Religious views on creating artificial intelligence

[Sir Doom]

I used to use it (it was the only time, too) when people were talking about babies in China-- aborting females and all that. Nowadays china has to import females from other countries so the men can have wives.

I don't see how "playing God" could be used for artificial intelligence. If they do ever create an intelligent android, I wonder if it would end up like Data in the ST:TNG episode "The Measure of a Man" when they were having a trial to determine Data's rights as an individual and not as property. I know it might be trite using a TV show as a reference, but...

Probably one of the better episodes in that series. It was a bit contrived and predictable, but the point was well made I thought. Similar stories are like Millenium Man with Robin Williams (they come to the opposite decision in that one if I remember correctly). But the absolute best one, in my opinion would have to be Amistad. It isn't about robots, its about slaves but I think the parallel is unmistakable.

In any case, if we were even approaching this level of technology we would have some severe moral questions to address. The question of 'playing god' is pretty pale in comparison to most of these. The 'people or property' one is top of the list and spawns a thousand more questions that would have to be asked.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't see how "playing God" could be used for artificial intelligence. If they do ever create an intelligent android, I wonder if it would end up like Data in the ST:TNG episode "The Measure of a Man" when they were having a trial to determine Data's rights as an individual and not as property. I know it might be trite using a TV show as a reference, but...

There are many instances of science fiction exploring philosophical or ethical issues, and that episode is an excellent example and one of the best in all of star trek.

I don't know how religion figures into it, but the valid point is made that if we ever succeed in creating an artificial intelligence we would have a moral responsibility to that intelligence just as we do to "natural intelligence".

And while we are at it I have to mention one of my all time favourite movies - Blade Runner. How would you feel if it was your job to "retire" an artificial intelligence?

 

[George-ananda]

As I stated on the other thread, I would consider the reality to be that humans had discovered how to create a perfect environment for a soul to pervade. A soul, which is life itself and carries consciousness, can only become present in the fully functioning body just like how electricity will only provide light if the wires are all set up correctly.

In Hinduism there is no issue with man being creative. We're all aspects of God with reflective qualities of the divine. Search for truth and being creative is in our nature. What sets us apart from God is that He is the First, the Original, and we are a part of his Being. Nothing we do can change that. We will always be the microcosm. So such a creation on our parts would change nothing about this.

Very good answer Madhuri.:clap

I just like to add that many people overrate the significance of artificial intelligence.

Ultimately it is nothing more than electrons moving through logic circuits. The electrons and the circuits are completely neutral to what happens. The intelligence in the system all comes from human programmers writing programs that mimic how a real concious being would react to events.

There is a difference between living things and man-made machines; a life-force; a soul.

 

[George-ananda]

A lot sci fi stories have been written about this such as "I robot".

I was interesting in searching that issue in a Baha'i context and for us anyway the production of an artificial intelligence ... if possible...would not be in our view anything resembling a living being as only God creates:

statement made by 'Abdu'l-Bahá on "The Origin of Man" from Bahá'í World Faith, p. 298 (originally Some Answered Questions, p. 211):

For example, if a man of his own mind and intelligence collects some elements and combines them, a living being will not be brought into existence, since the system is unnatural. This is the answer to the implied question that, since beings are made by the composition and the combination of elements, why is it not possible for us to gather elements and mingle them together, and so create a living being. This is a false supposition, for the origin of this composition is from God; it is God Who makes the combination, and as it is done according to the natural system, from each composition one being is produced, and an existence is realized. A composition made by man produces nothing because man cannot create.
​

However in another sense there is nothing specific in our Writings about the hypothetical possibility so we would probably have to defer making any pronouncements until such an event arises and then a better assessment could be made.

Great answer by 'Abdu'l-Bahá :clap

He said this long before the computer age and it is as true today as it's always been!

 

[ChristineES]

There are many instances of science fiction exploring philosophical or ethical issues, and that episode is an excellent example and one of the best in all of star trek.

I don't know how religion figures into it, but the valid point is made that if we ever succeed in creating an artificial intelligence we would have a moral responsibility to that intelligence just as we do to "natural intelligence".

And while we are at it I have to mention one of my all time favourite movies - Blade Runner. How would you feel if it was your job to "retire" an artificial intelligence?

Religion doesn't really figure into it, except when it was asked "Does Data have a soul?" She didn't know that he did or even if she had one.

The real question is that even if humankind ever did create artificial intelligence, would that machine have a consciousness? If it is conscious, what kind of rights will it have. The same kinds of things brought up in "The Measure of a Man".-- slavery (which Guinan tells Picard that might be a little "harsh") and "disposable" beings. If I go by my own faith, I would be against having disposable beings and I would demand they have rights (I doubt that AI will be around in my lifetime, though).
Time to stop rambling on.

 

[Reptillian]

In any case, if we were even approaching this level of technology we would have some severe moral questions to address. The question of 'playing god' is pretty pale in comparison to most of these. The 'people or property' one is top of the list and spawns a thousand more questions that would have to be asked.

Oh yeah, the creation of thinking machines would have huge cultural ramifications. It would have as much, if not more of, an impact as contact with extraterrestrials. For all intents and purposes, we'd be creating an alien intelligence.

I doubt that AI will be around in my lifetime, though.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that advancements are always closer than you think. As we type, there are scientists using MRI machines to study the workings of the human brain and computer scientists who're trying build computers to mimic it's method of functioning. I think that it's very possible we'll have thinking machines within the next couple of decades. We're on the verge of using computers and MRI machines to see into peoples' dreams and read their thoughts...that is currently happening and will be refined within a decade.

 

[JustWondering]

Do animals have souls? What happens if an animal has its intelligence genetically enhanced to human levels? Should such an animal have the same rights as humans?

 

[Sir Doom]

Do animals have souls?

If humans do, then I would assume animals do as well. I don't think we're anything special.

What happens if an animal has its intelligence genetically enhanced to human levels? Should such an animal have the same rights as humans?

This is a tough one. Its hard to quantify 'human levels'. We don't allow children the same rights as adults after all. I think it would require that the animal were capable of demonstrating at least the maturity of an 18 year old (not a hard task LOL) although I can't imagine what they would have to do.

I sort of think that if the animal is capable of requesting its human rights (voting, contractual obligation, property ownership, etc.) then it should probably be granted those rights.

Then again, I remember thinking at 15 that I should be allowed to vote. At this point I'm pretty sure I was wrong about that. A dog never lives more than 20 years tops. Even if it had its human mind from birth, it may never reach a level of maturity necessary for adulthood. I dunno. It's a tough call.

 

[PolyHedral]

Very good answer Madhuri.:clap

I just like to add that many people overrate the significance of artificial intelligence.

Ultimately it is nothing more than electrons moving through logic circuits. The electrons and the circuits are completely neutral to what happens. The intelligence in the system all comes from human programmers writing programs that mimic how a real concious being would react to events.

There is a difference between living things and man-made machines; a life-force; a soul.

True, general artificial intelligence would be the second most powerful and revolutionary invention in all of human history. It would irrevocably change society in ways that are impossible to predict beforehand.

 

[JustWondering]

True, general artificial intelligence would be the second most powerful and revolutionary invention in all of human history. It would irrevocably change society in ways that are impossible to predict beforehand.

Eventually I think humanity will begin defering decisions to machines. Look at how much trust people have in technology now. One day machines will rule this world. Not because they will rise up in rebellion against their creators but because we will hand it over to them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm against it, but more for philosophical reasons

 

[MD]

I'm against creating AI with super human intelligence and super human awareness. That would pretty much mean the end of humanity.

 

[otokage007]

We have a discussion going on in the General Discussions section about if creating true AIs is even possible, but for this thread we are going to assume it is. If we created machines that were self aware, able to reason, perhaps 'evolve' to have emotion, etc how would that affect any religious beliefs you may have? Also, do your religious beliefs give you an opinion on if we even should create artificial intelligence? One issue is that many view God as the creator, saying he creates and takes life. If we create AIs, is that the same as God creating Human beings? We almost are AIs except that we are organic and not machines. Not sure what true issues may arise here, I hope it is clear what discussion I am trying to initiate.

The discusion you are trying to initiate is clear. But don't forget we already can create life. For example, by cloning someone.

But back to the AI thing. I think it will be clear for religious people: strong AIs are indeed alive, but they don't have a soul so they will never be real living creatures. <- That would be a christian answer, not mine. To me, the reapers (scary!) are even more alive than us. And I would like to say "i'm against of creating them" but... If it were my decision, I think I couldn't help it and I would end up creating them lol

 

[idav]

The AI would have to be programmed to need anything like hunger, lust or other things that plague organisms. If they don't care they are missing something?

 

[McBell]

The AI would have to be programmed to need anything like hunger, lust or other things that plague organisms. If they don't care they are missing something?

Why?
I mean, are hunger, lust and or other things what define sapience?

 

[Pleroma]

We have a discussion going on in the General Discussions section about if creating true AIs is even possible, but for this thread we are going to assume it is. If we created machines that were self aware, able to reason, perhaps 'evolve' to have emotion, etc how would that affect any religious beliefs you may have? Also, do your religious beliefs give you an opinion on if we even should create artificial intelligence? One issue is that many view God as the creator, saying he creates and takes life. If we create AIs, is that the same as God creating Human beings? We almost are AIs except that we are organic and not machines. Not sure what true issues may arise here, I hope it is clear what discussion I am trying to initiate.

If someone can show me a machine capable of strong AI which can also experience Qualia then I will give up my belief in God and in fact the whole of religion will be falsified.

Religion knows that "Intelligence and mathematical truths" exist in a separate platonic realm and explicitly claims that Intelligence belongs to the realm of God.

There are strong Platonists like Gödel and Roger Penrose who argue that strong AI is impossible and if someone can show me a machine capable of strong AI then I will give up my belief in Religion and God.

 

[MD]

If someone can show me a machine capable of strong AI which can also experience Qualia then I will give up my belief in God and in fact the whole of religion will be falsified.

Religion knows that "Intelligence and mathematical truths" exist in a separate platonic realm and explicitly claims that Intelligence belongs to the realm of God.

There are strong Platonists like Gödel and Roger Penrose who argue that strong AI is impossible and if someone can show me a machine capable of strong AI then I will give up my belief in Religion and God.

Lol no such machine exists, but I have a question. Why wouldn't a machine be able to extract those truths if their hardware matches that of the brain? Wouldn't a human clone have the capacity for qualia?

Penrose states that strong AI is impossible with current classical computing, but I think he said if there were quantum computers then it's a possibility. That's part of the permise of Orch Or.

If qualia and consciousness are fundamental aspects of reality, like spin or charge, and if a machine has consciousness, then I don't see how that invalidates God. Infact it would strengthen my belief that consciousness is a pervasive force of the universe and all matter possesses it.

 

[Pleroma]

Lol no such machine exists, but I have a question.

That's one of the strong reasons why I am religious and believe in God. It still baffles me.

Why wouldn't a machine be able to extract those truths if their hardware matches that of the brain? Wouldn't a human clone have the capacity for qualia?

A machine can't able to access those truths because humans beings have something which they don't. Humans have a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical Intelligence and this is in the noumenal world. This is the reason why human beings can answer to questions for which no algorithm exists. There is something seriously wrong with our conscious thought.

“Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”

– Kurt Gödel

“Gödel’s Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed”

- Rudy Rucker

We understand so little about developmental biology and its physiology and how the differentiation takes place. At what point something is conscious and not conscious? Its hard to draw a demarcation line.

Penrose states that strong AI is impossible with current classical computing, but I think he said if there were quantum computers then it's a possibility. That's part of the permise of Orch Or.

No, Penrose says that Consciousness has non-computable ingredients and its purely a mathematical argument and the last thing I doubt about Sir Roger Penrose is his mathematical abilities and he thinks there is nothing in the current physics which gives us a non-computable world. Non-computable world belongs to the realm of God.

The Third Culture - Chapter 14

Its a misunderstanding of Penrose views as Penrose says,

"When I argue that the action of the conscious brain is noncomputational, I'm not talking about quantum computers. Quantum computers are perfectly well-defined concepts, which don't involve any change in physics; they don't even perform noncomputational actions. Just by themselves, they don't explain what's going on in the conscious actions of the brain. Dan Dennett thinks of a quantum computer as a skyhook, his term for a miracle. However, it's a perfectly sensible thing. Nevertheless, I don't think it can explain the way the brain works. That's another misunderstanding of my views. But there could be some element of quantum computation in brain action. Perhaps I could say something about that."

"I suppose this is because so much of science is done that way these days; you simulate physical activity computationally. People don't realize that something can be noncomputational and yet perfectly scientific, perfectly mathematically describable. The fact that I'm coming into all this from a mathematical background makes it easier for me to appreciate that there are things that aren't computational but are perfectly good mathematics."

The OR/orch model of quantum consciousness is treated as pesudoscience by the scientific community and a complete B.S. I only accept Penrose's mathematical arguments not his speculations on quantum consciousness.

If qualia and consciousness are fundamental aspects of reality, like spin or charge, and if a machine has consciousness, then I don't see how that invalidates God. Infact it would strengthen my belief that consciousness is a pervasive force of the universe and all matter possesses it.

For God to exist scientific realism must be false. Substance dualism is a must otherwise there is no point in still holding on to belief in God and religion. If you want to accept religion then accept it in its own way otherwise its rather good to be a strong atheist and move forward.

 

[MD]

That's one of the strong reasons why I am religious and believe in God. It still baffles me.

You're putting too much hope in one claim to believe in God.

A machine can't able to access those truths because humans beings have something which they don't. Humans have a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical Intelligence and this is in the noumenal world. This is the reason why human beings can answer to questions for which no algorithm exists. There is something seriously wrong with our conscious thought.

&#8220;Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.&#8221;

&#8211; Kurt Gödel

&#8220;Gödel&#8217;s Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed&#8221;

- Rudy Rucker

We understand so little about developmental biology and its physiology and how the differentiation takes place. At what point something is conscious and not conscious? Its hard to draw a demarcation line.

If the architecutre of the human mind was exactly duplicated (of course this is impossible), I do not see any reason whatsoever why it a machine would not be conscious and not have subjective experience.

The OR/orch model of quantum consciousness is treated as pesudoscience by the scientific community and a complete B.S. I only accept Penrose's mathematical arguments not his speculations on quantum consciousness.

Orch/OR is not complete BS. The scientific community has no idea what is right and wrong with regards to consciousness theories. They're lost. A lot of the criticisms against Orch OR have been addressed. When Krauss made fun of Hameroff a few years ago about how biological systems are too warm and cannot have quantum decoherence the entire audience laughed. Yet photosynthesis, bird migration and DNA have been found to use quantum mechanics in the following years. There was recently a paper by a guy by the name of Bandyopadhyay which showed that microtubules have qubits.

For God to exist scientific realism must be false. Substance dualism is a must otherwise there is no point in still holding on to belief in God and religion. If you want to accept religion then accept it in its own way otherwise its rather good to be a strong atheist and move forward.

That's your view, it doesn't make it valid. Religion and belief in God are not synonymous. What if idealism were true, the universe is conscious and we're all a part of the mental framework of God? Substance dualism only works with monotheistic faiths, idealism works with eastern faiths. And being a strong atheist is almost as illogical as being a strong theist.

 

[Pleroma]

You're putting too much hope in one claim to believe in God.

Well, I have a wide range of insights and good reasonable arguments to believe in the existence of gods.

If the architecutre of the human mind was exactly duplicated (of course this is impossible), I do not see any reason whatsoever why it a machine would not be conscious and not have subjective experience.

Cognitive scientists doesn't study the problem of qualia and some cognitive scientists with in the community think that they should be taken seriously and there is nothing in the chemistry of the Brain which can generate qualia or subjective experiences.

What is sweetness? What is redness? When I eat sugar specific receptors on my tongue get stimulated since their configurations change and induce an action potential or an electrical impulse which travels through the axon and reaches the never ending and this is done by Na+ and K+ ions using ATP's and this action potential is coupled to Ca++ ions and they cleave the synaptic vesicles releasing the neuro-transmitters and the intensity of the signal at the other neuron depends on two factors-

1. The kind of gate that these neuro-transmitters open at the other neuron and there by changing the intensity of the signal.

2. The amount of neuro-transmitters which has been released.

and at the neuron-muscle junctions again the action potential is coupled with Ca++ ions and Ca++ ions contract and relax actin and myosin fibres in a specific way and leads to specific actions and say the vocal chords contract and relax in a specific way, say for example I say "Sugar was too sweet". Now where in all this the processing of "sweetness" takes place? Why the hell I have to experience sweetness? Why doesn't it all go away in the dark as David Chalmers says?

This is the reason even if you duplicate the whole brain without solving or knowing what qualia is a machine won't be able to have subjective experiences. What it is like to be a machine?

Orch/OR is not complete BS. The scientific community has no idea what is right and wrong with regards to consciousness theories. They're lost. A lot of the criticisms against Orch OR have been addressed. When Krauss made fun of Hameroff a few years ago about how biological systems are too warm and cannot have quantum decoherence the entire audience laughed. Yet photosynthesis, bird migration and DNA have been found to use quantum mechanics in the following years. There was recently a paper by a guy by the name of Bandyopadhyay which showed that microtubules have qubits.

Bernard D'espagnat argues that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and that means even the brain falls under empirical reality and therefore consciousness cannot arise out of Brain or matter, in fact the whole empirical reality as well as conscious thought has to arise from a metaphysical mind.

That's your view, it doesn't make it valid. Religion and belief in God are not synonymous. What if idealism were true, the universe is conscious and we're all a part of the mental framework of God? Substance dualism only works with monotheistic faiths, idealism works with eastern faiths. And being a strong atheist is almost as illogical as being a strong theist.

Mind and Brain are two different things and in fact brain and physical objects don't exist independent of this metaphysical mind. So I am a sort of Idealist. That's what I mean when I talk of Substance dualism. This is the view of eastern religions.