Would an artificial human level intelligence debunk Abrahamic theology?

[serp777]

If humanity develops a sentient artifical intelligence, would Abrahamic theology be negated? It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical. I guess you would have unfounded assertions from the theological camp about p zombies, but it seems to me if you're claiming that something is a pzombie, that burden of proof is on you.

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

I also think there are good reasons to think that its plausible that humans will produce a sentient artifical intelligence at some point. I would certainly be interested in someone claiming that it was impossible that humanity could not create a sentient artifical intelligence.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Presuming that all of the various theologies are based upon some kind of atman is just a presumption. Sure it might not be compatible with some interpretations, but you are apparently not familiar enough to really know what you are talking about. Do Muslims believe what you are talking about? You don't seem that familiar. Do Jews? You don't seem to know. What about Christians? Definitely not all.

 

[Tumah]

Golem - Wikipedia

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical.

On the other hand, we must remember that Adam was essentially a magic dirt Pinocchio.

If you want some fun robotics, go to ancient Greeks. They had lots.

 

[Axe Elf]

We're close...

Eliza, Computer Therapist

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

If humanity develops a sentient artifical intelligence, would Abrahamic theology be negated? It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical. I guess you would have unfounded assertions from the theological camp about p zombies, but it seems to me if you're claiming that something is a pzombie, that burden of proof is on you.

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

I also think there are good reasons to think that its plausible that humans will produce a sentient artifical intelligence at some point. I would certainly be interested in someone claiming that it was impossible that humanity could not create a sentient artifical intelligence.

That's the bit I'm more interested in personally

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

There seems to be a burden of proof on your end, to not thinking of what might happen if you got two AI's that have radically different opinions on this same topic - which one is correct? the one that does or doesn't validate your own belief?
And where is the validity in a robot's estimated intelligence in the first place? Sure, they've got google but intelligence and knowledge are acquired things

 

[serp777]

Presuming that all of the various theologies are based upon some kind of atman is just a presumption. Sure it might not be compatible with some interpretations, but you are apparently not familiar enough to really know what you are talking about. Do Muslims believe what you are talking about? You don't seem that familiar. Do Jews? You don't seem to know. What about Christians? Definitely not all.

I didn't say all theologies anywhere. I specifically said the abrahamic faiths. And its not just a presumption with respect to the Abrahamic fiaths. Its kind of laughable that you think that. The bible and the Quran explicitly talk about the soul and that our souls go beyond the physical realm. I can definitely provide bible passages supporting this. I'd like to know if there are any significant abrahamic faiths/sects that believe our existence is entirely physical and that consciousness is just an emergent property of particles and forces. If there are its definitely not the majority and its not consistent with either the Quran or the Bible. Also what do you want me to do? List every single sect/faith and go through whether this is applicable to them or not? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[George-ananda]

If humanity develops a sentient artifical intelligence, would Abrahamic theology be negated? It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical. I guess you would have unfounded assertions from the theological camp about p zombies, but it seems to me if you're claiming that something is a pzombie, that burden of proof is on you.

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

I also think there are good reasons to think that its plausible that humans will produce a sentient artifical intelligence at some point. I would certainly be interested in someone claiming that it was impossible that humanity could not create a sentient artifical intelligence.

We already have artificial intelligence.

The key point is that I do not believe any of it is capable of experiencing subjectively. It is just electrons running through logic circuits. What sees and experiences any big picture there?? That is the fail of AI disproving Abrahamic or any other religion in my opinion.

 

[serp777]

Golem - Wikipedia

Not even close to the same thing as a sentient artificial intelligence which would be indistinguishable from a human if you weren't able to see it. The article specifically states: n Modern Hebrew, golem is used to mean "dumb" or "helpless". Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a brainless lunk or entity who serves a man under controlled conditions but is hostile to him under others.[2] Doesn't seem comparable at all.

 

[serp777]

We already have artificial intelligence.

The key point is that I do not believe any of it is capable of experiencing subjectively. It is just electrons running threw logic circuits. What sees and experiences any big picture there?? That is the fail of AI disproving Abrahamic or any other religion in my opinion.

How did you determine that you're not just some chemical reactions occurring in water in a neural substrate? You're just brain chemicals. Fundamentally that's also just electrons flowing in chemical reactions. If you're going to say that a sentient artifical intelligence is incapable of subjective exerpiences, then you have a significant burden of proof to show how you're somehow capable of experiencing subjectively but the sentient AI is not.

I mean what if a human intelligence is being simulated on silicon? Will it just not work? What if we replace part of your brain with some silicon chip that does the same thing? At what point can you no longer experience subjectivity? you've got a lot of work to do. If there is a sentient artificial intelligence that is indistinguishable from a human, then you cannot say it doesn't have subjective experiences since you would have no way to determine that.

Also if it isn't capable of experiencing subjectivity, should we be able to enslave it like a hammer or a screw driver? Should we be able to kill it and abuse it whenever we wan't because it would be like abusing or destroying a saw? I think you're encroaching on some dangerous ethical questions here.

 

[serp777]

That's the bit I'm more interested in personally

I think there's no good reason right now to think its not possible. All the evidence suggests that it is. If someone thinks it is impossible i'm wondering what they think would happen if we simulated someone's brain down to the last atom. Would it just not work? There's no good reason to think it wouldn't be just as sentient as the brain it was copied after. Ones running on silicon, the other on chemical reactions and organic chemicals.

 

[George-ananda]

How did you determine that you're not just some chemical reactions occurring in water in a neural substrate? You're just brain chemicals. Fundamentally that's also just electrons flowing in chemical reactions. If you're going to say that a sentient artifical intelligence is incapable of subjective exerpiences, then you have a significant burden of proof to show how you're somehow capable of experiencing subjectively but the sentient AI is not.

I know I experience the big picture of my life. Which part of a computer experiences the big picture of its existence??

I mean what if a human intelligence is being simulated on silicon? Will it just not work? What if we replace part of your brain with some silicon chip that does the same thing? At what point can you no longer experience subjectivity? you've got a lot of work to do. If there is a sentient artificial intelligence that is indistinguishable from a human, then you cannot say it doesn't have subjective experiences since you would have no way to determine that.

A living thing consists of non-physical aspects that allows it to experience subjectively in my worldview. A collection of separate parts has no ability for a subjective experience. How could it in your view? What is a processor chip beyond electrons moving through logic circuits? What understands the big picture of subjective happiness/pain/etc.?

Also if it isn't capable of experiencing subjectivity, should we be able to enslave it like a hammer or a screw driver? Should we be able to kill it and abuse it whenever we wan't because it would be like abusing or destroying a saw? I think you're encroaching on some dangerous ethical questions here.

When my computer becomes obsolete or an expensive part breaks I throw it out with no moral concerns, yes..

 

[Tumah]

Not even close to the same thing as a sentient artificial intelligence which would be indistinguishable from a human if you weren't able to see it. The article specifically states: n Modern Hebrew, golem is used to mean "dumb" or "helpless". Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a brainless lunk or entity who serves a man under controlled conditions but is hostile to him under others.[2] Doesn't seem comparable at all.

You've chosen the wrong part of the article. The word has a number of meanings depending on the context and I did not mean to direct you to the etymology. I was referring to the next part

Like Adam, all golems are created from mud by those close to divinity, but no anthropogenic golem is fully human. Early on, the main disability of the golem was its inability to speak. Sanhedrin 65b describes Rava creating a man (gavra). He sent the man to Rav Zeira. Rav Zeira spoke to him, but he did not answer. Rav Zeira said, "You were created by the sages; return to your dust".​

 

[bobhikes]

If humanity develops a sentient artifical intelligence, would Abrahamic theology be negated? It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical. I guess you would have unfounded assertions from the theological camp about p zombies, but it seems to me if you're claiming that something is a pzombie, that burden of proof is on you.

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

I also think there are good reasons to think that its plausible that humans will produce a sentient artifical intelligence at some point. I would certainly be interested in someone claiming that it was impossible that humanity could not create a sentient artifical intelligence.

Any real Artifical Intelligence would debunk Human superiority. Which is why a lot of scientists are issuing warnings.

 

[Quintessence]

Any real Artifical Intelligence would debunk Human superiority. Which is why a lot of scientists are issuing warnings.

So-called human superiority is already debunked by even a cursory study of the rest of the universe. I doubt if scientists would issue warnings about such things, given ideologies of human superiority are non-scientific (that is, they are cultural and philosophical). This scientist certainly wouldn't.

 

[bobhikes]

So-called human superiority is already debunked by even a cursory study of the rest of the universe. I doubt if scientists would issue warnings about such things, given ideologies of human superiority are non-scientific (that is, they are cultural and philosophical). This scientist certainly wouldn't.

IFLScience.com:
Stephen Hawking believes that future developments in artificial intelligence have the potential to eradicate mankind.

Now hundreds of leading scientists have joined Musk and Hawking in warning of the potential dangers of artificial intelligence. They have signed an open letter calling for research on how to avoid harming humanity.

Daily News:
An online letter signed by 1,000 of the world's leading scientists will be delivered Tuesday at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aires, Argentina. They warn of the damaging effect AI weaponry could one day have, likening it to the next nuclear weapon.

The leaders, which include people such as Tesla Chairman Elon Musk, Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Wozniak and professors Stephen Hawking and Noam Chomsky, are incredibly concerned the development of AI weaponry, also called autonomous weapons that select and engage targets without human intervention, could be a mere years away. And an arms race to develop as many of these weapons as possible could lead to destruction beyond the control of human beings.

 

[serp777]

I know I experience the big picture of my life. Which part of a computer experiences the big picture of its existence??
A living thing consists of non-physical aspects that allows it to experience subjectively in my worldview. A collection of separate parts has no ability for a subjective experience. How could it in your view? What is a processor chip beyond electrons moving through logic circuits? What understands the big picture of subjective happiness/pain/etc.?
When my computer becomes obsolete or an expensive part breaks I throw it out with no moral concerns, yes..

"I know I experience the big picture of my life. Which part of a computer experiences the big picture of its existence??"

How do you know that you know? Because you think you do? That's begging the question. And i don't know which part of a computer experience its existence. Which neurons in your brain experience the big picture of existence?

"A living thing consists of non-physical aspects that allows it to experience subjectively in my worldview. A collection of separate parts has no ability for a subjective experience. How could it in your view? What is a processor chip beyond electrons moving through logic circuits? What understands the big picture of subjective happiness/pain/etc.?"

I have many problems with this. First of all your brain is a collection of separate parts. The brain can be divided up into sections and the sections can be divided up into clusters of neurons. What is a brain beyond chemical reactions exciting neurons in an algorithmic way? The answer to your last question: a processor chip can run advanced software that determines the flow of electrons through gates just like how neurons in your brain determine the number and state of chemical reactions in your brain.

"When my computer becomes obsolete or an expensive part breaks I throw it out with no moral concerns, yes.."

An artificial sentient intelligence is not just a computer. Again its like saying your brain is just chemical reactions. Its a simplification and ignores important emergent phenomena. This is like saying that you'd throw a brain away with no moral concerns. Well if the brain was a host to an individual, then you would have moral concerns hopefully. Same with a computer hosting an individual.

 

[David T]

If humanity develops a sentient artifical intelligence, would Abrahamic theology be negated? It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical. I guess you would have unfounded assertions from the theological camp about p zombies, but it seems to me if you're claiming that something is a pzombie, that burden of proof is on you.

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

I also think there are good reasons to think that its plausible that humans will produce a sentient artifical intelligence at some point. I would certainly be interested in someone claiming that it was impossible that humanity could not create a sentient artifical intelligence.

I thought Abrahamic religion or AR was transhumanism dressed in medieval armour as opposed To modern transhumanism that wants to load consciousness into the armour. Is this a transhumanism vs AI issue? I mean who wins the battle the modern transhumanists vs the medieval transhumsnists or the AI robots?

In Reality it's the battle of dung Beatles over a dung ball.

 

[serp777]

Any real Artifical Intelligence would debunk Human superiority. Which is why a lot of scientists are issuing warnings.

Not necesserily. The first AIs might only have an IQ that would warrant them to be McDonalds workers. They might only have an IQ of 70 and be able to do simple tasks and learn in a limited way. It might be harder to create more intelligent AI than we think.