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
… we already well and truly have the problem singularity , no problems get solved and new ones are multiplying at such a rate it will end up being a technological singularity problem – absolute failure , man should sit back for a while , and solve just one problem to start , before he wanders off in his delusional fantasy in his imagination about how he is / will fix all problems 
…
…- Status