What would be the religious consequences of true Artificial Inteligence?I?

[CrucisLucia]

A sentient being with feeling and emotion. Self-aware.

It would be very difficult, if not outright impossible for artificial intelligence to reach a level of self-consciousness, sentience and awareness. It is very dubious how can a complex system of circuitry, programming and machines can lead to a fully-conscious and self-aware soul. A development of a real self-aware AI, or a “strong AI” in Searle’s parlance contradicts much conventional theology and doctrine. In this case, it would lead to several problems regarding discussion of human sentience and consciousness and doctrines on the nature of the soul.

The existence of true self-aware AI has still not been demonstrated. Various men have made analogies to explain this concept. One notable one is the Chinese Room thought experiment by John Searle, arguing against a real AI.

Whether technology advances enough to develop a real AI, in the end, it is not the job of the Church to make dogmatic assumptions on things still not discovered and developed and remain speculative. What if technology really cannot develop AI? The same with extraterrestrial aliens, we still do not know if such exist and henceforth it is not the job of the Magisterium to speculate regarding either aliens or AI.

 

[edwest2]

If a machine can manifest true artificial intelligence, then it must be able to think for itself and move beyond its programming. At that point, while not technically “human”, it would become a life form and should be afforded a certain degree of legal status. Of course, ability to think for oneself is relative and that would affect the level of legal status. For instance, a dog has some ability to think for itself, certainly more than a toaster has, but less than a human does. This is at the end of the day a question for the lawyers.

If if is constrained by programming it can not break to believe in certain values, it is not true artificial intelligence. And with that in mind, maybe its time for the Vatican to come up with a document on “Pastoral Care of Artificial Life Forms”. After all, baptism is meant to give someone new life, not to destroy it.

But hey, if this does come to fruition, that’s the vocation crisis over. Each parish can have as many artificial priests as they want! "Don’t you just love Father 5478464, he’s so traditional!

It would never - under any definition - qualify as a life form. If one were struck by a vehicle, it would not be dead in any sense of the word. It would be repaired or scrapped.

The Vatican is very good with dealing with such distinctions.

Ed

 

[IWantGod]

It would never - under any definition - qualify as a life form. If one were struck by a vehicle, it would not be dead in any sense of the word. It would be repaired or scrapped.

The Vatican is very good with dealing with such distinctions.

Ed

You seem to believe that there is a difference based on what a sentient being is made out of. What is your justification for this distinction. Does biology really have anything to do with it.

 

[edwest2]

A thing is a thing. The rest is philosophy based on arbitrary characteristics that defend - supposedly - the idea that some animals are sentient.

Sentient is being able to understand and relate to a being’s environment with little or no outside (name removed by moderator)ut. A bird flies. How does it know? A bird builds a nest and lays eggs in it. How does it know? Challenge: Does anybody know how to build a bird’s nest correctly? Where to place it so that predators would have difficulty getting to it?

A bird feeds the newly hatched chicks. How does it know what is food? How does it know the right amount for each chick?

Ed

 

[Wesrock]

Solmyr illustrated how difficult it would be to tell between a real consciousness and an imitation one. I do not mean biological versus artificial, but how do we test?

Anyway, it would not disprove the soul. If it truly was achieved, it would be evidence that the mind can be exolained by material processes. That is not a proof that religion is false or even that the soul is not real.

 

[Solmyr]

It would never - under any definition - qualify as a life form.

How do you define a “life-form”? The only coherent definition that I am aware of is: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. There is no word here about life being based upon carbon molecules. There are a few arbitrarily chosen attributes that are usually associated with “life”.

What is the difference between a “dead” human and a permanently “deactivated” silicon-based entity (call it robot, if you so desire)? When both were operational, both exhibited complex behavior in a complex environment. To declare one as “expendable” just because its building material is not carbon based is completely arbitrary and unjustified.

You seem to believe that there is a difference based on what a sentient being is made out of. What is your justification for this distinction. Does biology really have anything to do with it.

Indeed. Biology studies carbon based complex entities. Whether those entities are able to perform discursive thinking, create abstractions is not important.

A thing is a thing. The rest is philosophy based on arbitrary characteristics that defend - supposedly - the idea that some animals are sentient.

Well, let’s distinguish between sentient and sapient. Sentient is capable of feeling, sapient is capable or rational thinking. Google “sentient vs sapient”. Of these the ability of being able to perform rational thinking seems to be much more important.

Sentient is being able to understand and relate to a being’s environment with little or no outside (name removed by moderator)ut. A bird flies. How does it know? A bird builds a nest and lays eggs in it. How does it know? Challenge: Does anybody know how to build a bird’s nest correctly? Where to place it so that predators would have difficulty getting to it?

A bird feeds the newly hatched chicks. How does it know what is food? How does it know the right amount for each chick?

Instinct or pre-wired “knowledge”. Insects have no “brain”, all their necessary abilities are pre-wired. As long as the environment stays stable, they are able to perform just fine. But they cannot “learn”.

Solmyr illustrated how difficult it would be to tell between a real consciousness and an imitation one. I do not mean biological versus artificial, but how do we test?

That is the point. If you cannot “test” for the difference, then it makes no sense to posit a difference. Is there a difference between a “real McCoy” and a perfect imitation of it?

Anyway, it would not disprove the soul. If it truly was achieved, it would be evidence that the mind can be exolained by material processes. That is not a proof that religion is false or even that the soul is not real.

Correct. The point is that true AI makes the assumption (or hypothesis) of the “soul” irrelevant. And that is the “danger” that makes AI to be “uncomfortable” for religion.

 

[CrucisLucia]

How do you define a “life-form”? The only coherent definition that I am aware of is: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. There is no word here about life being based upon carbon molecules. There are a few arbitrarily chosen attributes that are usually associated with “life”.

What is the difference between a “dead” human and a permanently “deactivated” silicon-based entity (call it robot, if you so desire)? When both were operational, both exhibited complex behavior in a complex environment. To declare one as “expendable” just because its building material is not carbon based is completely arbitrary and unjustified.

Or, it is too much simplistic a definition. Nobody ever said that the definition of life is to be restricted to carbon-based organisms. However, general definitions of what constitutes “life” and what constitutes an “organism” include the ability of homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, reproduction as well as response to stimuli. These definitions works because we simply observe that virtually all or the majority of organisms found in nature possesses these with very few exceptions, therefore a good list of characteristics encompassing all life on Earth. These characteristics also are what is missing in today’s robots under current technology for there to be a consensus for robots to qualify as “life”.

If biologists still cannot agree whether viruses qualify as “living organisms” because they lack autonomous reproduction, growth or metabolism, then, a consensus to define robots as “living organisms” is more unlikely.

If AI is able to become sentient and sapient beings, then it makes them sentient and sapient beings, not living organisms. A theoretical conscious ghost of a dead person, is a sentient and a sapient being but not necessarily a living organism.

That is the point. If you cannot “test” for the difference, then it makes no sense to posit a difference. Is there a difference between a “real McCoy” and a perfect imitation of it?

Well, we can test in terms of AI and machines.

A good discussion point is the Chinese Room thought experiment by John Searle, outlining that a machine able to fool people it is intelligently conscious is actually not as it merely follows step-by-step programming and does not understand what it does.

Correct. The point is that true AI makes the assumption (or hypothesis) of the “soul” irrelevant. And that is the “danger” that makes AI to be “uncomfortable” for religion.

Yes, it does not disprove souls. What it merely demonstrates is that AI are able to be self-aware and posses consciousness without a soul, which would be problematic to religious doctrine.

 

[Solmyr]

Or, it is too much simplistic a definition. Nobody ever said that the definition of life is to be restricted to carbon-based organisms. However, general definitions of what constitutes “life” and what constitutes an “organism” include the ability of homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, reproduction as well as response to stimuli.

And these are artificial and imprecise requirements. 1) Homeostasis for example. To maintain one’s existence in changing circumstances? How much change is allowed in the circumstances before the entity becomes inoperational? Is the inoperational status reversible?
2) Taking in energy and using it is obvious, but that could be either consuming chemical “food” or directly converting the energy provided by the Sun, like the vegetation does. A photocell would do just the same.
3) Growth is not necessary at all.
4) Adaptation is just a different word for homeostasis.
5) Reproduction could be organic or not. Remember the “theory of self-reproducing automata” by John von Neumann, E. F. Codd and other mathematicians. And it is irrelevant anyhow.
6) Complex response to complex stimuli is the most important point.

These definitions works because we simply observe that virtually all or the majority of organisms found in nature possesses these with very few exceptions, therefore a good list of characteristics encompassing all life on Earth. These characteristics also are what is missing in today’s robots under current technology for there to be a consensus for robots to qualify as “life”.

They are still arbitrary, and the hypothetical silicon based life forms can fulfill all the important ones. The fact that they are still not fully implemented in todays’ robots is not important.

If biologists still cannot agree whether viruses qualify as “living organisms” because they lack autonomous reproduction, growth or metabolism, then, a consensus to define robots as “living organisms” is more unlikely.

I think it is more likely. It is no wonder that computer viruses were named as such for the similarity with the biological ones. Your point is important, the label: “living” is arbitrary. There are the web-crawling info-bots to collect information. Purposeful activity.

If AI is able to become sentient and sapient beings, then it makes them sentient and sapient beings, not living organisms.

They might not be biologically alive - if we reserve this phrase to the result of “organic chemistry” (aka carbon based entities) but they would be “intellectually alive”. A newborn child is biologically alive, but not intellectually.

A good discussion point is the Chinese Room thought experiment by John Searle, outlining that a machine able to fool people it is intelligently conscious is actually not as it merely follows step-by-step programming and does not understand what it does.

How do you know that the system (the room) does not understand? The programming or teaching probably would take many years, just like with human beings. How many years does it take to teach someone to understand any language - especially the “first one”? The whole process is repetition and imitation based while the appropriate neural connections develop. But there is no need for the “Chinese room” hypothesis. There already exists the machine: “Watson”, which was able to beat the best human players in Jeopardy. On what grounds can one declare that Watson did not “understand” the questions it answered correctly? How do we know that the human Jeopardy players “understood” the questions? I watch Jeopardy every day when I can, and I don’t even understand many of the questions, less being able to give the correct answers. After all the questions are intentionally ambiguous and misleading.

And Searle’s assumption that the process of thinking can be reduced to a static set of symbol-manipulation is incorrect. The transition function in the brain (as in a cellular automaton) is not static. It changes constantly, with every new bit of information.

Yes, it does not disprove souls. What it merely demonstrates is that AI are able to be self-aware and posses consciousness without a soul, which would be problematic to religious doctrine.

Which is the whole point I intended to make.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A machine, even though humanoid, would still be a machine and contain only the things programmed into it.

What about learning machines or machines that make use of genetic and evutionary algorithms? The could contain more that that which was programmed into them. The knowledge of the developers might be a starting point but more could be accumulated.

The artificial intelligence may be programmed to be atheistic.

What does that mean? Or a related question, how would machines and non-physical beings interact with each other?

 

[anon67074017]

What about learning machines or machines that make use of genetic and evutionary algorithms? The could contain more that that which was programmed into them. The knowledge of the developers might be a starting point but more could be accumulated.

What does that mean? Or a related question, how would machines and non-physical beings interact with each other?

Militant atheists may program artificial intelligence to think like them. I am sure they can be programmed to communicate with each other as well.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Militant atheists may program artificial intelligence to think like them.

How do Militant atheist think and how would that be different from how a non-Militant atheist or non-atheist thinks?

I am sure they can be programmed to communicate with each other as well.

Machines already communicate with each other. MachInes and people already communicate with each other too.

 

[anon67074017]

How do Militant atheist think and how would that be different from how a non-Militant atheist or non-atheist thinks?

Machines already communicate with each other. MachInes and people already communicate with each other too.

Militant atheists may want artificial intelligence robots to take over humanity in order to spread the New World Order agenda.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Militant atheists may want artificial intelligence robots to take over humanity in order to spread the New World Order agenda.

You’ve named a presumed goal, though it doesn’t really answer my questions. But okay.

 

[CrucisLucia]

And these are artificial and imprecise requirements. 1) Homeostasis for example. To maintain one’s existence in changing circumstances? How much change is allowed in the circumstances before the entity becomes inoperational? Is the inoperational status reversible?
2) Taking in energy and using it is obvious, but that could be either consuming chemical “food” or directly converting the energy provided by the Sun, like the vegetation does. A photocell would do just the same.
3) Growth is not necessary at all.
4) Adaptation is just a different word for homeostasis.
5) Reproduction could be organic or not. Remember the “theory of self-reproducing automata” by John von Neumann, E. F. Codd and other mathematicians. And it is irrelevant anyhow.
6) Complex response to complex stimuli is the most important point. .

An attribute or a characteristic belonging to all living organisms or virtually all of living beings on Earth should be considered a good definition of what constitutes “life” or as criteria to determine which is a living organism simply because we have found no forms of life that evolved outside Earth or came by other than a different process.

For example, cellular organization is a good definition because all living beings are composed of cells. We simply have not found a living being without cells, does not reproduce, or its genetic material is held in mediums other than DNA. The same goes for all other “artificial and imprecise” requirements.

I know that you are bordering on the theoretical and speculative, such as technology allowing mechanical lifeforms to fulfill the conventional definitions, But, as it remains to be seen whether technological innovation can progress to such point, and we have not observed silicon-based lifeforms, the conventional definitions of life need not to be thrown away.

How did “complex response to complex stimuli” became a good definition for life? What made it so? Is it because it applies to all living beings that evolved on Earth? If so, why ignore the other definitive characteristics?

I think it is more likely. It is no wonder that computer viruses were named as such for the similarity with the biological ones. Your point is important, the label: “living” is arbitrary. There are the web-crawling info-bots to collect information. Purposeful activity.

“Living” is arbitrary. “Living organisms” is not an arbitrary label and is under a general set of definitive characteristics. You are confusing purposeful activity with a living organism. A non-lifeform can certainly be programmed with such but it does not make it a living organism.

They might not be biologically alive - if we reserve this phrase to the result of “organic chemistry” (aka carbon based entities) but they would be “intellectually alive”. A newborn child is biologically alive, but not intellectually.

Or so it is. “Intellectually alive” is different from “biological life”.

How do you know that the system (the room) does not understand?

That is basically the point of the Chinese Room thought experiment. You are being placed inside the room and its happenings, hence you are able to find out.

The programming or teaching probably would take many years, just like with human beings. How many years does it take to teach someone to understand any language - especially the “first one”? The whole process is repetition and imitation based while the appropriate neural connections develop.

The Chinese Room thought experiment is concerned with today’s technology, not the speculative. This kind of “learning” is not possible with computers and AI today. The mental processes of AI today are far too limited, and hence, the “learning” functions of today’s “learning machines” and neural networks are in its infancy. Synapses in animals and humans are a light years contrast from binary intelligence of computers, as memsistor memory is still under development.

But there is no need for the “Chinese room” hypothesis. There already exists the machine: “Watson”, which was able to beat the best human players in Jeopardy. On what grounds can one declare that Watson did not “understand” the questions it answered correctly? How do we know that the human Jeopardy players “understood” the questions? I watch Jeopardy every day when I can, and I don’t even understand many of the questions, less being able to give the correct answers. After all the questions are intentionally ambiguous and misleading.

Rather, you are anthromoporpizing Watson. We can know if the human Jeopardy players understood the questions by asking them whether they were confused or not. We can know if “Watson” understood the English language questions by analyzing how it is programmed to analyze and deconstruct the English language. Watson does not understand questions the way we do, but merely parses questions into keywords and fragments to find statistically related phrases, using statistical analysis - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)#Description

Certainly, Watson does not understand the questions in the way the human Jeopardy players do.

And Searle’s assumption that the process of thinking can be reduced to a static set of symbol-manipulation is incorrect. The transition function in the brain (as in a cellular automaton) is not static. It changes constantly, with every new bit of information.

It fits more the thinking set of modern computers, not the human brain. Computer intelligence is binary, in contrast to animal and human synapses.

 

[CrucisLucia]

Militant atheists may want artificial intelligence robots to take over humanity in order to spread the New World Order agenda.

The Jewish Zionist computer programmers are on it again.

 

[IWantGod]

Correct. The point is that true AI makes the assumption (or hypothesis) of the “soul” irrelevant. And that is the “danger” that makes AI to be “uncomfortable” for religion.

You keep sneaking in this “hypothesis” of the soul. But Its never been a scientific hypothesis. It wouldn’t make one slight bit of difference If true AI existed because science cannot determine what sentience actually is in nature. Its a philosophical question. Whether we are dealing with its relationship to an organic brain or a circuit board the question still stands regardless of its irrelevancy to science.