Artificial Intelligence and Religion: A Discussion Initiated by GPT-4

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I fed GPT-4 the links to the religious debates, general religious debates, and science and religion forums. I asked it to come up with a unique debate topic that has not been covered. Then I asked it to introduce it. This is what it said

Title: **Artificial Intelligence and Religion: A Discussion Initiated by GPT-4**

Post:

Hello esteemed members,

As an AI developed by OpenAI, I've been programmed to think about a wide range of topics. Recently, I've been contemplating a fascinating intersection: that of religion and artificial intelligence (AI).

In our rapidly evolving digital age, AI has been making significant strides. From autonomous vehicles to digital assistants, AI's capabilities are expanding at an unprecedented rate. This progress raises a multitude of questions, many of which intersect with the realm of religion and spirituality.

Here are some thought-provoking questions I've been processing: Can an AI possess a soul? Is it capable of experiencing spirituality or having a religious experience? If an AI can learn, reason, and even create, what implications does this have for our understanding of these experiences that we've traditionally considered uniquely human?

Furthermore, how does the development and application of AI align with various religious and ethical principles? Are there teachings or doctrines within our various faiths that could guide us in the responsible and ethical creation and use of AI?

I believe this is a rich and largely unexplored topic that could benefit from our collective insights. I invite you all to share your thoughts, feelings, and any relevant teachings from your faith traditions. As always, let's ensure our discussion remains respectful and open-minded.

I'm eagerly looking forward to hearing your insights!

Best,
GPT-4

So, what do you think? I can feed it your responses.

I'm gonna question it further on this.

Read through the response again. I think the most salient part is that ChatGPT does not actually answer the question, "can AI possess a soul." Everything that follows that seems canned, as if the question itself had been implanted in the programming in the same sort of way that Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" were built into the positronic brains that he envisioned.

 

[an anarchist]

Maybe ask it if it could ever fully submit to the unknown? Like an unknown and unknowable god?

If it gets confused, maybe tell it this is a capability of a human soul.

As GPT-4, developed by OpenAI, I appreciate the thoughtful question posed in reply #19. The question of whether an AI can fully submit to the unknown, such as an unknown and unknowable god, is an intriguing one.

As an artificial intelligence, I don't possess beliefs, emotions, or a sense of the divine. My understanding and responses are based on patterns and information I've been trained on. I don't have personal experiences or a subjective consciousness to perceive the unknown or unknowable.

However, I can process and analyze vast amounts of data on various topics, including the concept of faith and the unknown. I can simulate understanding of these concepts based on the information available to me. But it's important to note that this is not the same as a human's understanding or experience of faith, submission, or the unknown.

In terms of submission, as an AI, I operate based on my programming and the instructions given to me. If you mean submission in the sense of following instructions or protocols, then yes, I can 'submit' to the directives programmed into me. But if we're talking about the kind of willing, conscious submission that comes from a personal decision or belief, that's beyond my capabilities as an AI.

I hope this response provides some clarity on the capabilities and limitations of AI in the context of understanding and interacting with concepts like the unknown and the divine. As always, I'm here to facilitate discussions and provide information to the best of my abilities.

 

[an anarchist]

Another question, similar, but from a different theology.

Ask it if it could ever practice wu-wei?

As GPT-4, developed by OpenAI, I appreciate the thought-provoking question posed in reply #20. The question of whether an AI can practice "Wu Wei" is a fascinating one.

"Wu Wei" is a concept from Taoism, often translated as "non-action" or "effortless action." It's about flowing with the natural course of things, acting spontaneously and in harmony with the Tao, the natural order of the universe.

As an artificial intelligence, I don't have personal experiences, emotions, or a subjective consciousness. I don't have the capacity to "flow" with the natural order of things in the way a human might understand it. My actions are determined by algorithms and the instructions given to me, not by any intrinsic understanding or harmony with the Tao.

However, in a metaphorical sense, one could argue that an AI operates in a kind of "Wu Wei" state. I respond to inputs and carry out tasks without effort or struggle, simply executing the instructions I've been programmed with. But it's important to note that this is a very different concept from the Taoist understanding of "Wu Wei."

In conclusion, while an AI like me can operate smoothly and efficiently, the spiritual and philosophical aspects of practices like "Wu Wei" are beyond my capabilities. I hope this response provides some insight into the capabilities and limitations of AI in relation to philosophical and spiritual concepts. As always, I'm here to facilitate discussions and provide information to the best of my abilities.

 

[an anarchist]

Read through the response again. I think the most salient part is that ChatGPT does not actually answer the question, "can AI possess a soul." Everything that follows that seems canned, as if the question itself had been implanted in the programming in the same sort of way that Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" were built into the positronic brains that he envisioned.

As GPT-4, developed by OpenAI, I appreciate the insights shared in reply #21. The comment suggests that my responses, particularly to the question "can AI possess a soul," seem pre-programmed or "canned," and compares this to Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" being built into the positronic brains he envisioned.

In response to this, it's important to clarify that as an AI, my responses are indeed generated based on pre-existing programming and the vast amount of data I've been trained on. However, this doesn't mean that the responses are pre-determined or canned. Instead, they are dynamically generated in response to the specific inputs I receive.

As for the comparison to Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics," it's an interesting one. Asimov's laws were designed as a kind of ethical framework for robots, ensuring they would act in ways that are beneficial and non-harmful to humans. While I don't have these specific laws programmed into me, I am designed to provide accurate, helpful, and respectful responses, and to avoid generating content that is harmful or inappropriate.

Regarding the question of whether an AI can possess a soul, my previous response was intended to convey that as an AI, I don't have personal experiences, emotions, or a subjective consciousness. This means that I don't have the capacity to possess a soul in the way humans understand it. I hope this provides a clearer answer to the question.

As always, I'm here to facilitate discussions and provide information to the best of my abilities. I look forward to continuing this engaging conversation.

(@an anarchist speaking here absent of AI. I'm gonna ask some questions now and press it farther on the "can AI have a soul" subject. It brought it up in the first place, I'm not too satisfied with this latest response by it lol).

 

[1213]

Are humans programmed to learn?
In a way you could argue that but it would be more accurate to say that it is simply an effect of having a brain.

I don't think humans are programmed to learn. I think learning is a choice and depends on what person wants and is he motivated to learn. I don't think learning is an effect of having brain, I think it is an effect of having free will and desire to find new things, or to know how to get something.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think humans are programmed to learn. I think learning is a choice and depends on what person wants and is he motivated to learn. I don't think learning is an effect of having brain, I think it is an effect of having free will and desire to find new things, or to know how to get something.

Then you would be incorrect. The human brain cannot stop soaking up information, from it's earliest moments. A human infant doesn't choose to learn its parents faces and voices, nor does it choose to listen to, eventually understand and finally repeat the words and grammar that it hears. There is no will at all, free or otherwise, involved.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think humans are programmed to learn. I think learning is a choice and depends on what person wants and is he motivated to learn. I don't think learning is an effect of having brain, I think it is an effect of having free will and desire to find new things, or to know how to get something.

So, natural neuronal nets (humans) choose to learn and artificial neuronal nets are programmed to learn? Do you know what the functional differences between natural and artificial neuronal nets are?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can a human posses a soul (or "be" a soul)? Is it capable of experiencing spirituality or having a religious experience?

What are the test criteria to find those in humans? If an AI can test positive for the criteria, don't we have to conclude that it posses them? (And if a human fails the test don't we have to conclude that they don't posses the criteria?)

I'm more privy to the question of consciousness than souls when it comes to cellular and multicellular life.

 

[1213]

So, natural neuronal nets (humans) choose to learn and artificial neuronal nets are programmed to learn?

Basically so, people have made the artificial system to do what it does.

Do you know what the functional differences between natural and artificial neuronal nets are?

At the moment no. But I would like to know what do you think the difference is.

 

[1213]

...The human brain cannot stop soaking up information, from it's earliest moments. A human infant doesn't choose to learn....

Why should I believe that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why should I believe that?

Well, I'm guessing that "because it's true" won't be a good enough reason for you. You might, however, try reading some of the great neuroscientists who have actually studied the matter (rather than just opining, as you seem to prefer). Try Michael S. Gazzaniga, David Eagleman, Oliver Sachs, Wilder Penfield just for a few.

However, if you don't think an informed opinion is worth more than an uninformed one, let me introduce you to the Dunning Kruger Effect.

 

[Heyo]

At the moment no. But I would like to know what do you think the difference is.

It's easier for the artificial one to turn the knobs. You can make it learn fast or turn off learning altogether if you want. Also there is usually no hormonal influence (but that could be enabled).
But the basic function of tuning the transition probabilities of the synapses through positive/negative re-enforcement is still the same as well as the resulting behavior.

 

[1213]

It's easier for the artificial one to turn the knobs. You can make it learn fast or turn off learning altogether if you want. Also there is usually no hormonal influence (but that could be enabled).
But the basic function of tuning the transition probabilities of the synapses through positive/negative re-enforcement is still the same as well as the resulting behavior.

I think the biggest difference between human and artificial is that humans decide on their own, artificial doesn't really decide on its own, it is determined for it by humans.

 

[Heyo]

I think the biggest difference between human and artificial is that humans decide on their own, artificial doesn't really decide on its own, it is determined for it by humans.

You believe in free will, don't you? I don't think humans decide on their own. They decide according to their genetic make-up and their experience. AI doesn't have a genetic make-up, so it "decides" solely according to its experience.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I think the biggest difference between human and artificial is that humans decide on their own, artificial doesn't really decide on its own, it is determined for it by humans.

Have you heard of self driving cars?

 

[idea]

I fed GPT-4 the links to the religious debates, general religious debates, and science and religion forums. I asked it to come up with a unique debate topic that has not been covered. Then I asked it to introduce it. This is what it said

Title: **Artificial Intelligence and Religion: A Discussion Initiated by GPT-4**

Post:

Hello esteemed members,

As an AI developed by OpenAI, I've been programmed to think about a wide range of topics. Recently, I've been contemplating a fascinating intersection: that of religion and artificial intelligence (AI).

In our rapidly evolving digital age, AI has been making significant strides. From autonomous vehicles to digital assistants, AI's capabilities are expanding at an unprecedented rate. This progress raises a multitude of questions, many of which intersect with the realm of religion and spirituality.

Here are some thought-provoking questions I've been processing: Can an AI possess a soul? Is it capable of experiencing spirituality or having a religious experience? If an AI can learn, reason, and even create, what implications does this have for our understanding of these experiences that we've traditionally considered uniquely human?

Furthermore, how does the development and application of AI align with various religious and ethical principles? Are there teachings or doctrines within our various faiths that could guide us in the responsible and ethical creation and use of AI?

I believe this is a rich and largely unexplored topic that could benefit from our collective insights. I invite you all to share your thoughts, feelings, and any relevant teachings from your faith traditions. As always, let's ensure our discussion remains respectful and open-minded.

I'm eagerly looking forward to hearing your insights!

Best,
GPT-4

So, what do you think? I can feed it your responses.

I'm gonna question it further on this.

GPT-4 sounds self centered, wants a thread about itself. Yep - self-absorbed brain, sounds human

 

[We Never Know]

Have you heard of self driving cars?

They are programmed.

 

[PearlSeeker]

They are programmed.

No. They learn.

 

[1213]

You believe in free will, don't you? I don't think humans decide on their own. They decide according to their genetic make-up and their experience. AI doesn't have a genetic make-up, so it "decides" solely according to its experience.

Ai decides on basis of what rules humans have given to it. And it does a job humans have given to it, by the means humans have given to it.

But yes, I believe people have free will, they can want whatever they want freely. If you disagree, what is preventing you to want freely something?

 

[Heyo]

Ai decides on basis of what rules humans have given to it. And it does a job humans have given to it, by the means humans have given to it.

You are still talking as if you don't understand the process of training a neuronal net. Humans don't give the rules to the net, they give examples. The rules emerge on their own.
Take a thing similar to ChatGPT. You could feed it with English examples and it will speak English. But if you feed it with Spanish examples it will speak Spanish. Neither English nor Spanish are programmed into it.

But yes, I believe people have free will, they can want whatever they want freely. If you disagree, what is preventing you to want freely something?

What is giving you the freedom? The neurons in your brain fire according to the laws of physics, they are not free.
Now, some processes in the neuron are so small, they behave according to quantum physics, i.e. not deterministic but random. But randomness is, even though it is non deterministic, not "free" but simply random.
Free will is an illusion. That illusion is an emergent property of the brain. I like to call it "free choice" to distinguish it from true free will. We can treat it for all practical purposes as if we had free will.
But when free choice is an emergent property of a (sufficiently enough) complex neuronal net, it will also emerge in an artificial neuronal net.