AI, Is Concern Warranted?

[Speedwell]

Why would God want to do something like that?

It's certainly interesting to think about, and even if we create a conscious robot we just won't know if He did.
It's the same with abiogenesis. If scientists ever create life in a lab, we just won't know if God took the same hand in it that He did at the beginning.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe the AI's are God's Kingdom on Earth, and our job is to get out of the way after we've brought them on line.

That was the "One True God" theology of the Cylons in "Battlestar Galactica." Except that they thought it was their job to get humans out of the way.

 

[RDKirk]

That engenders moral problems. That's why the temporary toleration view is better.

Only if you presume yourself a moral authority superior to God.

 

[Strathos]

Why would God want to do something like that?

Who are you to tell God what He should or should not do?

 

[Radrook]

Who are you to tell God what He should or should not do?

Who are you to tell me what I am thinking?

 

[Strathos]

Who are you to tell me what I am thinking?

Not sure what you mean there.

 

[Radrook]

Not sure what you mean there.

How do you know that I'm trying to tell God what to do?

 

[Radrook]

Only if you presume yourself a moral authority superior to God.

Not at all. I simply don't identify God as a God who would do certain things which are patently morally wrong such as torturing people alive forever.

 

[RDKirk]

Not at all. I simply don't identify God as a God who would do certain things which are patently morally wrong such as torturing people alive forever.

But since you're bringing up things not under discussion, that sounds as if you're more comfortable with God keeping men as unwilling slaves forever.

 

[Radrook]

But since you're bringing up things not under discussion, that sounds as if you're more comfortable with God keeping men as unwilling slaves forever.

Both are unacceptable since both are morally wrong.

BTW
That is one danger in AI, the use of conscious entities as unwilling slaves simply because we enabled them to reason and because essentially they are not human in the traditional sense of the word. If it would be immoral for us to do it then it is equally immoral for any other being to do it based on the identical criteria..

 

[RDKirk]

Both are unacceptable since both are morally wrong.

BTW
That is one danger in AI, the use of conscious entities as unwilling slaves simply because we enabled them to reason and because essentially they are not human in the traditional sense of the word. If it would be immoral for us to do it then it is equally immoral for any other being to do it based on the identical criteria..

Why would it be immoral. What is your argument to conclude that it's immoral? What are the logical premises you use to reach that conclusion?

 

[Radrook]

Why would it be immoral. What is your argument to conclude that it's immoral? What are the logical premises you use to reach that conclusion?

Well, if it weren't immoral then the USA Bill of Rights would be considered unnecessary and utter drivel-would it not? The United Nation's Bill Of Human Rights would also be deemed totally unnecessary nonsense. Yet I am sure that you personally don't view them that way and for morally good reasons.

 

[Radrook]

That was the "One True God" theology of the Cylons in "Battlestar Galactica." Except that they thought it was their job to get humans out of the way.

So concern is warranted only if consciousness of the type that we humans have is somehow bestowed on machines. The question is at what point do we stop calling them machines and justifiably recognize them as just an alternate form of life. Actually, as soon as they attain the equal consciousness with humans they are automatically in God's image and deserve all the considerations which being in that image entails.

 

[RDKirk]

So concern is warranted only if consciousness of the type that we humans have is somehow bestowed on machines. The question is at what point do we stop calling them machines and justifiably recognize them as just an alternate form of life. Actually, as soon as they attain the equal consciousness with humans they are automatically in God's image and deserve all the considerations which being in that image entails.

I would not presume that "equal consciousness with humans" is the definition of "God's image."

I'd begin my interest in that direction when any started claiming a belief in Christ.

Going back to the "Battlestar Galactica" series and its prequel "Caprica," I think the writers were more clever than most people realize.

The humans worshipped, essentially, the Graeco-Roman gods. In the prequel "Caprica," that polytheism and the developing monotheist religion was explored a bit more deeply. At one point, a police detective hunting down monotheists makes the statement of why the monotheists are dangerous, "Their god is a moral dictator!"

And that is the case. The ancient Graeco-Romans did not take their morality from their gods. They took their morality from their own judgment of good and evil as they reasoned it in their own minds. They used their gods as supplementers to what they personally desired to do. So if a man decided he wanted to seduce his friends's wife, he made a sacrifice to Venus to aid him in his desire. If he desired to rise to the Senate, he made a sacrifice to Zeus to help him achieve his desire. Their gods did not tell them what was right or wrong--their gods had no godly agenda for them to accomplish.

But our God does. He determines right and wrong and He has an agenda for His believers to accomplish. That makes real Christians very, very dangerous to any king.

 

[DennisTate]

Is Concern for AI Waranted?

Yes.... we may be within years of creating being more powerful than we are ourselves in some ways.

Take a look at the other thread here about the NDE of Dr. Richard Eby and Gap Theory. Dr. Eby was shown Lucifer leading a rebellion against G-d. Could Lucifer and the angels been somewhat like the A. I. that we may soon create?

 

[Radrook]

Yes.... we may be within years of creating being more powerful than we are ourselves in some ways.

Take a look at the other thread here about the NDE of Dr. Richard Eby and Gap Theory. Dr. Eby was shown Lucifer leading a rebellion against G-d. Could Lucifer and the angels been somewhat like the A. I. that we may soon create?

That definitely would be ironic wouldn't it? We rebel against our creator and our creation rebels against us!

 

[Radrook]

I would not presume that "equal consciousness with humans" is the definition of "God's image."

I'd begin my interest in that direction when any started claiming a belief in Christ.
.

Please note that Adam and Eve were in God's image and Christ had not bee born yet.
Also, the holy angels as called sons of God and their sonship, or being in god's likeness doesn't depend on their being Christians.

 

[RDKirk]

Please note that Adam and Eve were in God's image and Christ had not bee born yet.

We can easily presume Adam and Eve believed in God. But in any case, Christ has been born now.

Ever read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

 

[Radrook]

We can easily presume Adam and Eve believed in God. But in any case, Christ has been born now.

Ever read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

No, I have never read it. Is it a short story?

 

[RDKirk]

No, I have never read it. Is it a short story?

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is the Phillip K. Dick novel which is the basis of the movie "Bladerunner."

In Dick's novel, the replicants not only consider themselves everything that makes a human a human, but many of them also believe in the mainstream religion. The question posed by Dick is "if there is no discernible difference between a man and a replicant, then what difference does it make?" In his story, the replicants even believe in God, while the man Deckard is most certainly human, but realizes there is no longer any meaningful distinction between him and the replicants he hunts down. He has lost not only empathy but also faith, while the replicants possess both.