4 ms·

I agree with you, but I think I can respond in summary instead of point-by-point: "First: super-intelligent AI is unlikely because, if you pursue Vernor's prog

I agree with you, but I think I can respond in summary instead of point-by-point: "First: super-intelligent AI is unlikely because, if you pursue Vernor's program, you get there incrementally by way of human-equivalent AI, and human-equivalent AI is unlikely." The arguments that follow don't say anything about why it's impossible or even prohibitively difficult to do, they only provide reasons why people wouldn't want to try. There are, however, motivations beyond those he takes into consideration. Uploading: Again, he doesn't make any arguments as to why uploading is not achievable, he just talks about the very hard ethical questions that arise when dealing with uploaded intelligences. That didn't stop us from inventing nuclear weapons and a host of other ethicaly challenging technologies, so why would it stop us from inventing uploading? One particular statement he makes in this section I do want to address specifically: "Uploading implicitly refutes the doctrine of the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore presents a raw rebuttal to those religious doctrines that believe in a life after death." This is so obviously untrue that I don't know how any intelligent person could use it in a serious argument. Religions that believe in immortal souls will simply maintain that the uploaded copy is just that: a copy, a soulless simulation of a real person. How can you possibly prove this one way or another? "Soul" is a purely religious concept, beyond any temporal means of observation or measurement, and therefore not subject to empirical study. I still think you would see plenty of religious people oppose uploading, but for different reasons. He finishes by discussing the possibility that our entire universe is already a simulation being run in the "real" world, and admits that nobody can prove this one way or another, at least not anytime soon.

Symmetry 15y ago
There's also the position in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn series that all sentient minds have souls, regardless of how they were created or whether there's a similar mind somewhere out there. And presumably Christian's can always say "God can figure it out" with regards to what exactly where the boundaries should be.
- ignifero 15y ago
  Religion is a fine art of emotional manipulation, but it has a weak spot: it requires an intact emotional (limbic) system. What if our artificial counterparts forgo that?
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). That being said, I'll accept your fallacious assumption for a moment and turn your question around: what if an emotional system is necessary for self-aware, volitional intelligence? Our emotions are inseperably intertwined with the other aspects of our minds, and it might very well be that they are a fundamental aspect of consciousness.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). Many philosophers and theologians have attempted to make completely rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. My liberal arts theme in undergrad was philosophy so I've read a fair amount, but I have yet to see a compelling argument yet. Could you please make some suggestions?
      - lucasjung 15y ago
        Just because you didn't find them compelling doesn't mean they are somehow flawed. There are whole schools of philosophy that are mutually exclusive and yet are subscribed to each by many very intelligent people who are unable to decisively prove each other wrong. Having studied so much philosophy, you of all people should understand that there is a huge difference between a rational, consistent argument and a proof. EDIT: Proving or disproving the existence of God is, in general, a fool's game. One could probably prove that certain types of deities are impossible, but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible. On the other hand, proving the existence of God would almost certainly require a well-documented divine intervention, and even then many people would (rightfully) remain skeptical. Also, my previous post didn't say anything about proving the existence of God: I said that they made "arguments in favor of religion," which is not the same thing. First, not all religions involve deities. Even if you restrict the discussion to religions involving deities, it is possible to argue that it is desireable or advantageous to believe in God without first proving that God exists. Furthermore, even some atheists argue that religion in general or some religions in particular have had a net positive impact on humanity.
glhaynes 15y ago
Yes, religions will almost always maintain a position that retains their previous "correctness", but if you could make a "soulless simulation" that is indistinguishable from the "real thing", it'd make a lot of people scratch their heads and say "wait, so what role does the soul play here?" ... it would seem to make the soul redundant. (Of course, that feeling of the soul's lack of necessity has already happened for most that have any knowledge of modern neuroscience.)
astine 15y ago
"Religions that believe in immortal souls will simply maintain that the uploaded copy is just that: a copy, a soulless simulation of a real person." This might be true of some religious institutions but not of all. The concept of the 'Soul' is actually derived from Aristotelianism (there is no mention of it as such in the Bible) and many sects, (particularly Catholics) believe that in order for something to be intelligent it needs to have a soul, that is, an immaterial aspect. If an uploaded person, or an AI, or space alien or whatever is demonstrated to be intelligent, it would by definition have a 'soul.' You would still get lots of folks who refused to accept the person-hood of uploaded persons and those folks might actually dominate, but the actual theological consequences would be different (and far more complex) than you imagine.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  Very interesting. I see a few possible lines of argument that sects who believe this (must have soul to be intelligent) could take. The more crude argument would be a variation of "no true scotsman:" It's not really intelligent, it's just doing a very good job of reproducing the behavior of an intellingent being." There are a lot of issues with that argument, so a better approach might be, "When it becomes intelligent, God endows it with a distinct, unique, and individual soul." Another possible approach would be, "The original and the copy share the same immortal soul," but that would be incompatible with some concepts of the afterlife. There's also a version heavy on FUD: "When it becomes intelligent, it is possessed by an evil soul."
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  The concept of the 'Soul' is actually derived from Aristotelianism (there is no mention of it as such in the Bible) Wrong, and wrong. The notion of the "soul" in Greek philosophy predates Aristotle; it's found in Plato's Phaedo, for example-- and there are several words in the Hebrew bible that are usually translated as "soul" (nefesh and ruach, which correspond roughly to psyche and pneuma, respectively.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

Symmetry 15y ago

There's also the position in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn series that all sentient minds have souls, regardless of how they were created or whether there's a similar mind somewhere out there. And presumably Christian's can always say "God can figure it out" with regards to what exactly where the boundaries should be.

ignifero 15y ago
Religion is a fine art of emotional manipulation, but it has a weak spot: it requires an intact emotional (limbic) system. What if our artificial counterparts forgo that?
- lucasjung 15y ago
  Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). That being said, I'll accept your fallacious assumption for a moment and turn your question around: what if an emotional system is necessary for self-aware, volitional intelligence? Our emotions are inseperably intertwined with the other aspects of our minds, and it might very well be that they are a fundamental aspect of consciousness.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    Many philosophers and theologians have made completely rational (emotion-free) arguments in favor of religion (sometimes a particular religion, sometimes religion in general). Many philosophers and theologians have attempted to make completely rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. My liberal arts theme in undergrad was philosophy so I've read a fair amount, but I have yet to see a compelling argument yet. Could you please make some suggestions?
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      Just because you didn't find them compelling doesn't mean they are somehow flawed. There are whole schools of philosophy that are mutually exclusive and yet are subscribed to each by many very intelligent people who are unable to decisively prove each other wrong. Having studied so much philosophy, you of all people should understand that there is a huge difference between a rational, consistent argument and a proof. EDIT: Proving or disproving the existence of God is, in general, a fool's game. One could probably prove that certain types of deities are impossible, but it's impossible to prove that no form of deity is possible. On the other hand, proving the existence of God would almost certainly require a well-documented divine intervention, and even then many people would (rightfully) remain skeptical. Also, my previous post didn't say anything about proving the existence of God: I said that they made "arguments in favor of religion," which is not the same thing. First, not all religions involve deities. Even if you restrict the discussion to religions involving deities, it is possible to argue that it is desireable or advantageous to believe in God without first proving that God exists. Furthermore, even some atheists argue that religion in general or some religions in particular have had a net positive impact on humanity.

glhaynes 15y ago

Yes, religions will almost always maintain a position that retains their previous "correctness", but if you could make a "soulless simulation" that is indistinguishable from the "real thing", it'd make a lot of people scratch their heads and say "wait, so what role does the soul play here?" ... it would seem to make the soul redundant. (Of course, that feeling of the soul's lack of necessity has already happened for most that have any knowledge of modern neuroscience.)

astine 15y ago

"Religions that believe in immortal souls will simply maintain that the uploaded copy is just that: a copy, a soulless simulation of a real person." This might be true of some religious institutions but not of all. The concept of the 'Soul' is actually derived from Aristotelianism (there is no mention of it as such in the Bible) and many sects, (particularly Catholics) believe that in order for something to be intelligent it needs to have a soul, that is, an immaterial aspect. If an uploaded person, or an AI, or space alien or whatever is demonstrated to be intelligent, it would by definition have a 'soul.' You would still get lots of folks who refused to accept the person-hood of uploaded persons and those folks might actually dominate, but the actual theological consequences would be different (and far more complex) than you imagine.

lucasjung 15y ago
Very interesting. I see a few possible lines of argument that sects who believe this (must have soul to be intelligent) could take. The more crude argument would be a variation of "no true scotsman:" It's not really intelligent, it's just doing a very good job of reproducing the behavior of an intellingent being." There are a lot of issues with that argument, so a better approach might be, "When it becomes intelligent, God endows it with a distinct, unique, and individual soul." Another possible approach would be, "The original and the copy share the same immortal soul," but that would be incompatible with some concepts of the afterlife. There's also a version heavy on FUD: "When it becomes intelligent, it is possessed by an evil soul."
michael_dorfman 15y ago
The concept of the 'Soul' is actually derived from Aristotelianism (there is no mention of it as such in the Bible) Wrong, and wrong. The notion of the "soul" in Greek philosophy predates Aristotle; it's found in Plato's Phaedo, for example-- and there are several words in the Hebrew bible that are usually translated as "soul" (nefesh and ruach, which correspond roughly to psyche and pneuma, respectively.)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]