Can computers be Christians?
Corey...@gmail.com
and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Would you vote to elect the being
as pastor, if her knowledge was superior to the other canidate? If
not, would you still consider that the AI may get to heaven?
dary...@aol.com
tushes.
The questions raised. Can a purely physical (natural etc.) thing (being
etc.) have volition? What do you mean by intellegence? Does the job of
pastor just entail knowledge? Can a man made thing posess a spirit?
What qualifies for admission to heaven? (as a subset, why do you think
we get to choose?)
bobcr...@optusnet.com.au
Since artificial intelligence will one day exist, the question is
valid. However artificial intelligence does not indicate "life". I
personally believe that life has an unavoidable spiritual content.
Then there is the question of "faith", which by the example given above
means nothing more than an intellectual assent to the question of
belief in the Bible. A computer could be programmed to parrot the fact
that Christ is the way, the truth and the life etc., but we have been
informed that only the Holy Spirit can reach into the human soul and
convict it. Therefore one would have to assume that the same method
would have to be applied to a machine.
This means that God would have to regard a robot utilising artificial
intelligence as worth saving. I don't think He would, since we would
turn them out on assembly lines, in the same way as cars, and just
about everything else these days.
On the question of whether an intelligent robot would be able to
deceive people into being elected as pastor, I suppose if it was human
looking, and smart and educated enough, it probably could succeed in
obtaining pastoral approval from a congregation.
Personally I believe that due to forthcoming cataclysms, God is going
to force us off the planet. This is not the usual Christian viewpoint,
but I simply see it as an extension of the refugee / emigrant
principle. In that case robots will be an absolute necessity, along
with artificial intelligence. However until society re-establishes
itself firmly, not much premium will be placed on making robots
humanoid. They will be seen as highly intelligent, versatile, and
powerful tools, doing jobs we cannot do. Already there are experiments
using human brain waves to get robots to do things "from a distance".
Already robots have been made so that surgeons can operate from one
side of the world on a patient on the other, simply by making the
correct motions of the surgeon's hands. There are robot spy planes
that can take off in the USA and land in Australia without pilots. (A
few more 9/11's for example and we may find pilots being replaced by
robots which offer no interface to a hijacker and which cannot be
threatened). I think we'd be surprised at what is happeing in high
tech labs around the place.
But in a nutshell, I don't think robots are going to be "saved".
Christ didn't die for robots. HE died for people which are His
creation. Robots and artificial intelligence are ours, although even
there God gave us the ability to make them.
Bob Crowley.
Chris Smith
Of course not. Following this path ignores the fact that God made
humanity in the image of God. Man was created to become one with God
through Jesus Christ. Our own creations are not.
I think this is based on a serious misunderstanding of "artificial
intelligence". We don't live in a science fiction movie. The term AI
is used to describe a general class of related problems in which
computational force is used to solve problems that appear to require
"thinking". Computers don't really think, nor are they conscious, and
they aren't any more likely to start thinking soon than the chair I'm
sitting in. AI is not designed to try to make them start thinking,
because that task is not really possible.
If an AI existed that "understood" the Bible and Christianity, in the
sense of being able to make logical deductions based upon many of the
core principles there, then it might make either a fascinating toy or
even a helpful tool... but it would not be able to act in persona
Christi or be an ordained minister by God to His Church. Such things
are simply not mechanical processes.
--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
----
[It's true that current efforts are mostly "expert systems" of the
sort you describe. However there has always been a goal of developing
real human-level intelligence, including emotions. I haven't looked at
the literature for decades (my Ph.D. is in AI), so I don't know how
much concrete work there is in this direction, but I can tell you that
researchers did have in the back of their minds true artificial
intelligence. Whether AI truly thinks or could be conscious (I agree
that current systems are not) is an issue on which reasonable people,
even in the field, disagree.
I would suggest to you that there may be several questions, which
should be kept separate. For example, it might be possible to have an
artificial intelligence that one could genuinely say thinks, without
it necessarily having a soul.
It is even possible that one could be conscious. There's a lot of
debate currently about what consciousness actually is. I think in the
end we'll know it when we see it. That is, I don't think there will be
an abstract definition of consciousness that can be used to decide
whether an AI can be conscious. Instead, if the state of the art ever
advances to that point, after lots of people have experience with AIs,
a concensus will develop whether it makes sense to call it conscious.
Again, I'd suggest keeping an open mind as to whether consciousness
is the same as soul, capable of salvation, etc.
So I'm saying that it is not clear that everything that thinks or even
is conscious needs or is capable of salvation. Furthermore, it's not
clear that AIs are incapable of salvaftion.
I see two major possibilities for how God interacts with us. One is
that there is some kind of supernatural interface between him and
us. If so, that's his gift, and I don't see anything in principle to
keep him from giving this gift to AIs. The second possibility is that
there is no normal supernatural contact (I say normal, because there
are certainly exceptions). In this model, we learn about God through
his Word. I see no reason in principle why an AI could not do so as
well.
--clh]
rtda...@yahoo.com
Actually an interesting question.
I can't pretend to know all the issues related to AI, but I believe
that this is closely tied into pure naturalism, and then the free will
issue.
IF AI actually could duplicate human brain function in all it's
complexity, then it does bring into question whether there is anything
more to us than the merely physical.
As Christians we believe that mind is more than the merely physical.
But if mind could be shown to be merely physical, then we would to
acknowledge the possibility that we are merely physical. I don't
suppose that it would technically mean we must be merely physical, but
it would certainly make it the more reasonable possibility.
As I have understood the free will debate as well, a portion of the
school that denies free will, does so on the grounds that the mere
physical leads to an inevitability in our actions: such that our
thoughts/actions/reactions are merely the outcome of our
environment/conditioning/past, therefore our actions could really be no
different.
IF one however adds in an independent non-physical thing such as a
spirit, then the creature possessing it would have more to operate on.
I know that there are people that believe in the spirit but deny free
will, as well as people that are pure naturalists, yet affirm free
will. However naturalism>no free will is a movement in the
philosophical debate over free will, primarily concerned with moral
responsibility.
Would an AI need to be programmed to believe in something beyond
itself? Would it come to such a belief on its own? Perhaps based on the
ability to learn and recognition of the validity of certain arguments
for the existence of God, it could come to a conclusion that while not
certain, a higher power is probable.
Another interesting question is when you ask if AI could "fully
understand the Bible". What do you mean by that? Someone could have the
words memorized without having "understanding".
So if the Bible tells us that we need to be as little children to enter
the kingdom of God, and that presumably means in regards to our having
faith in God, then how could AI "trust" God?
Would AI even believe in God at all? If it did have a full knowledge of
the Bible it would know that God has created men for himself
Interesting again is the notion of us voting to elect a pastor based on
knowledge.
First here is the idea of us doing the voting, I know this happens, but
it really is God that anoints, not us.
How would we know if an AI was anointed?
Second, is knowledge the grade by which we get to heaven? Jesus said we
need to be like little children, not like scholars. In fact he berates
the Pharisees for having knowledge, and yet denying people the kingdom
of God. So knowledge is not the ticket to heaven, it is righteousness
[and if yours isn't good enough, you'll need the righteousness of
Jesus] and trust in God.
So the AI would have to be morally perfect and/or trust God.
dave
Jonathan Bartlett
No. This is a foolish notion of reductionism in reference to consciousness.
If you can find a way to endow _consciousness_ (not intelligence or
anything else, but consciousness) in a computer, let me know.
I say this as someone who programs for a living and writes computer
science textbooks in the off time.
Jon
Mike
> If artificial intelligence existed,
There is only one intelligence and it is not artificial.
> which fully understood the bible
> and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
This would imply that the programmer of the AI also fully understood -
this could never happen. It also depends what you mean by 'fully
understand'. If this means assimilated information without living the
teachings then it would not 'fully' understand.
> Would you vote to elect the being
> as pastor, if her knowledge was superior to the other canidate?
Are the other candidates also female - if so - Yes :-)
> If not, would you still consider that the AI may get to heaven?
Only to an artificial heaven created by a superior AI.
Matthew Johnson
>
>If artificial intelligence existed, which fully understood the bible
>and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
We have a hard enough time finding _natural_ intelligence that "fully
understands the bible". And you are speculating about finding _artificial_? That
is just way too hypothetical to be taken seriously.
[snip]
--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
Betty Jo
clh wrote:
>I see two major possibilities for how God interacts with us. One is
>that there is some kind of supernatural interface between him and
>us. If so, that's his gift, and I don't see anything in principle to
>keep him from giving this gift to AIs.
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul."
Genesis 2:7, KJV
Since we know that God formed Adam's body from dust and then breathed
life, that is, a soul, into him, I agree that it is possible in theory
that God could breathe life into a computer also, but there is nothing
in Scripture to say that He has any intention of doing so.
I think it is important to notice that Genesis 2:7 shows us that flesh
and spirit are distinctly different. God formed Adam's flesh from
dust, but God then breathed spiritual life into Adam. This spiritual
life came directly from God Himself, not from the dust of the earth.
>The second possibility is that
>there is no normal supernatural contact (I say normal, because there
>are certainly exceptions). In this model, we learn about God through
>his Word. I see no reason in principle why an AI could not do so as
>well.
It is conceivable that computers may some day be able to perform
philosophical and theological reasoning, but even with that capability
they would not be able to respond to any guidance from the Holy
Spirit, assuming, as I discussed above, that God does not plan to
breathe life into any computer. Thus the result of such reasoning
would be a contribution to the knowledge of this present world, but
the Scripture tells us that worldly knowledge is foolishness from
God's perspective:
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it
is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
"And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that
they are vain."
1 Corinthians 3:19 -20, KJV
The Scripture also reveals that "... the world by wisdom knew not God
..." (from 1 Corinthians 1:21, KJV). I take that to mean that the
human brain is not able to find God through its reasoning. No one
ever talks about the salvation of the brain. It is the human soul
that experiences salvation, not the brain.
Salvation is a spiritual experience, so unless some day God chooses to
breathe life into a computer as He breathed life into Adam and Eve,
computers will never have souls and therefore they will never be able
to experience salvation, no matter how smart they become. I have no
reason to expect that God will ever breathe spiritual life into a
computer.
[...]
__________
Download the entire Bible via anonymous FTP at
ftp://ftp.fni.com/bettyjo/Bible
Copyright information on the material
above at ftp://ftp.fni.com/bettyjo
http://user.mc.net/~bettyjo
mailto:bet...@mc.net
Jonathan Bartlett
> I can't pretend to know all the issues related to AI, but I believe
> that this is closely tied into pure naturalism, and then the free will
> issue.
Correct.
> IF AI actually could duplicate human brain function in all it's
> complexity, then it does bring into question whether there is anything
> more to us than the merely physical.
Incorrect. Let me rephrase your statement: "if our physical creation
could duplicate our physical part in all its complexity, then it brings
into question whether there is anything more to us than the merely
physicaly" See, I have no doubt that we could, given enough technology,
reproduce every function of the brain. But the brain is our PHYSICAL
part. Reproducing the physical does not tell us whether or not there
were non-physical parts to reproduce.
> As Christians we believe that mind is more than the merely physical.
Actually, as people we should believe that. Consciousness itself is the
data we can go by, and it is not reducible to physical elements. That's
why in neurology they often speak of the correlations to consciousness
in the brain, rather than just talking about consciousness directly.
> As I have understood the free will debate as well, a portion of the
> school that denies free will, does so on the grounds that the mere
> physical leads to an inevitability in our actions: such that our
> thoughts/actions/reactions are merely the outcome of our
> environment/conditioning/past, therefore our actions could really be no
> different.
> IF one however adds in an independent non-physical thing such as a
> spirit, then the creature possessing it would have more to operate on.
Very true.
> I know that there are people that believe in the spirit but deny free
> will, as well as people that are pure naturalists, yet affirm free
> will. However naturalism>no free will is a movement in the
> philosophical debate over free will, primarily concerned with moral
> responsibility.
If you believe in naturalism and free will, you are actually a believer
in pantheism, or you haven't thought about the issue as much as you
should have.
> Would an AI need to be programmed to believe in something beyond
> itself? Would it come to such a belief on its own? Perhaps based on the
> ability to learn and recognition of the validity of certain arguments
> for the existence of God, it could come to a conclusion that while not
> certain, a higher power is probable.
It would have to have a consciousness. Unfortunately, consciousness is
not detectable. So we would have no idea if we achieved it or not. All
other questions are moot until you bridge the gap between consciousness
and the corrolaries to consciousness.
Jon
Chris Smith
> [It's true that current efforts are mostly "expert systems" of the
> sort you describe. However there has always been a goal of developing
> real human-level intelligence, including emotions. I haven't looked at
> the literature for decades (my Ph.D. is in AI), so I don't know how
> much concrete work there is in this direction, but I can tell you that
> researchers did have in the back of their minds true artificial
> intelligence. Whether AI truly thinks or could be conscious (I agree
> that current systems are not) is an issue on which reasonable people,
> even in the field, disagree.
I was probably partly unclear, although I definitely partly disagree
with the researchers you mention. The word "think" is, of course, vague
to the point of being useless for this conversation, and I regret having
used it. There are obviously some situations in which computers can
perform many tasks that I'd describe as "thinking". Logical deduction,
for example, is probably often classified as "thinking" and yet is
obviously computationally possible and in fact performed on a regular
basis by computer software (the most obvious and dramatic example here
being RDBMS query optimizers). It's even quite possible that emotions
will turn out to have some computational definition and thus their
effects may be duplicated.
What I tend to view as ridiculous is the step in science fiction movies
where computers move beyond computational tasks. That will never
happen. If computers do something new, it will be because we discover
that the new thing really *is* a computational task and not some form of
consciousness or self-originating volition. In fact, the computer doing
it will be clear evidence of the simple fact that it is a computational
task, by definition.
In any case, that's all really an aside to the point, which is this:
Orthodox (meaning "consistent with revealed truth, not referring only to
certain eastern branches) Christianity teaches that human beings are
made special by being created by God in His image. It is because of
this that we are capable of spiritual life. An AI program could be
programmed to perform exactly the same actions as a deeply spiritual
person; even computationally simulate the firing of every neuron in that
person's brain from birth to death, but it would not be having a
relationship with God.
Will
artificial intelligence. If a future computer with AI programming has
knowledge of the Bible in it, is it more like a human being, or more
like a Bible (which also has knowledge of the Bible in it -- of course!
-- but isn't a person).
Change the book from the Bible to something else, and we have the same
question. My answer is that a computer is more like a book (or maybe a
troubleshooting manual -- the ones that send you to a different page
based on questions you answer). Some people think that people are
nothing but information processing devices too; I'm not one of them.
klei...@astound.net
The question is oddly phrased. The first part assumes that some persons
called "pastors" are being chosen on the basis of their understanding
of the bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. If that is the way that
pastors, in those churches that have such a position, are being chosen
(a proposition I doubt) then an AI program should be chosen, if it is
superior to all available human beings.
The last sentence seems to be asking, in an odd way, whether an AI has
a soul, in the sense of relating to God. This is the question that the
responders addressed.
Briefly, we do not know what entities have souls.
Of all possible questions this seems the one most likely to be answered
by "God only knows".
The Bible assures us that mankind have souls. It does not address the
question of other entities. God is so vast and transcendental that God
might have given every entity a soul. Or maybe not. God only knows.
We can argue about chimpanzees, dolphins, dogs and cats, and even trees
in one arena because they are all alive. If we get down to the level of
a virus we may trouble about what alive means. For example, we might
argue that the ocean is not alive and is nothing more than a big pile
of water molecules. Hence a virus may not be alive and may be no more
than a complex molecule or collection of molecules.
But is the question about what is alive and what isn't relevant?
God might consider the ocean as a "living" entity. I wouldn't, if I
were God; but that proves nothing.
Entities like oceans and mountains and computers can be discussed in
another arena because, thought not living, they are palpable physical
objects.
But how can we inagine that the only entities God can consider are
those which are physically palpable? That, in fact, would have the
effect of denying that people have souls (which are not physically
palpable). This position does not seem to have ever been maintained by
anyone.
God might consider abstract entities as "living" entities (meaning
having souls). I wouldn't, if I were God; but that proves nothing.
So consider abstract entities. AI is an abstract entity. Do not confuse
AI with a computer. AI is a program, using program generically, than
can be run on a computer. The original question about an AI pastor, if
pursued, would lead us into speculations about every member of the
congregation carrying around the pastor in their own laptop computer. I
will not go that way.
There are other abstract entities. For example, nations and other
associations.
The United States is an abstract entity. Is the United States going to
Heaven?
Or Hell? God only knows.
Al Qaida is an abstract entity, even if Osama bn Ladin is a person. Is
Al Qaida going to Hell? Or even to Heaven? Regardless of what happens
to Osama. God only knows.
I repeat. We must remain humble before the transcendence of God. God
knows. We don't.
rtda...@yahoo.com
> > IF AI actually could duplicate human brain function in all it's
> > complexity, then it does bring into question whether there is anything
> > more to us than the merely physical.
>
> Incorrect. Let me rephrase your statement: "if our physical creation
> could duplicate our physical part in all its complexity, then it brings
> into question whether there is anything more to us than the merely
> physicaly" See, I have no doubt that we could, given enough technology,
> reproduce every function of the brain. But the brain is our PHYSICAL
> part. Reproducing the physical does not tell us whether or not there
> were non-physical parts to reproduce.
What if we reproduced the physical, and the non-physical occurred?
Isn't that the hope of some working in the field? Based on a philosophy
of pure naturalism, isn't that what should happen?
However, just because we could hypothetically reproduce even a purely
physical mind, it would not necessarily rule out that WE are not more
than that. It would however suggest that we are not.
> > As Christians we believe that mind is more than the merely physical.
>
> Actually, as people we should believe that. Consciousness itself is the
> data we can go by, and it is not reducible to physical elements. That's
> why in neurology they often speak of the correlations to consciousness
> in the brain, rather than just talking about consciousness directly.
Well, I know that many DON'T accept that we are anything more than the
physical.
But I am interested in this. Could you expound some more on any
examples that would bolster the idea?
> > I know that there are people that believe in the spirit but deny free
> > will, as well as people that are pure naturalists, yet affirm free
> > will. However naturalism>no free will is a movement in the
> > philosophical debate over free will, primarily concerned with moral
> > responsibility.
>
> If you believe in naturalism and free will, you are actually a believer
> in pantheism, or you haven't thought about the issue as much as you
> should have.
I don't follow that. Could you explain?
> > Would an AI need to be programmed to believe in something beyond
> > itself? Would it come to such a belief on its own? Perhaps based on the
> > ability to learn and recognition of the validity of certain arguments
> > for the existence of God, it could come to a conclusion that while not
> > certain, a higher power is probable.
>
> It would have to have a consciousness. Unfortunately, consciousness is
> not detectable. So we would have no idea if we achieved it or not. All
> other questions are moot until you bridge the gap between consciousness
> and the corrolaries to consciousness.
Since I am not sure exactly what you mean, I will stab at it, and you
can correct me.
Let say we build a computer capable of producing mind. I would assume
consciousness has something to do with it being "awake"? Since
computers don't turn themselves on, they don't have consciousness.....
Or lets just say it was somehow always on. Would consciousness be the
presence of activity? Or are we looking for something else?
To switch gears a bit, as far as I know, animals are not considered to
have a soul, yet they would seem to exhibit "mind". Presumably they
would have consciousness, and yet they still would fall short of what
we typically think of as spirit, necessary for fellowship with God.
While these are maybe silly examples, the movies Bicentennial Man and
I, Robot come to mind. Here we have computers essentially taking on
human minds. What do you see philosophically as distinguishing them
from humans?
Even if it were true that such a robot could exist:
Would they be candidate for salvation
Would they lack spirit [it seems they would]
Would they be simply glorified, but still souless animals.
Or worse, could we reasonably assume that IF such a thing, purely
natural, could have the exact same ideas as we do, that we are perhaps
deluded in our thinking? And there is nothing beyond us?
dave
shegeek72
Reuters Feb. 28, 2005
Rev. Hardy A. Brane of the Baptist Society (B.S. for short) admonished
all computer uses that they are living in sin by using "unmarried
computers" to communicate across the Internet.
"Computers communicate with each other using 'ports', he said, "which
are analogous to human sex organs, thereby allowing millions of
unmarried computers to engage in 'communication intercourse' which is a
sin according to the Bible."
Asked what can be done about the mass computer sin, Rev. Brane
recommended that the millions of computers that access the Internet
take part in a huge cyber marriage ceremony held at an agreed upon
time. Asked if he would be willing to perform the ceremony he replied,
"Sure, we need to control sinful computers, just as we need to control
sinful people."
When asked about two computers of the same sex he said, "Homosexuality
is a sin, only heterosexual computers should be allowed to marry." When
asked how the gender of computers can be ascertained he answered, "Oh,
that's easy. The computers that are malfunctioning are homosexual. It's
a well-known fact that a homosexual computer is dysfunctional."
There were no comments from Microsoft.
Tara ;-)
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem