7 ms·

I've found the necessary condition of assuming atheism in a lot of cog.sci discussions can become a kind of "the floor is lava," constraint, where it seems like

I've found the necessary condition of assuming atheism in a lot of cog.sci discussions can become a kind of "the floor is lava," constraint, where it seems like a game where you can reason about these things credibly so long as you don't fall into a deist trap. Hopping from island to island of logical consistency is fun and drives material innovation, which even perhaps provides a kind of moral teleology you can backfit to political problems - but viewed from outside, it can seem like a bit of a game. It would be really interesting to read a theologians view of AI, maybe a question for Google's Vatican office (if there were one)?

cfadvan 8y ago
It would be really interesting to read a theologians view of AI, maybe a question for Google's Vatican office (if there were one)? The problem with that view is that when you dig into it, it’s always a permutation of, “God did it,” or “Because God said so.” There isn’t much to work with there, and you can use it to justify literally anything at all because it’s free from the constraints of logic. You could equally argue that a machine can never have a soul, and no consciousness, or that god could just decree it does, and who’s to really say otherwise? There is no there, there.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  They're implying that when you involve God you'll also pick up the Roman Catholic catechism. The real problem with trying to bring religion in to these debates comes from trying to pick the religion! Nonspecific God is actually the same as atheism for the reason you point out - you can't make any prior statements about what God will do, which is the same as not being able to make any prior statements about what Nature will do. Physicists have historically interchanged God and Nature (casually, they aren't trying to say anything) when they're talking, and it works for this reason.
  - cfadvan 8y ago
    Exactly. At the end of the day science is all about “How” although some scientists being human, understandably do sometimes wade into the “Why” end of it. Science is great at delving into how something works, without bothering with a “why” and nowhere is that better expressed than in Langrangian formulations. When people try to inject Why into science, they’re missing the point, and the same is true of trying to inject How into religion.
    - monktastic1 8y ago
      It's also possible that there is a meaningful "why." From the perspective of mystical traditions, apparently physical reality is an expression of God's mind. Why God is having this particular dream can then be answered meaningfully, by entering into direct gnosis -- because you are, after all, Him. The hard part is testing this objectively. In a lucid dream, you might understand why the Dreamer is generating this particular setup, but until you can demonstrate it to the satisfaction of others in the dream, it's not very useful to them.
      - cfadvan 8y ago
        It’s possible that there is a god or something similar, but it’s not possible, as you say, to test it (at least not in the foreseeable future) in a meaningful way. We just don’t know, and have no way or knowing. Anyone can float a view from dreaming gods, through gnostic concepts, to simulated reality, and we have no evidence for or against and no real hope of finding such evidence.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
todd8 8y ago
I have had extensive conversations with a theologian, my father (he has a doctorate in theology). I finally decided that I don’t have to change his mind, he has faith and that’s all there is to it. He’s well read, believes in science, evolution, etc. However, he accepts that there is an all powerful god so practically no argument can change that belief. With respect to cognition, when I asked him about the possibility that computer thought might be indistinguishable from human or at least higher level animal thought some day, his reply was that such would be a kind of an illusion of consciousness but that “real” consciousness is by definition not a mechanical thing and only possible in a living organism. I feel like most religious people are like my father in that they have unexamined categories that allow religious ideas to coexist with modern science in their personal metaphysics. I love my father so we simply don’t talk about religion (or politics) anymore.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  How did a perfectly reasonable conversation and disagreement cause you to decide that you can't talk to him about religion anymore?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Because you can reach a perfectly amicable point where you realize that one person's belief is a decision - you understand their arguments, they understand yours, but nothing that either of you say will change the other person's mind. We tend to think that people think through the options and go for the most salient one, but sometimes they say, "I'm going to believe this" and then they do. In that case, you'd have to unseat their will to change their mind.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      You can also reach a point where, as you said, they’re not fanatical or cut off from science and objectivity, they just have a lens through which they view it all. It’s a tough life, and a belief in a higher purpose or underlying cause must be very comforting to some, and if they can still accept reality as it exists, what’s the harm? If they’re not out to convert you, or argue that Earth is 6000 years old, then there are probably better things to discuss than their faith.
delbel 8y ago
> It would be really interesting to read a theologians view of AI, Best I can do, is this guy. Paper in the middle of the page, not without a lot of controversy http://www.ctmu.net/ http://www.ctmu.net/ also on a side note, in my opinion all AI will inherently be bad and psychopathic. You got Teslas killing about one person a week, evil laughing Echo's, microsoft chatbots going full racist/pro-Hitler, AI creating flash crashes, etc, etc. When ever I read an article framing AI positively, I am aware that they are aware that they know this and preemptively dictate a counternarrative.

cfadvan 8y ago

It would be really interesting to read a theologians view of AI, maybe a question for Google's Vatican office (if there were one)? The problem with that view is that when you dig into it, it’s always a permutation of, “God did it,” or “Because God said so.” There isn’t much to work with there, and you can use it to justify literally anything at all because it’s free from the constraints of logic. You could equally argue that a machine can never have a soul, and no consciousness, or that god could just decree it does, and who’s to really say otherwise? There is no there, there.

whatshisface 8y ago
They're implying that when you involve God you'll also pick up the Roman Catholic catechism. The real problem with trying to bring religion in to these debates comes from trying to pick the religion! Nonspecific God is actually the same as atheism for the reason you point out - you can't make any prior statements about what God will do, which is the same as not being able to make any prior statements about what Nature will do. Physicists have historically interchanged God and Nature (casually, they aren't trying to say anything) when they're talking, and it works for this reason.
- cfadvan 8y ago
  Exactly. At the end of the day science is all about “How” although some scientists being human, understandably do sometimes wade into the “Why” end of it. Science is great at delving into how something works, without bothering with a “why” and nowhere is that better expressed than in Langrangian formulations. When people try to inject Why into science, they’re missing the point, and the same is true of trying to inject How into religion.
  - monktastic1 8y ago
    It's also possible that there is a meaningful "why." From the perspective of mystical traditions, apparently physical reality is an expression of God's mind. Why God is having this particular dream can then be answered meaningfully, by entering into direct gnosis -- because you are, after all, Him. The hard part is testing this objectively. In a lucid dream, you might understand why the Dreamer is generating this particular setup, but until you can demonstrate it to the satisfaction of others in the dream, it's not very useful to them.
    - cfadvan 8y ago
      It’s possible that there is a god or something similar, but it’s not possible, as you say, to test it (at least not in the foreseeable future) in a meaningful way. We just don’t know, and have no way or knowing. Anyone can float a view from dreaming gods, through gnostic concepts, to simulated reality, and we have no evidence for or against and no real hope of finding such evidence.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

todd8 8y ago

I have had extensive conversations with a theologian, my father (he has a doctorate in theology). I finally decided that I don’t have to change his mind, he has faith and that’s all there is to it. He’s well read, believes in science, evolution, etc. However, he accepts that there is an all powerful god so practically no argument can change that belief. With respect to cognition, when I asked him about the possibility that computer thought might be indistinguishable from human or at least higher level animal thought some day, his reply was that such would be a kind of an illusion of consciousness but that “real” consciousness is by definition not a mechanical thing and only possible in a living organism. I feel like most religious people are like my father in that they have unexamined categories that allow religious ideas to coexist with modern science in their personal metaphysics. I love my father so we simply don’t talk about religion (or politics) anymore.

nsxwolf 8y ago
How did a perfectly reasonable conversation and disagreement cause you to decide that you can't talk to him about religion anymore?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Because you can reach a perfectly amicable point where you realize that one person's belief is a decision - you understand their arguments, they understand yours, but nothing that either of you say will change the other person's mind. We tend to think that people think through the options and go for the most salient one, but sometimes they say, "I'm going to believe this" and then they do. In that case, you'd have to unseat their will to change their mind.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    You can also reach a point where, as you said, they’re not fanatical or cut off from science and objectivity, they just have a lens through which they view it all. It’s a tough life, and a belief in a higher purpose or underlying cause must be very comforting to some, and if they can still accept reality as it exists, what’s the harm? If they’re not out to convert you, or argue that Earth is 6000 years old, then there are probably better things to discuss than their faith.

delbel 8y ago

> It would be really interesting to read a theologians view of AI, Best I can do, is this guy. Paper in the middle of the page, not without a lot of controversy http://www.ctmu.net/ http://www.ctmu.net/ also on a side note, in my opinion all AI will inherently be bad and psychopathic. You got Teslas killing about one person a week, evil laughing Echo's, microsoft chatbots going full racist/pro-Hitler, AI creating flash crashes, etc, etc. When ever I read an article framing AI positively, I am aware that they are aware that they know this and preemptively dictate a counternarrative.