"Living" Computers

[gold_wings]

I'm curious as to what people think of the idea of intelligent machines...

In today's world many things exist that were once thought of as the stuff of science fiction and there may be more to come. Take computers as an example, they have become progressively more complicated and andvanced. What if the time came when they became complicated enough to fall under the catergory of "sentient being". How would the Church see them? Would they also be considered "children of God"? Would such a computer have a soul? Could God give a computer a soul (assuming it had none to begin with)?

 

[dead2self]

Hypothetically speaking, God could give a machine a soul. But I cannot imagine it ever happening. And unless God Himself came a declared it to be so, I would never consider a machine sentient or alive. No matter what, it's intelligence would be a product of our programming. I ahave no doubt we will build machines that seem sentient, but without God doing it, I cannot see true sentience comming for them.

Besides, we have done a poor enough job managing our own affairs. I think we ought to leave creation of sentient life to God.

 

[gold_wings]

And unless God Himself came a declared it to be so, I would never consider a machine sentient or alive. No matter what, it's intelligence would be a product of our programming.

Interesting...
What if God, through someone else, did make a sentient computer. I mean he does work in mysterious ways and doesn't come down from Heaven to make babies. We do know of God acting through someone else so why can't the creation of sentient programing not also be an act of God? What about the babies who came to be through invetro fertilization and artificial insemination? Since their conception was done outside the "natural" way and through human agency, could it be said that God didn't create them?
As for God's declaration on the subject, through whom could we hear it from and fully believe? (this could be an idea for another thread)

Forgive to digression but I do see your point. Only God can give anyone or anything a soul. The new question is "why not a computer"?

 

[jiminpa]

What we have today isn't capable of independent thought. It would require an entirely new technology and approach. No matter how many light switches you wire together they still can't think.

 

[gold_wings]

What we have today isn't capable of independent thought. It would require an entirely new technology and approach. No matter how many light switches you wire together they still can't think.

I agree with that statement but I wasn't talking about the here and now. There MAY come a time, sometime IN THE FUTURE, where this may be possible.

 

[dead2self]

I do see your point but I cannot imagine it ever happening. As to who the message would come from that's a good question. I have no answer lol but good question.

 

[white dove]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think God would "support" the creation of intelligent, sentient machines, especially if they resembled human beings or other animals. Creation as a direct result of how God intended/designed it be (sperm & egg) being pushed to the side by scientists & mechanical engineers with way too much time and boredom on their hands (Where are the AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. cures?) would probably be deemed an abomination by God. But, that's just my opinion. It wouldn't be a direct creation of God as it is not as a result of God's initial (sperm & egg) creation methodology.

 

[Tissue]

The main issue with this conversation is the understanding of the human mind. As any psychologist (who relies upon biology, who relies upon chemistry, who relies upon physics) will tell you, the mind, though deep and complex, is a machine. It's made of different stuff than your digital watch, and it's capable of things such as insight, emotion, and creativity, but it is ultimately nothing more than a machine. There's nothing supernatural about our brains.

For this fascinating subject, I highly recommend Hofstadter's best-selling book "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", which talks about 'Strange Loops' as referenced by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Escher's art, and Bach's music. A must-read for this sort of discussion, I would argue.

And the question must be asked: Why would God stop us? We've already come so far, and He hasn't burnt up our progress. Why, precisely, would God be against this development?

 

[white dove]

As a result, God then becomes the middle-man.

 

[intricatic]

Man supplanting God's creative faculty in the design of intelligent and rational beings: Bad idea. Man imitating God's creativity in artistic expression not designed to supplant God's place in the universe: Good idea.

 

[Tissue]

I don't know if you're aware, Objectivist, but this is the theology section of CF. If you want to make smart comments about God being a fairy tale, there is a separate section of the site where that is allowed.

 

[jiminpa]

The main issue with this conversation is the understanding of the human mind. As any psychologist (who relies upon biology, who relies upon chemistry, who relies upon physics) will tell you, the mind, though deep and complex, is a machine. It's made of different stuff than your digital watch, and it's capable of things such as insight, emotion, and creativity, but it is ultimately nothing more than a machine. There's nothing supernatural about our brains.

Any human who claims to fully understand the workings of the brain is either lying, or so tied up in his own delusions of grandeur that he is not to be trusted in any matter. So much of what gets labeled as science these days is pure self ego stroking by people who aren't smart enough to realize how limited their own intellect is, and quite frankly, I am beyond tired of being expected to bow at that alter.

 

[Tissue]

That's a fairly typical Christian response. In essence, you have denied the knowledge of those more specialized than you, who understand more of how the world works, for the sake of your own belief (loosely understood as stemming from Christianity, though not directly).

There's a different between entirely understanding our mind (our entirely understanding a pebble, for that matter), and understanding the processes that govern it. I can look at a clock and tell you it is a machine without being able to tell you exactly how it works, and all of the physics used to get there. In this same way, the mind has been recognized as a machine.

Christianity all-too-easily lends itself to an elitism over the sciences. It's exactly this that has earned us such a horrid reputation as imbeciles and idiots.

 

[gold_wings]

It wouldn't be a direct creation of God as it is not as a result of God's initial (sperm & egg) creation methodology.

This statement implies that God has stopped creating. Also, does this mean that for something to be created by God he himself has to come down from heaven and breath life into it?

As a result, God then becomes the middle-man.

How does that make God the middle man exactly?

Man supplanting God's creative faculty in the design of intelligent and rational beings: Bad idea. Man imitating God's creativity in artistic expression not designed to supplant God's place in the universe: Good idea.

I agree with that statement. However, could it not be said that perhaps the creation of sentient machines is also a part of God's plan and that humans are agents through which he works his creations? After all, I dont think God would use his fingers to turn the screws when he already has screwdrivers that he can use and a screwdriver can never supplant the one that uses it.

 

[jiminpa]

That's a fairly typical Christian response. In essence, you have denied the knowledge of those more specialized than you, who understand more of how the world works, for the sake of your own belief (loosely understood as stemming from Christianity, though not directly).

There's a different between entirely understanding our mind (our entirely understanding a pebble, for that matter), and understanding the processes that govern it. I can look at a clock and tell you it is a machine without being able to tell you exactly how it works, and all of the physics used to get there. In this same way, the mind has been recognized as a machine.

Christianity all-too-easily lends itself to an elitism over the sciences. It's exactly this that has earned us such a horrid reputation as imbeciles and idiots.

That's okay. I don't mind that I don't measure up when idiots set themselves up as the intellectual ideal.

 

[CVL]

I read an article of scientists planning to simmulate the functions of part of an ant's brain using a room full of super-computers networked together. This was years ago. If you consider a brain as a system of circuitry made up of neurons then you can imagine what would happen if years from now we managed to shrink those super-computers down and multiplied them on the order of magnetude that exists in a larger lifeform, then that bank of computers might be able to behave alike. Do ants have souls? Do super-computers as complex as an ant have souls? Do ant droids dream?

As a result, God then becomes the middle-man.

God exists through the acts of man... but then again, idle hands are the devil's machineshop...

 

[Tissue]

That's okay. I don't mind that I don't measure up when idiots set themselves up as the intellectual ideal.

Sounds like you've got your mind pretty well made up. Doesn't seem much point in discussing this any further with you.

 

[intricatic]

Christianity all-too-easily lends itself to an elitism over the sciences. It's exactly this that has earned us such a horrid reputation as imbeciles and idiots.

I always thought the reverse was true.

 

[brinny]

I'm curious as to what people think of the idea of intelligent machines...

In today's world many things exist that were once thought of as the stuff of science fiction and there may be more to come. Take computers as an example, they have become progressively more complicated and andvanced. What if the time came when they became complicated enough to fall under the catergory of "sentient being". How would the Church see them? Would they also be considered "children of God"? Would such a computer have a soul? Could God give a computer a soul (assuming it had none to begin with)?

Only if He breathed life into it, just as He breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul

 

[Tissue]

I always thought the reverse was true.

It can be. But where else do you find a group of people who vehemently deny the authenticity of evolution as a theory without having any understanding of the issue beyond what Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, and Kirk Cameron tell them?