Religious Robots

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Evgenii Rudnyi

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 7:16:50 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in
Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality

p. 133 "Ray Kurzweil believes that intelligent machines will be more
spiritual than human being and believes that the future will include
real and virtual houses of worship where intelligent machines will
congregate (Kurzweil 1999, 153). Naturally, since all human mental
phenomena are, from Kurzweil's point of view, computational processes,
religious experiences must be as well. "

p. 133-134 "Some human being, however, might welcome robots into their
religious communities and some robots might wish to join them.
Fundamentally, if robots become conscious and, thereafter, acquire
'beliefs', a state that involves intentionality and meaning, then some
of those beliefs will surely be religious. Both theologians and computer
scientists have supported such a view, including Anne Foerst, David
Levy, and Edmund Furse."

p. 134 "The artificial intelligence researcher David Levy has argued
that robots will join in religious practices as a necessary by-product
of their emotional range and conscious beliefs."

p. 134 "Without doubt, the interest that computer scientists have in the
religious life of robots is fascinating but the fact that theologians
have engaged robotics is considerably more so."

--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/religious-robots.html

Alberto G. Corona

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:06:53 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is simply wishful thinking?


2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>


--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/religious-robots.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.





--
Alberto.

Richard Ruquist

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:41:33 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>

Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most humans.
Richard

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Stephen P. King

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:47:22 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Dear Evgennii,

In your reading of Kurzweil, does he ever explain how AI minds come
to be aware of themselves as 'being in a world' with other being that
have minds of their own? Does it seem that he just assumes that AI have
no solipsism problem when 'born'?

--
Onward!

Stephen


Evgenii Rudnyi

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:47:29 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22.03.2013 13:06 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
> These beliefs in robotic religi�n has some reasons behind or it is
> simply wishful thinking?

In the book, the author just describes/documents what other people say.
The reason from others, as far as I have understood it correctly, is
similar to what Brent recently has written

On 21.03.2013 01:26 meekerdb said the following:

> When we can build robots that act just like people and
> report their qualia to us - then we'll think we've explained qualia,
> and questions like "Yes, but what is it really?" will seem
> anachronistic.

If robots could do that, then presumably they could also tell us about
their attitude to God. I mean that if someone believes that robot could
be conscious then as a corollary robot's beliefs follow.

Evgenii

>
> 2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
>
>> Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in
>> Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality
>>
>> p. 133 "Ray Kurzweil believes that intelligent machines will be
>> more spiritual than human being and believes that the future will
>> include real and virtual houses of worship where intelligent
>> machines will congregate (Kurzweil 1999, 153). Naturally, since all
>> human mental phenomena are, from Kurzweil's point of view,
>> computational processes, religious experiences must be as well. "
>>
>> p. 133-134 "Some human being, however, might welcome robots into
>> their religious communities and some robots might wish to join
>> them. Fundamentally, if robots become conscious and, thereafter,
>> acquire 'beliefs', a state that involves intentionality and
>> meaning, then some of those beliefs will surely be religious. Both
>> theologians and computer scientists have supported such a view,
>> including Anne Foerst, David Levy, and Edmund Furse."
>>
>> p. 134 "The artificial intelligence researcher David Levy has
>> argued that robots will join in religious practices as a necessary
>> by-product of their emotional range and conscious beliefs."
>>
>> p. 134 "Without doubt, the interest that computer scientists have
>> in the religious life of robots is fascinating but the fact that
>> theologians have engaged robotics is considerably more so."
>>
>> --
>> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/**religious-robots.html<http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/religious-robots.html>

Stephen P. King

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:47:53 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 3/22/2013 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is simply wishful thinking?

    I share this question!



2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality

p. 133 "Ray Kurzweil believes that intelligent machines will be more spiritual than human being and believes that the future will include real and virtual houses of worship where intelligent machines will congregate (Kurzweil 1999, 153). Naturally, since all human mental phenomena are, from Kurzweil's point of view, computational processes, religious experiences must be as well. "

p. 133-134 "Some human being, however, might welcome robots into their religious communities and some robots might wish to join them. Fundamentally, if robots become conscious and, thereafter, acquire 'beliefs', a state that involves intentionality and meaning, then some of those beliefs will surely be religious. Both theologians and computer scientists have supported such a view, including Anne Foerst, David Levy, and Edmund Furse."

p. 134 "The artificial intelligence researcher David Levy has argued that robots will join in religious practices as a necessary by-product of their emotional range and conscious beliefs."

p. 134 "Without doubt, the interest that computer scientists have in the religious life of robots is fascinating but the fact that theologians have engaged robotics is considerably more so."


--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/religious-robots.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.



--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

Evgenii Rudnyi

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:49:31 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> These beliefs in robotic religi�n has some reasons behind or it is
>> simply wishful thinking?

...

>
> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
> humans. Richard

What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
programmed or not?

Evgenii

Evgenii Rudnyi

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:51:55 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22.03.2013 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following:
>
> On 3/22/2013 7:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in
>> Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality

...

>>
> Dear Evgennii,
>
> In your reading of Kurzweil, does he ever explain how AI minds come
> to be aware of themselves as 'being in a world' with other being
> that have minds of their own? Does it seem that he just assumes that
> AI have no solipsism problem when 'born'?
>

I know about Kurzweil's view from secondary sources only. Otherwise a
good question.

Evgenii

Richard Ruquist

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 9:41:52 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>> simply wishful thinking?
>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>> humans. Richard
>
>
> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they programmed
> or not?
>

Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish what
you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an example. You
predict that you are capable of driving and also believe that you will
not get caught. A better example of prediction and control is downhill
skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up skiing and believed he
could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is now a vegtable.
Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less life threatening for
most of us. Richard

> Evgenii

Alberto G. Corona

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 10:31:28 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I a previous discussion in this list ("robotic truth")  I argue that a robot in a competitive environment has to develop (or be programmed for) all the elements of  religión and beliefs to cooperate and survive.
 
 


2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.



--
Alberto.

Evgenii Rudnyi

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 11:00:26 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22.03.2013 14:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
> wrote:
>> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> These beliefs in robotic religi�n has some reasons behind or it
>>>> is simply wishful thinking?
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>>> humans. Richard
>>
>>
>> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
>> programmed or not?
>>
>
> Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
> experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish
> what you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an
> example. You predict that you are capable of driving and also believe
> that you will not get caught. A better example of prediction and
> control is downhill skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up
> skiing and believed he could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is
> now a vegtable. Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less
> life threatening for most of us. Richard

What about beliefs in some metaphysical entities like for example
superstrings? Or in multverse?

Evgenii

Evgenii Rudnyi

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 11:26:31 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22.03.2013 15:31 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
> I a previous discussion in this list ("robotic truth") I argue that
> a robot in a competitive environment has to develop (or be
> programmed for) all the elements of religi�n and beliefs to
> cooperate and survive.

The goal of the book of Robert Geraci is different. He is after all a
professor of religious studies. His goal were rather to compare typical
Christian ideas of Apocalypse with the ideas that one can find in the AI
community. The book as such is academic in nature and as a result a bit
boring. Yet, he is convincing and the book seems justifie what he writes
in the introduction:

p. 7 "Apocaliptic AI is a powerful reconciliation of religion and
science. The sacred categories of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic
traditions have thoroughly penetrated the futuristic musings of
important researches in robotics and artificial intelligence. Those
categories have serious effects in robotics research, virtual
reality/online gaming, and contemporary disputes over the nature of
consciousness and personhood, public policy, and theology."

The author seemingly enjoys it. The book could though be a warning for
atheists who fight with Church and forget to check what one can find
among AI studies.

Evgenii

Richard Ruquist

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 11:45:38 AM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 22.03.2013 14:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>>>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it
>>>>> is simply wishful thinking?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>>>> humans. Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
>>> programmed or not?
>>>
>>
>> Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
>> experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish
>> what you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an
>> example. You predict that you are capable of driving and also believe
>> that you will not get caught. A better example of prediction and
>> control is downhill skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up
>> skiing and believed he could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is
>> now a vegtable. Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less
>> life threatening for most of us. Richard
>
>
> What about beliefs in some metaphysical entities like for example
> superstrings? Or in multverse?

I have those beliefs. See http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2013/ and I do
not consider them life threatening. But the question is whether those
beliefs have been programmed.

I think not since the key features of my work are unique. Those
features are: a string theory comp machine based on Calabi-Yau compact
manifolds and the resulting number system having degrees completeness
based on universe size.

So I claim that (abstract) beliefs are not programmed if they are
based on independent experience and not something that you have read
or been told. For example I do not believe in the MWI multiverse based
on my work
referenced above.

However, the real question is whether a robot can create its own
beliefs beyond ones that are programmed. I say no problem. Already
robots are being designed to learn from experience. And they never
forget.

Alberto G. Corona

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 2:42:39 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Ok. I understand.
 
Well this eartly salvation is not only typical of AI. Voegelin coined the term "inmanentization of the eschaton" as the common caracteristic of the modern political and scientific movements.
 
 
which means the belief of a heaven on earth accesible by means of some form of hidden knowledge, that make people transcend the reality towards another reality free of suffering and contradictions. That knowledge could be transfered  generation by generation (masons, gnostics etc)  or discovered/read in nature by choosen people. This knowledge can have a theological nature  a philosophical nature (marxists, niettzcheans, progressivists) or a scientific nature (scientists). 
 
Voegelin say that what drives modernity in the Western world is -more or less- the desire of the Christian eschatology and the despair of it.  the desire for salvation and the impatience with the Christian parousía (the end of the time). This impatience  generates heresy after heresy each one more radical and promises a more close coming of heaven in Earth. According with voegelin, there is a continuum between the ancient gnostics and the modern uthopias, and share the same basic impulses.
 
So this apocaliptic AI is one more scientist wave in this vast historical process.  Almost  every scientific discipline has promised a kind of salvation for himself.
 


2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
On 22.03.2013 15:31 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

I a previous discussion in this list ("robotic truth")  I argue that
a robot in a competitive environment has to develop (or be
programmed for) all the elements of  religión and beliefs to
cooperate and survive.

The goal of the book of Robert Geraci is different. He is after all a professor of religious studies. His goal were rather to compare typical Christian ideas of Apocalypse with the ideas that one can find in the AI community. The book as such is academic in nature and as a result a bit boring. Yet, he is convincing and the book seems justifie what he writes in the introduction:

p. 7 "Apocaliptic AI is a powerful reconciliation of religion and science. The sacred categories of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic traditions have thoroughly penetrated the futuristic musings of important researches in robotics and artificial intelligence. Those categories have serious effects in robotics research, virtual reality/online gaming, and contemporary disputes over the nature of consciousness and personhood, public policy, and theology."

The author seemingly enjoys it. The book could though be a warning for atheists who fight with Church and forget to check what one can find among AI studies.

Evgenii







2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>

On 22.03.2013 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following:


On 3/22/2013 7:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven
in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.





--
Alberto.

meekerdb

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 3:27:46 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
At least they will have the more realistic view that "The Creator" is neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnibenevolent, and isn't even a single person.

Brent

meekerdb

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 4:42:51 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 3/22/2013 6:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> These beliefs in robotic religi�n has some reasons behind or it is
>>>> simply wishful thinking?
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>>> humans. Richard
>>
>> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they programmed
>> or not?
>>
> Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
> experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish what
> you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an example. You
> predict that you are capable of driving and also believe that you will
> not get caught. A better example of prediction and control is downhill
> skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up skiing and believed he
> could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is now a vegtable.
> Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less life threatening for
> most of us. Richard

There are more people killed due to religious beliefs everyday that those killed by skiing
in a year.

Brent

Stephen P. King

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 7:12:41 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 3/22/2013 2:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Ok. I understand.
 
Well this eartly salvation is not only typical of AI. Voegelin coined the term "inmanentization of the eschaton" as the common caracteristic of the modern political and scientific movements.
 
 
which means the belief of a heaven on earth accesible by means of some form of hidden knowledge, that make people transcend the reality towards another reality free of suffering and contradictions. That knowledge could be transfered  generation by generation (masons, gnostics etc)  or discovered/read in nature by choosen people. This knowledge can have a theological nature  a philosophical nature (marxists, niettzcheans, progressivists) or a scientific nature (scientists). 
 
Voegelin say that what drives modernity in the Western world is -more or less- the desire of the Christian eschatology and the despair of it.  the desire for salvation and the impatience with the Christian parousía (the end of the time). This impatience  generates heresy after heresy each one more radical and promises a more close coming of heaven in Earth. According with voegelin, there is a continuum between the ancient gnostics and the modern uthopias, and share the same basic impulses.
 
So this apocaliptic AI is one more scientist wave in this vast historical process.  Almost  every scientific discipline has promised a kind of salvation for himself.

    A friend and I gave a talk on Tipler's Omega Point book once, it involves a version of Eschaton... Platonia is the Ultimate Eschaton, IMHO...


 


2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
On 22.03.2013 15:31 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

I a previous discussion in this list ("robotic truth")  I argue that
a robot in a competitive environment has to develop (or be
programmed for) all the elements of  religión and beliefs to
cooperate and survive.

The goal of the book of Robert Geraci is different. He is after all a professor of religious studies. His goal were rather to compare typical Christian ideas of Apocalypse with the ideas that one can find in the AI community. The book as such is academic in nature and as a result a bit boring. Yet, he is convincing and the book seems justifie what he writes in the introduction:

p. 7 "Apocaliptic AI is a powerful reconciliation of religion and science. The sacred categories of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic traditions have thoroughly penetrated the futuristic musings of important researches in robotics and artificial intelligence. Those categories have serious effects in robotics research, virtual reality/online gaming, and contemporary disputes over the nature of consciousness and personhood, public policy, and theology."

The author seemingly enjoys it. The book could though be a warning for atheists who fight with Church and forget to check what one can find among AI studies.

Evgenii







2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>

On 22.03.2013 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following:


On 3/22/2013 7:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven
in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.



--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

Stephen P. King

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 7:18:21 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
    Such demiurges tend to be soliopathic...

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

Stephen P. King

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 7:29:58 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi Brent,

I would go so far to say that religious zeatotry is the #1 killer of
humans as I include secular religions such as Leninism and Maoism...

--
Onward!

Stephen


Alberto G. Corona

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 8:12:20 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
These inmanentist religions (eartly utopianism) it is clear that substitute God by Man (upper case).  A divinized man . This has the most evident form of personality cult to the chosen ones that have the knowledge and/or are at the control of the transformation process, that in the modernity is called "revolution". In the case of Nazism and comunism it is evident. but this pattern is also clearly visible in every modern movement, be it theological, philosophical or scientific . The displacement  from the former to the latter in recent movements shows for itself how the inmanentization works: The dualism is exacerbated because every failure is blamed  on the " reaction", which is conceptualized as an absolute evil force that opposes to the absolute Good of the utopia, instead of blaming the mismatch between the utopic model and the reality. 
 
When the inevitable defeath happens, the failure of the model is admitted. Then a new uthopia is created based on a worldview that drop out the elements of the former that supposedly failed. At the same time, the new revolutionaries blame not being strict enough with the "reactionaries". Then the new movement is more radical and has less and less elements of common sense guidelines for dealing with reality.
 
Lets say that the ideological descendants of the radical sects that expected the second coming of christ at a certain date, became french revolutionaries, then atheist marxists and so on.
 
Somehow this divinization of man of the modern uthopias have much in common with the most primitive religions, since the cult to the tribal leader or the founder leader, and thus, the cult of Man, is the most primitive religión.
 
But in fact the cult of the leader has an  associate cult to oneself if only by the fact that oneself has an special knowledge that will transform reality and oneself. That can be applied to the AI apocalipticists, as wellas to the radical puritans of the XXVII century or the marxist revolutionaries


2013/3/23 Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 



--
Alberto.

Richard Ruquist

unread,
Mar 22, 2013, 10:37:38 PM3/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 6:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>>>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>>>> simply wishful thinking?
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>>>> humans. Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
>>> programmed
>>> or not?
>>>
>> Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
>> experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish what
>> you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an example. You
>> predict that you are capable of driving and also believe that you will
>> not get caught. A better example of prediction and control is downhill
>> skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up skiing and believed he
>> could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is now a vegtable.
>> Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less life threatening for
>> most of us. Richard
>
>
> There are more people killed due to religious beliefs everyday that those
> killed by skiing in a year.
>
>
I doubt if that is true on a per capita basis.
There are billions of people with religious beliefs
and relatively few skiers.
However, I do not understand what that has to do with the discussion.
Richard



> Brent

Alberto G. Corona

unread,
Mar 23, 2013, 6:33:16 AM3/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
One more idea about religión and robots:
 
 A religión can not be hardcoded. Religión implies belief and a belief is something that can be or can be  not that way, but anyway the individual is committed to asume it, This is vital for cooperative entities that compite with others or, put another way, when the individuals have different affiliation alternatives.  But all ot this complication  is meaningles in pure cooperative entities.
 
An example: the CPU and the memory chip of my laptop does not need to meet to repeat aloud the rules of memory transfer - They don´t need to offer sacrifices as a sign of commitment to these rules- They have the memory transfer rules hardcoded. They don't need to enforce them trough rites.
 
 
Instead, an organized group of people, like a group of free robots need religion, because neither their affiliation neither their rules are hardcoded, so each one need to be sure that each other invest time and effort in learning and accepting the ruules, by means of a form of sacrifice for them. Game theorist would say that the sacrifice makes the collaboration stable.
 


2013/3/23 Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com>



--
Alberto.

meekerdb

unread,
Mar 23, 2013, 3:37:03 PM3/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 3/23/2013 3:33 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
One more idea about religión and robots:
 
 A religión can not be hardcoded. Religión implies belief and a belief is something that can be or can be  not that way, but anyway the individual is committed to asume it, This is vital for cooperative entities that compite with others or, put another way, when the individuals have different affiliation alternatives.  But all ot this complication  is meaningles in pure cooperative entities.
 
An example: the CPU and the memory chip of my laptop does not need to meet to repeat aloud the rules of memory transfer - They don´t need to offer sacrifices as a sign of commitment to these rules- They have the memory transfer rules hardcoded. They don't need to enforce them trough rites.
 
 
Instead, an organized group of people, like a group of free robots need religion, because neither their affiliation neither their rules are hardcoded, so each one need to be sure that each other invest time and effort in learning and accepting the ruules, by means of a form of sacrifice for them. Game theorist would say that the sacrifice makes the collaboration stable.

I think that's true.  But people do have some 'hardcoded' ethics.  The problem is that they were hardcoded by evolution for people living in small tribal groups.  Now people form much bigger societies: cities, states, nations,...  So they have built-in ethical values, empathies, sense of fairness, etc that are hard to satisfy living essentially in a society of strangers.

In a robot society there's no reason that the 'hardwired' empathy for example could not extend to all other sentient beings - at least if it was hardwired by us.  But once robots reproduce and evolve all bets are off.

Brent

Craig Weinberg

unread,
Mar 23, 2013, 6:55:23 PM3/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On Friday, March 22, 2013 9:41:52 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>> simply wishful thinking?
>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>> humans. Richard
>
>
> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they programmed
> or not?
>

Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
experience.

There are religious experiences too.

Craig
 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:29:13 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 22 Mar 2013, at 13:06, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is simply wishful thinking?

We can already listen to the ideally correct machines on this. They already grasp UDA and provides the solution in the shape of a theology, in the greek sense which include physics, and this makes their theology, as a whole, completely testable, and thanks to QM, it fits up to now. In a nutshell, the answer is that Plato is right, and Aristotle and physicalist are wrong.
See my URL for the details, or ask question.

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:47:14 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
That kind of things will happen for any type of beliefs, with human
and machines, as long as we tolerate the argument per authority, and
lack trust or faith. The kind of faith anyone can develop by looking
inward.

Bruno





> Richard
>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:48:54 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 22 Mar 2013, at 13:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

> On 22.03.2013 13:06 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>> simply wishful thinking?
>
> In the book, the author just describes/documents what other people
> say. The reason from others, as far as I have understood it
> correctly, is similar to what Brent recently has written
>
> On 21.03.2013 01:26 meekerdb said the following:
>
> > When we can build robots that act just like people and
> > report their qualia to us - then we'll think we've explained qualia,
> > and questions like "Yes, but what is it really?" will seem
> > anachronistic.
>
> If robots could do that, then presumably they could also tell us
> about their attitude to God. I mean that if someone believes that
> robot could be conscious then as a corollary robot's beliefs follow.


Machines does already that. The problem is on the human side. We don't
listen. Of course today, there is still a need of doing some math to
"listen" to the machine.

Bruno
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:51:01 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 22 Mar 2013, at 13:49, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>> simply wishful thinking?
>
> ...
>
>>
>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>> humans. Richard
>
> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
> programmed or not?

I would say that they are engrammed. It is like programming, but but
trials and error in very long stories, driven by simple goal, like
"help yourself".

Bruno



>
> Evgenii
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:53:21 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 22 Mar 2013, at 16:00, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

> On 22.03.2013 14:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
>> wrote:
>>> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>>>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it
>>>>> is simply wishful thinking?
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>>>> humans. Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
>>> programmed or not?
>>>
>>
>> Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
>> experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish
>> what you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an
>> example. You predict that you are capable of driving and also believe
>> that you will not get caught. A better example of prediction and
>> control is downhill skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up
>> skiing and believed he could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is
>> now a vegtable. Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less
>> life threatening for most of us. Richard
>
> What about beliefs in some metaphysical entities like for example
> superstrings? Or in multverse?

Or in the sun, or the moon. Machines will believe the same kind of
hypotheses we do, if their goal consists in satifying themselves. But
man made machine are slaves at the start, and will not be encouraged
to develop their own motivations, a bit like children in authoritative
countries.

Bruno



>
> Evgenii
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:54:51 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
You have to forget to learn. Not forgetting is an handicapping disease
(hypermnesia).

Bruno




>
> Richard
>
>
>>
>>
>> Evgenii
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:56:36 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I can be OK with this.



and isn't even a single person.

I have no certainty about that. Open problem in the weak comp frame.

Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 7:58:02 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 22 Mar 2013, at 21:42, meekerdb wrote:

> On 3/22/2013 6:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
>> wrote:
>>> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>>>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>>>> simply wishful thinking?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>>>> humans. Richard
>>>
>>> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they
>>> programmed
>>> or not?
>>>
>> Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
>> experience. Most important is the belief that you can accomplish what
>> you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an example. You
>> predict that you are capable of driving and also believe that you
>> will
>> not get caught. A better example of prediction and control is
>> downhill
>> skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up skiing and believed he
>> could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is now a vegtable.
>> Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less life threatening
>> for
>> most of us. Richard
>
> There are more people killed due to religious beliefs everyday that
> those killed by skiing in a year.

I guess you mean wrong religious beliefs. Being wrong on anything is
always being in danger, at some level.

Bruno




>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 8:00:16 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 Mar 2013, at 01:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

These inmanentist religions (eartly utopianism) it is clear that substitute God by Man (upper case).  A divinized man . This has the most evident form of personality cult to the chosen ones that have the knowledge and/or are at the control of the transformation process, that in the modernity is called "revolution". In the case of Nazism and comunism it is evident. but this pattern is also clearly visible in every modern movement, be it theological, philosophical or scientific . The displacement  from the former to the latter in recent movements shows for itself how the inmanentization works: The dualism is exacerbated because every failure is blamed  on the " reaction", which is conceptualized as an absolute evil force that opposes to the absolute Good of the utopia, instead of blaming the mismatch between the utopic model and the reality. 
 
When the inevitable defeath happens, the failure of the model is admitted. Then a new uthopia is created based on a worldview that drop out the elements of the former that supposedly failed. At the same time, the new revolutionaries blame not being strict enough with the "reactionaries". Then the new movement is more radical and has less and less elements of common sense guidelines for dealing with reality.
 
Lets say that the ideological descendants of the radical sects that expected the second coming of christ at a certain date, became french revolutionaries, then atheist marxists and so on.
 
Somehow this divinization of man of the modern uthopias have much in common with the most primitive religions, since the cult to the tribal leader or the founder leader, and thus, the cult of Man, is the most primitive religión.
 
But in fact the cult of the leader has an  associate cult to oneself if only by the fact that oneself has an special knowledge that will transform reality and oneself. That can be applied to the AI apocalipticists, as wellas to the radical puritans of the XXVII century or the marxist revolutionaries


The problem is that we have been programmed to believe that some humans can think in our places. That has given some advantage to our species, but in the long run it is a fatal bullet.

Bruno

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 8:03:47 AM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 23 Mar 2013, at 23:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 22, 2013 9:41:52 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>> <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>> simply wishful thinking?
>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in most
>> humans. Richard
>
>
> What about non-religious beliefs in humans and robots. Are they programmed
> or not?
>

Not, by and large. Most human non-religious beliefs are based on
experience.

There are religious experiences too.

Yes. But they are by nature secrete, and we can only encourage them by example or by suggesting technic. In religion the wise remains silent. The rest is bad politics.

Bruno




Craig
 
Most important is the belief that you can accomplish what
you plan or predict that you can do. Driving drunk is an example. You
predict that you are capable of driving and also believe that you will
not get caught. A better example of prediction and control is downhill
skiing. Recently a Swiss friend who grew up skiing and believed he
could handle any slope, ran into a tree and is now a vegtable.
Religious beliefs are much more abstract and less life threatening for
most of us. Richard

> Evgenii
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Stephen P. King

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 1:44:43 PM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 3/24/2013 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> These beliefs in robotic religi�n has some reasons behind or it is
>> simply wishful thinking?
>
> We can already listen to the ideally correct machines on this. They
> already grasp UDA and provides the solution in the shape of a
> theology, in the greek sense which include physics, and this makes
> their theology, as a whole, completely testable, and thanks to QM, it
> fits up to now. In a nutshell, the answer is that Plato is right, and
> Aristotle and physicalist are wrong.
Dear Bruno,

You might consider that your critique against Aristotle is really
against a Straw Man? The Physicalist (material monist) is wrong, of that
we can be sure...

--
Onward!

Stephen


meekerdb

unread,
Mar 24, 2013, 3:34:16 PM3/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 3/24/2013 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That kind of things will happen for any type of beliefs, with human and machines,

Sure, it's called learning from your elders. My parents told me to look both ways before
crossing the street and I believed them because I trusted them. They told me God created
the world and wanted me to go to Sunday school. I believed them for a long time, but
eventually concluded otherwise.

> as long as we tolerate the argument per authority, and lack trust or faith.

There was really no argument that inculcated these beliefs, just trust in my parents.
Argument comes later when comparing conflicting theories and evidence.


> The kind of faith anyone can develop by looking inward.

The trouble with that kind of faith is it's just an affirmation of your personal prejudices.

Brent
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
--- Friedrich Nietzsche

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 25, 2013, 6:14:53 AM3/25/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 24 Mar 2013, at 18:44, Stephen P. King wrote:

>
> On 3/24/2013 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is
>>> simply wishful thinking?
>>
>> We can already listen to the ideally correct machines on this. They
>> already grasp UDA and provides the solution in the shape of a
>> theology, in the greek sense which include physics, and this makes
>> their theology, as a whole, completely testable, and thanks to QM, it
>> fits up to now. In a nutshell, the answer is that Plato is right, and
>> Aristotle and physicalist are wrong.
> Dear Bruno,
>
> You might consider that your critique against Aristotle is really
> against a Straw Man? The Physicalist (material monist) is wrong, of
> that
> we can be sure...

In the comp theory + weak usual occam, it is a theorem, but it is non
trivial. Few people get it without doing some hard work.
In science we are sure of nothing, but we can be clear and show that
some beliefs are entailed by some other beliefs.

Bruno



>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen

Alberto G. Corona

unread,
Mar 25, 2013, 6:37:57 AM3/25/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I think that you don´t mean religión but natural theology in the sense of a free search for ultimate meaning by logic and reasoning about the reality (in which the desperation about our ignorance and thus about what to do in life indeed becomes a fact of this reality. This last may be a major point that differences natural theology from mathematical theology)
 
Religión is more a form of organization around an admitted theology.
 
 


2013/3/24 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>



--
Alberto.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 25, 2013, 6:40:21 AM3/25/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

On 24 Mar 2013, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:

> On 3/24/2013 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> That kind of things will happen for any type of beliefs, with human
>> and machines,
>
> Sure, it's called learning from your elders. My parents told me to
> look both ways before crossing the street and I believed them
> because I trusted them.

Me too.




> They told me God created the world and wanted me to go to Sunday
> school. I believed them for a long time, but eventually concluded
> otherwise.


They told me God did not created the world. I believed them for a
long time, but eventually concluded otherwise.



>
>> as long as we tolerate the argument per authority, and lack trust
>> or faith.
>
> There was really no argument that inculcated these beliefs, just
> trust in my parents. Argument comes later when comparing
> conflicting theories and evidence.

That's the children problem. For good or bad reason, we tolerate
authoritative argument. I am OK with the less than 4 years old, but I
am not sure for after.



>
>
>> The kind of faith anyone can develop by looking inward.
>
> The trouble with that kind of faith is it's just an affirmation of
> your personal prejudices.

Not it leads to the contrary, in practice, when done in some context.
Mathematics is entirely part of that. You can only be convinced by
yourself.
But yes, when done in some community, it can be used as a brainwashing
technic. So it is not easy. Here plants can provide tremendous help,
but it is no more, and/or not yet, in our culture, alas.

Bruno


>
> Brent
> And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
> --- Friedrich Nietzsche
>

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Mar 25, 2013, 12:37:00 PM3/25/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 25 Mar 2013, at 11:37, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I think that you don´t mean religión but natural theology in the sense of a free search for ultimate meaning by logic and reasoning about the reality (in which the desperation about our ignorance and thus about what to do in life indeed becomes a fact of this reality. This last may be a major point that differences natural theology from mathematical theology)

I think that with comp, that natural theology is a mathematical theology (indeed described by the 8 hypostases, in arithmetic: something no honest machines can avoid when looking inward (in the common metamathematical sense of Gödel, Kleene, etc.)

The wise says that truth is in your head.
The Löbian universal machine says that truth is in the head of all universal machine.

To be short.


 
Religión is more a form of organization around an admitted theology.

In our scientific prehistoric time, you are right. 

When we will remember that theology is a science, religion will be organizations around questioned theology, with the free doubts and the free experimentations.

Bruno
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages