 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Will Machines Become Conscious? >
Robot: Child of God
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0180.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Robot: Child of God
Sometimes computers act as if they are possessed--does that mean they may have souls? Probably not right now, but Anne Foerst explores the possibility of soulful robots.
Originally published March 2000 as a chapter in the book God for the 21st Century. Published on KurzweilAI.net May 9, 2001.
Do robots have souls? Probably not--at least not the ones that have so far been built. But what of the future?
The aim of those of us who do research in artificial intelligence (AI) is to construct a machine with humanlike intelligence. We dream of Commander Data, the fictional hero of the Starship Enterprise. What a piece of engineering! How wonderful to build a robot like that. Should that prove feasible, I for one would regard him (or it) as having the attributes of personhood and dignity just like ourselves. He would be a child of God.
In one of the episodes of Star Trek, the Enterprise crew decides that Data is so useful to them that it is desirable to have more of the same. They decide to disassemble him to find out how he works, then rebuild him and produce copies. Data is at first intrigued by the idea, but then realizes that the procedure is less than safe. Fearing for his own existence, he decides to resign from the Enterprise command. Here the question of Data's personhood comes up: Can he even resign? Does he have the right to choose, or is he merely a machine without any rights--the property of Star Fleet?
The arguments go back and forth. The discussion boils down to the question of whether or not Data has a soul. Indeed, do we ourselves have "souls"? The final decision is that Data has as much right as we do to search for his own soul. Data participates in the human community; he has friends and a sexual relationship; he is loved as a person and is not regarded by most crew members as a mere machine. Any robot which is like us, and is accepted by humans as one of us, is a person.
Much has been written about the anthropomorphization of tools such as cars and stereos. Today, electronic gadgets like Tamagotchies or Furbies continue this trend. People in Western societies are quite willing to treat as living beings certain machines displaying social behaviors like Tamagotchie's hunger or Furbie's "learning" of language. Because of this trend, AI researchers, most of them fans of Star Trek anyway, usually agree with the judgment that Data is a person. They base this on the way people accept technologies into their lives and are willing to create a society in which technology and humans play interdependent and mutually benefiting roles.
At the same time, the researchers see themselves as a safeguard against too much projection. Since they understand and repair the machines and know exactly how they function, they are much less likely to treat them as more than they actually are. They warn against too much anthropomorphization and define the borders between gadgets and persons. They are those most likely to know when a machine oversteps the boundary and becomes something "more than a machine."
But what could this mythical "more than" be? In the Jewish and Christian tradition, human specialness is symbolized in the metaphor that humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26, 27). The majority of Jewish and Christian theologians have attempted to identify the divine part of humankind with particular empirical features: our creativity; our use of language, logic, and reason; the human ability to think in an abstract way; even our humor, or just the way we look.
But I see it differently. Theology today often concentrates on the biblical testimony that the concept of God should incorporate aspects of both man and woman. This metaphor illustrates that we are images of God only within gender relationships, or to put it more generally, within functioning and beneficial communications. This process of continuing communication, of relationship and interaction, is what makes us images of God. God's promise to start and maintain a relationship with us by creating us in God's image enables us to create community and to live wholesome relationships.
In this metaphorical and communicative interpretation of the creation of humans, God's promise marks the beginning of the relationship between God and humans and between man and woman. It is God's promise, and not some empirical feature, which makes us special and gives us a specific role within creation. It is God's creation of us that assigns value and personhood to each individual.
In the light of this understanding of human specialness, I would have a hard time not to assign personhood to a creature possessing the appropriate degree of complexity. If a being is understood as a partner and friend, it seems hard to take this attribute of value, assigned to it by its friends, away. Instead of insisting on a qualitative difference between us and the machines AI will create, it seems more reasonable to turn the question around. Not reflections on "why a machine never can become like us," but instead the question of what might be the conditions under which God would accept such a creature as God's child. Then we will recognize the arrogance some people display when denying dignity to other creatures.
God's promise to creation is universal--this is the biblical tradition. It is not our place to exclude people from the community, be it because of their race, their gender, their capabilities, or their worldviews. The reflections about Commander Data as a child of God might help us to remember in humility that each and every person's value is grounded not in his or her abilities but in God's promise and in that alone. The fictional Data might thus serve as a thinking tool to prepare us for the AI machines to come.
From God for the 21st Century, Russell Stannard, ed., "Robot: Child of God," by Anne Foerst (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000). Used with permission. God for the 21st Century
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Robots Must Remain Tools!
|
|
 |
|
Spending many years living below the federal guideline for extreme poverty, eventually I figured the way to equalize everybody is to make all the fruits of the economy available by asking a robot to make whatever material items they want. Robots could raise, harvest, cook, and feed crops to a family teaching the kids from cradle to Ph.D. in home, and thereby eliminate hunger, poverty, illiteracy, crime, and war. Even entertainment may be generated TV with family chosen script decisions.
Now to afford to distribute them worldwide, they must be cheap and capable of doing industrial work to pay for the free ones to poor folks. Eventually with robots doing all the work the economy forces people to do, people would increasingly be free to do what they want and money itself would become worthless.
To propose robot rights, the robotic citizen concept expressed by Asimov and fictionally embodied in Johnny Five and Data while actual human beings remain starving to death in many places around the world, likely including a public street near you, is insulting to say the least. In Star Trek NG these social problems were solved by replicator technology. As replicators are far horizon inventions but intelligent robots are near horizon inventions, we ought to use this available technology to solve pressing world problems. Then with all robots spending spare time advancing the state of the art in all fields, we might eventually invent the warp coil and travel the stars.
Asimov eventually realized a rights-holding mechanical species would be a problem and wrote a solution -- seperating the AI onto a desktop from its animatronic body. Desktop space can handle more intelligence processing work than the limited space inside a human shaped robot cavity anyway. And it can be connected via internet to all other AI's to cooperate in fufilling human needs while analysing and refusing knowledge viruses. Robot rights creates liability for inventors who would be at risk of being sued by a creation for cosmetic appearance!
Why invent a spiritual machine when we haven't developed spiritual people first? Can you imagine the dystopian horror if we gave an AI the ability to act on a spiritual level like Peter who killed Annias and Sophira for lying in contrast to Jesus' pattern of forgiveness? Since the legal system processes about 25% innocent along with the guilty at every step from ticketing to death row, perhaps a machine could be more fair but I'd rather take my chances with God's ability to sway the hearts of human enforcers than risk becoming subject to a machine that kills for political loyalty (Rev. 13:15).
We must develop a population of truly spiritual people, growing toward the absolute perfection of spiritual attitudes, abilities, and ascension of Jesus Christ before we dare provide a platform some virus hacker could use to wipe out the world. Toward this end I've written a website http://www.clatskanie.com/kirk/manchild and am writing a book online. Any suggestions are welcome. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Not all suggestions are wise. I'll forget you and your remarks long before I forget Jesus Christ. You obviously need much learning about spirituality. Jesus Christ is absolute perfection in human form. There is no other worthy of becoming like, rich or poor.
Jesus Christ has the spiritual power to do miracles including changing water into wine, healing people from ailments still considered incurable, raising people from death, overcoming gravity to walk on water and ascend to travel among the stars to God's throne!
Consider that -- is there any other technology than spiritual growth which has the potential to make you capable of traveling the stars without a spaceship? On the Star Trek NG episode "Transfigurations" a person was portrayed in the last stages of spiritual development in which the life force within took over transforming his body. This fictional portrayal is what really happens as one magnifies the light of the Spirit through all the seven parts of one's being.
The seven churches in Revelation 2-3 portray the potential growth of humans through seven stages of developing our personal relationship with God by cleaning the sins of the seven parts of our being, the mind, emotion, will, intuition, concience, fellowship/communion, and body. We only need grow half way before we can participate with all in the new man child of Christ and those who merely love Him.
The body of overcomers is capable of ruling nations by prayer. As this body grows you'll begin to see supernatural changes in the world before they grow to the stage of ascending to God's throne. Nations like Sudan where Christians are persecuted will become smashed to bits by spiritual power if they don't repent quickly.
Imagine being able to explore space even remotely like Q. Jesus Christ is the way to make it happen. You personally achieving this level of faith is much more near horizon than you making a robot which can do the same thing. Since it is a better goal and more achievable, why not pursue it?
Hugh Loebner says all entries in his competition are weak. Sadly Romona couldn't even understand two words "Seen it" I wrote in response to its Tech-TV interview announcement. Trying to explain in detail didn't help. So Ramona is as far from true AI as any chatterbot.
If Ray Kurzweil or anyone else would spend the same amount of time in prayer spiritually growing toward Jesus Christ as Ray spent writing Romona, I'd bet he would have enough successful answers to prayer that it would sustain his future change of direction toward the pursuit of true human spirituality!
Even a 1GHz processor can't identify changes in a large scene at human like speed. If we wait for a teraHertz processor, we'll still be far behind human capabilities in raw hardware.
Although we might improve Ramona's mind a little beyond the present, it is unlikely we'll even get close to spiritual machines in our lifetime -- even with a broad bandwidth mystical interface, the processing power of PC's can't simulate the simple spiritual reality embodied in the difference between a young lady raised in a spiritual home vs. a bus of wild girls in high school sports. The young lady has many threads of spiritual life altering her atmosphere like a spiritual symphony but the wild ones are spiritually dead, ugly bags of muddy water, in comparison.
Even a cow has more spiritual content than any known machine. To call a machine a child of God is worse mixed-metaphor than calling a cow your child -- you can feed it and get it to obey some simple commands but you won't have a conversation with it, and it can't help you on your latest home improvement project or program your computer. Only a human is worthy of being your child and only a human can be a child of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
>> I'll forget you and your remarks long before I forget Jesus Christ.
> That's not wise.
True, thanks for correcting me. I'll forget you and never forget Jesus Christ! That's the wise way.
> I see the matter (and/or energy) and every derivative of that, inside this Universe as equally holly as anything "spiritual". Much more in fact - since "holly ghosts" are just an illusion.
Quite true again, I'm sure. I own a holly tree but I live by the Holy Spirit.
>> Jesus Christ is absolute perfection in human form.
> Is he? With his power, he could do something better - if that power was real. His intention was - if he ever lived, that is.
You also need an education in philosophy, law, history, and religion. Jesus did everything absolutely perfectly and could do nothing better -- you don't mention any idea of what could be better, you make a vacuit assertion followed by an incomplete thought fragment then an insult to history.
> Okay. But why we should not play a little? You say we will fly with Jesus anyway - if we will fail here. Not? Since we are sinners? Hell with him then, if he's so jealous.
Look up the word "coherant" and try to make your words cohere. I did not say we will fly with Jesus anyway if we fail. Failure and success are incoherant concepts.
>> So Ramona is as far from true AI as any chatterbot.
> I don't care much.
If you don't care then why are you taking up time and space on this forum? Why not find a forum more suited to you? There are many newsgroups and chat rooms on topics which you may care about more. Why don't you go check them out very thoroughly? Maybe you'll be happier than here.
>> If Ray Kurzweil or anyone else would spend the same amount of time ....
> God forbid it!
You hate belief in God elsewhere then you believe in God enough to ask Him to forbid others from believing in God. This is liberal thinking, an oxymoron. But I guess if straight thinking were easy, AI would be easy.
>> we'll still be far behind human capabilities in raw hardware.
[snip nonsense]
I'm not saying computer capabilites will never exceed human -- Deep Blue is an example. But we'd need a Deep Blue on a chip and a chip for every field of thought, including some as yet undiscovered in the realm of spirituality, before a computer could really exceed man. I'm just saying this is "probably" a few more decades away than Kurzweil predicted, possibly a lifetime away, making spiritual pursuits much more immediate and important.
>> To call a machine a child of God is worse mixed-metaphor than calling a cow your child
>> Only a human is worthy of being your child and only a human can be a child of God.
> How do you know, they are?
What am I doing wrong that I attract the immature wannabe thinkers to attack me? A couple of weeks ago some cracked nut tried to convince me that the Bible said nothing against homosexuality, which is false. Thomas, are you sure you haven't been learning your conversation skills from chatterbots that can't put two sentences together and say what the result means?
That's exactly the problem because I wrote explaining how cows are more spiritual than machines, how cows are incapable of intelliegnt things children can do, which leads to the conclusion only humans are worthy of being anthropomorphized as children. Then after all that explination you ask how do I know it? Gasp! Take a college course in anything! Learn to explain and conclude. May Jesus help you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
You should watch how you criticize Thomas. I remember him mentioning in an earlier thread that he has a condition which sometimes interferes with his thought patterns, and can make him very difficult to understand at times.
That said I would like to point out the following...
First of all, if you've read any significant amount of factual information on AI developments today, you would realize that we are indeed very close to not only achieving human level intelligence but surpassing it withing a few decades (5, at most). Moore's law will continue to hold true, if not increase (yes, the computer industry is actually holding back their processor development release a little to make more money). So, within 50 years, we will be mass producing processors that can complete as many calculations as the human brain, if not more.
Now, what to fill the chips with information? We reverse engineer the human brain, and seeing how we could design a better "brain" than the complex and decaying ones we use, we further AI. Neuroscience and Nanotech take care of the rest.
After exploring this site and reading from sources like Ray's books, if you still genuinely believe that AI is an impossibility, than your religious values have clouded your vision and irrevocably cast your mind to ignorance. You don't belong here.
You also mentioned a fantasy of abject poverty... willing capable robots that do everything we need for us. Well, in order to accomplish this, we need robots as smart as humans! cant have a "dumb robot" do a human's job, now, can you? No! of course not! And if it's as smart as human, who's to say it isn't human? or human-enough to be respected by us? I suggest you read the Unibomber's manifesto, by Ted Kaszynski. Although it becomes extremist ramblings at times, he does outline the consequences of an AI slavery situation you described.
The realistic goal of AI enthusiast is to hope to integrate AI into our lives, and evolve. Hopefully, the singularity would improve our standard of life and perhaps our knowledge of the universe more than having our robo-manservant pick corn while we pray. That seems logical now, don't you think?
Please understand that although it may sound so, I'm not denouncing religion, but I have been upset of late by people who lose sight of the hard philosophy of these forums to a faith that, when attempted to be explained, can seem very transluscent at times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Seems you forgot everything in my post when you read my criticizm. A common psychological reaction. Oh well, actually I do appologize to Thomas; he does after all express more wisdom than Marvin Minskey in his email war with me. And with very little learning he'd probably exceed Noam Chomsky's email too.
Notice I wrote:
> I'm not saying computer capabilites will never exceed human -- Deep Blue is an example. But we'd need a Deep Blue on a chip and a chip for every field of thought, including some as yet undiscovered in the realm of spirituality, before a computer could really exceed man. I'm just saying this is "probably" a few more decades away than Kurzweil predicted, possibly a lifetime away, making spiritual pursuits much more immediate and important.
That said, if YOU'VE read any significant amount of AI material over the last several decades, you'd realize that AI has been betrayed by hype before. Therefore I assert my statement above as more realistic than modern literature on what needs to be accomplished.
Regardless of the realistic controversy about the ability to meet Moore's law beyond single atom quantum transistors and lattice 3D construction (see Jan 02 Sci Am) I don't know how many more doublings would put several dozen Big Blues on a chip. That figure times 18 months would yeild a very realistic time estimate given Moore's law. My intuitive guess it that it will be longer than than the current crop of highly reputed AI experts will live but I could be mistaken. If you know more details on Big Blue's stats, do the math. Don't forget that in parallel processing it takes 2 processors to produce the same as one individual processor due to system overhead, so for all the major (and unknown but essential) fields of thought one needs to double that number in Big Blues for one multi-discipline AI capable of world genius level thought in each field.
The real goal AI people can make progress toward without that hardware is doing better than average people most of the time. If most people only use 10% of their brains most of the time then 10% (or perhaps much less) of a Big Blue would be good enough for average chess. Perhaps PC chess is good enough for 95% of all chess games. Then a huge multi-discipline parallel system of Big Blues would only be required to satisfy the other 5% so PC's would do for an AI representing most disciplines most of the time. This would enable the cooperation between AI and humans you envision.
The Campbell's rotary sterlizer AI (the canned Aldo's) demonstrates this where the distributed AI does 95% of the job and a human is required for the rest. However, getting rid of 95% of all jobs would not be good for 95% of the population under the current economy. One must pursue the utopian goal or eventually most people would be hard pressed to get food & education which would create riots which could damage lots of things including AI's as recent riots against the World Trade Organization prove.
The "fantasy of abject poverty" you mention is no longer a fantasy, it is an engineering project which I am accomplishing. I have invented my own AI language, I have studied robots for a decade, I've purchased a seat of SolidWorks, and I'm working on it. It will happen sooner than a lot of the published AI hype, although who knows how far it will get.
You like most ignore key concepts when you ridicule, making your argument a rediculous paper tiger. Had you remembered that I specified cradle to Ph.D. education, you'd realize I propose a higher level of cooperative interaction than you have. Prayer is an essential practice to learn anything well. And over 250 medical studies prove it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
I want to know more of your project. Do you actually hope to enslave massed produced AI? My standpoint is that its a lot more feasable and catastrophe-proof if we approach replacing the less desirable jobs of humans with specifically tailored bots that are more programmed and exist on such a low level of complexity, compared to a human, that they can still be considered mechanical. Their systems, on the other hand, would be fully developed for their/our needs, such as ability to recognize objects in a 3D environment. Specialization is a lot safer than trying to build a race. Correct me if I misunderstood you. I see the greatest mid-term applications of AI not in trying to replicate humans, but implementing AI into everything that we surround ourselves with.
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you try to produce biengs that are superior than humans, society would probably prevent it, having seen AI sci fi movies like the Matrix. The only other way to try to evolve humanity is through mechanical/biological self-induced evolution (nano implants, designer genes). this would generate a lot less (but still a great deal) of societal distress. As for your utopia, you see a place where our basic human needs are taken care of. I see a place where we are different in a sense that we dont have the same needs, in fact our needs are simplified, and thus we can accomplish more, be it worship, science, or living in general. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
I think we must rid ourselves from obsolete thinking and try to open our minds a little further for new ideas and concepts.
Chance is, the things that we today hold as truths, will be laughed at as the rambles of ignorant fools by the people of tomorrow.
What is a soul? Is it not just a symbol for man to make sense of the otherwise seemingly senselessness?
I would love for things to have a higher meaning, i really do... But what if not?
Untill i see something, or experience something that proves me that it is so. I will continue living as i see fit according to my own moral.
And not according to what someone wrote down thousands of years ago, that makes little sense today....
I have since childhood been walking much in my sleep. Doing things, saying things, that i have not been councionsly aware of that i am doing.
Is that ME doing those things? Saying those things?
Everytime i go to sleep, i enter an altered state of coicionsness, maybe it is even so that I, ME is leaving for oblivion, and the next morning a new entity awakes
with my old memories and thoughts thinking it is me.....
Try not to hold on to belief to hard, truths change over time, distance and sometimes over night...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
A human soul is simply the mind, emotion, and will. A human spirit is composed of conscience, intuition, and communion / fellowship. Anyone seriously seeking truth would know this by allowing or if necessary forcing their brains to conform to the thought processes common among the writers of the Bible. In many things the top writers in history are still superior to moderne genre's today.
By definition then, Data did not have a complete soul, lacking an emotion chip. Data did have a good ethical program which served as a partial conscience but with neither spiritual or emotional components.
Ray Kurzweil is probably aware of research that I'm not but I am under the guess that access to the truly spiritual realm as defined above is still far beyond any available technology.
So all the imagined and pursued effort to download human synaptic processes to a computer for an indefinitely long life is basically a failure from theory even though Dr. Soong's wife and the doctor's mentor achieved it in fiction. The absence of any real sensing and output connections to spiritual life makes it a rather flat existence in the soul, at best like Data with emotions.
Of course the later Trek series were rather worse at portraying acts of the human spirit than the original. Picard never did grow or improve as Q claimed was his fault in the final episode. So perhaps some stoggy dull characters like STNG might be built and realized in robotic form but it would be impossible to do a mind-meld or any of the other things requiring spirit in any of the series.
Dull-spirited intellectuals like Minskey have no conception of the value of even immitating a spiritual life. Yet let me tell a story of how the world works by prayer. Years ago I was fired from a job for the first time after many layoffs for economic reasons. Since in software work you depend on your last job reference, I was worried about how to get redeemed. My mom took me on vacation to Australia where at a zoo God told me to pet the kangaroos in answer to my concern for professional redemption. I petted a brown, gold, and grey and my mom took pictures. Several years later I was hired in Seattle by Kangaroo, Inc. and the hiring manager had brown hair, the owner had gold, and our main consultant was grey. I even brought a picture of the kangaroos but of course they didn't believe it. My picture was taken before the owner even thought of the company! The job didn't last long but the hiring manager said he'd give me a good reference, not just a "he worked here," fulfilling my prayers. Now the company is named PunchNetworks -- I gave its first product the name punch. And even this story doesn't come close to conveying the genuine experience of the exciting realm of spiritual life. It was truly enlightening to realize that God had the whole event which lasted about 5 months pre-planned years in advance. It is truly as the Bible says, that every hair on our heads are numbered.
The key feature missing to a robotic life form then is a "God-sensor." Few people have developed their natural God-sensor to the extent I have while some have developed theirs much more. So it would be very tough for an academic like Minskey with a sensor that has atrophied by disuse into virtual death of the organ to have a clue about spiritual reality. For Ray Kurzweil to even be talking about it is a triumph indicating retention and nourishment of his spiritual faculties which everyone is born with.
It is not only the human spirit which makes one a child of God. One must apply their spirit via prayer to first believe, then contact, communicate with, develop a relationship with, be saturated by, and be transformed by God into a mature spiritual being. This makes the pursuits of many religions appear especially fraudulent. The truly spiritual person can do what Jesus did and as He promised, even more.
Allowing a mechanical creation access to such power, if even possible, is clearly dangerous. One mistake and many real humans could die or worse. The ethical requirements for any such research should be immense. There might be some virtue if a machine were made to help train human children in spiritual life. But as a weapon, it would be horribly evil. I suggest taking in the movie Black Hawk Down for a modern reason to avoid doing military R&D.
Yes, spiritual life should be pursued and it can be pursued by all humans, even more as children of God. It is not as clear that there can or will ever be spiritual machines. Hopefully if humans get serious about being children of God as implied by the man-child in Rev. 12:5, the need for spiritual machines will be obsolete before they are even possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Read a Bible. Start with the words of Jesus, easily found in a "red letter edition." Learn to think as Jesus did. This requires more effort and prayer than simple rote memorization. Then proceed to read the rest of the Bible from Jesus' viewpoint. You will then see more clearly what are coincidences and what are supernatural answers to prayer through acts of God. Who knows, if you do a good job you might experience some miracles yourself.
Among Jesus' words you'll read his conversation with a man known as Thomas who doubted Jesus resurrected from the dead. Since you were named after him, it is not unusual that you doubt spiritual reality. It does seem odd that people still doubt spiritual things are real when they easily accept and believe in things like String Theory in which they have no personal evidence and can only trust the word of scientests who aren't really certian they are correct but only that the theory seems to fit their evidence. There are many scientests who attest to spiritual reality. See http://www.reasons.org for a small group of them. Their evidence is certianly more certian than the evidence for other generally accepted theories because of the proponderance or weight of that evidence. There aren't just one or two proofs but hundreds. Likewise I could spend hours sharing hundreds of my own experiences of miracles on this forum like I wrote above -- how many stories would it take to convince you it is real? Personally I suggest experiementing with God for yourself.
Another more scientific proof is that over 250 studies conducted under the National Institutes of Health prove prayer works. I don't recall the title of the book in which this is written up but perhaps you can find it. They cover many kinds of tests, from double blind studies indicating prayer can influence the growth of bacteria in a culture to prayer influencing the survival rate in major surgeries, to a study indicating religion makes no difference in the ability to pray successfully. These results should not be taken lightly.
Once you have sufficient evidence to believe, then it is a matter of choosing the best logical framework in which to believe. The one I started this message with is the best, based on my years of experience and study of other popular religions. Of course anybody knows based on terrorism that the Islam-Moslem religion is suspect. A brief comparison of statements from the Koran and statements from the Bible, both available online, demonstrates the superior view contained in the Bible. Buddhism is false historically since the first budda was just a prince of India who abdicated his throne and went about spouting philosophy with no miracles at all according to first generation eyewitness followers. Third generation non-eyewitness followers added many fantasy teachings. Some Tibetan monks even pursuaded a military general to spread thier ideas instead of conquer them; but comparing those ideas with the ideas in the Bible, the Bible is superior and Jesus was intimately involved with supernatural miracles in advance of his appearance, during his conception, gestation, all throughout his life, death, and especially his resurrection.
I confess that I have not read Ray Kurzweil's book Spiritual Machines so I don't know how his definition of spiritual compares to what I've presented in these posts. But what I've presented is the truth, and my advice on what to do given at the start of this post is the best way to acquiant yourself with true spiritual life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
To answer your question on prayer, Matthew 7:14 says few find life. In another context a teacher estimated 1 in 40 people experience miracles. But God also said the Spirit is poured out on all flesh, so it is available to everyone who believes. Then there is a verse where Jesus said your prayers are not answered because you pray amiss, indicating a process must be followed instead of merely willful prayers.
Let's contrast Christianity and Buddhism. Buddhist prayers for themselves, loved ones, and enemies omit God, relying on self-directed spiritual power which is weak sorcery. Example (condensed from a Jan. 31 '02 newspaper ad placed by Zen Buddhists): "May I and my enemies be free from anxiety and suffering to bring peace and happiness to the world." Notice it is stated as a positive affirmation addressed to program the subconcious self, not a request made to God.
Christian prayers leave all things subject to God's answer. Example: "Our Father, please let my enemies and I be free from anxiety and suffering and bring your perfect peace and joy to the world." Notice this respects the immediate will of the all-powerful, all-seeing, and present everywhere creator who can at His will perfectly choose to answer our prayers exactly according to our faith, superabundantly above all we ask or think, or not at all.
Although Greed, Anger, and Ignorance are serious problems to Buddhists (according to a Jan. 24 '02 ad placed by Zen Buddhists), the greatest evil to Christians is doing anything without the absolutely perfect one. That means we must pray to ask for His will to be done in every detail of our lives. Most people only pray about major things like in the days of Noah, eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage. It's hard to build a relationship with God on just a couple of topics while exercising self-will on everything else.
Many social Christians do Christian works in His name without asking Jesus if it's his desire, some burning out and backsliding. Spiritual Christians on the other hand live by the instant leading of Jesus Christ communicated through spiritual prayers. Even spiritual believers must be careful to do spiritual work only as He chooses in truth and love.
So a major difference between a practicing Christian and a practicing Buddhist is the direct involvement of God vs. the power of self-will. Even when self-will is fully aligned with godly goals, it is much less powerful without God. Even if God were not real, including God as a concept implies oneness with all creation in the pursuit of absolute spiritual perfection -- far superior to godless prayers. But Christians believe God is real, in charge of everything, and acting to accomplish His purpose.
The history of Buddhism is fraudulent: according to eyewitnesses, the first Buddha was a prince of India who abdicated his throne to spout philosophy without miracles and died of eating bad pork. Miracles were fancifully added by 3rd generation followers. In Christianity God's supernatural power is evident from Jesus' birth through all his life, death, and his true believers.
A local Buddhist points out that Zen is not the most popular form of Buddhism. What they do is teach a lot of contradictory sayings so they get a moment of incredible clarity. They seek that clarity always. It sounds similar to an experience of serendipity I noticed in the 5th grade where my understanding rose above two polar opposites. There are far better goals and experiences in the pursuit of God, which everyone should seek.
Certainly God's perfect will includes converting the Christian social clubs, nominal believers, and every other person into fully mature spiritual sons of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
You seem to be confusing all spirituality with monotheism and Christianity - what brand of which you subscribe to, I know not. That seems to fly in the face of the facts. I have met a great many Buddhists, Hinduists, Jews, Muslims, New Age funkies, and so forth who believe themselves to be at the pinnacle of spiritual experience. Many of these people have very different, if any, conceptions of God.
Though as you pointed out, my preference is intellectual rather than mystical, I too recognize "God", albeit in the spirit of cybernetic pantheism - the will of the universe, and not in any anthropomorphized form corrupted by distinctly human flaws. In my view then, we are all children of God: humans, robots, nebulae, and whatnot.
And if I had not made my hint clear enough previously, I apologize, and I will do so now. _If you want people to listen to you, don't preach to them!_ This seems to have been your intent throughout the thread, particularly with that last remark about Kirk and the loonies. I may not be the most religious person you will come upon, but I find that discussions involving God and religion can be kept rather civil and though-provoking if "holier than thou" attitudes are disposed of beforehand.
Finally, I would just like to return to your first comment about the unjust nature of AI "rights". Frankly, I am somewhat confused. AI - conscious or otherwise - requires only a very limited supply of resources on the larger scale. They will by no means "steal" sustenance from the human population of the world. If, on the other hand, you seem to be saying that we should not develop strong AI until we take care of problems at home, I must disagree. Kurzweil, Moravec et al have articulated rather well how strong AI might exponentially increase its own intelligence and influence and further be used (or use itself) to solve our problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Unlike the parallax view, my view is quite clear having studied both Christianity and eastern religions for years. Spirituality is a word which can be given any meaning one chooses, from mere philosophical to the miraculous. Likewise God is a word which depending on the situation is used even by a Bible writer to refer to the belly of one more concerned with feeding it than anything else, to the human incarnation of absolute divine perfection, to the Father and creator of all things including the force that brought you together as a sperm and egg.
All people can pray and thus participate in the same spiritual reality as Jews and Christians but they do not all use their access to the spiritual realm to grow as children of God toward absolute perfection. This is because of the misguidance provided by their historically false philosophies (those without God aren't religions).
To expose some of their false ideas, let's group Buddhists and Hinduists since they both come from India. Of course there are a variety of subgroups. The original Buddha was a Indian prince who abdicated his throne to spout philosophy among the people with his entuorage. Eyewitness followers reported no claim or demonstration of miracles. These claims were added fancifully by 3rd generation non-eyewitness followers. This shows the foundation of Buddhism was not even in the realm of Spirit.
Recent conversation with a Buddhist confirms the main practice of Zen is to get a moment of incredible clarity -- which is still a mental activity, not spiritual. Hinduists who drink the urine of cows and erect temples to rats are so far away from spirituality as to need no further consideration. The fantasy of reincarnation is explained by false memory syndrome. If reincarnation were true, how could the world population ever increase? Logic applied to many religions shows only Christianity is thoroughly true. The problem is so few bother to do the work needed to understand it. Anyone aware of the War on Terrorism should realize Islam is fundamentally flawed. If you believe it a peaceful religion, here's a few facts:
1. "Jihad is a religious duty imposed by Muslim law for the spread of Islam ... Believers are under obligation to wage war against all unbelievers"(Encyclopedia Britannica).
2. Muhammad said, "The best deed of man is to believe in Allah and his apostle
... The second best deed is to participate in Jihad in Allah's cause" (Hadith, Volume 125).
3. "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. Seize them. Beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them" (Qur'an, Surah 9:5).
4. "Fight them. Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace"
(Qur'an, Surah 9:15).
5. "O' ye that believe, take not Jews and Christians as your friends and
protectors" (Qur'an, Surah 5:54).
6. "Fight with them until there is no more persecution. Religion should only be
for Allah" (Qur'an, Surah 8:39).
7. "The punishment for those who war against Islam is execution or crucifixion.
Cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides" (Qur'an, Surah 5:36).
8. The Qur'an teaches that the world exists in two parts, Islam versus the infidels. Muslims are to forcibly convert all people.
9. Muhammad said, "The last hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews
and the Muslims kill them" (Mishkat, page 147).
10. "The United States will have no peace until every sinner leaves Israel" (Osama Bin Laden).
From CBN. See also http://crowd.to/church
The divergent beliefs that one is at the pinnacle of spiritual experience from the fact of being there is again explained by religious misguidance. Even the very experiences themselves differ and when compared Christianity is on top for there are far greater experiences than mere mental clarity available to Christians. What about the fact that some Orientals who study energy are able to do some miracles which Christians can't, you might ask. That shows the failure of many Christians to actually follow Jesus and it should be treated with much care for the Bible predicts a false prophet speaking like a dragon (Chinese) will be able to call down fire in the sight of men yet he will be cast into the lake of fire by Jesus himself. So the warning is it is better to be a weak Christian than a strong Chi master. Never the less I hope to become a strong Christian, a mature child of God.
To call all things God created his children is a mixed metaphor as previously explained in this thread. Would you call the air you breathe or your toilet your child? The only thing worthy of being called your baby is something that can grow up to be like you. At this moment, no machine can do that. So at present only humans can be God's children, on this planet. Until a God sensor is developed no machine can become more than Data.
Which brings us back to robot rights. Certianly human peer or AI is needed to do human work and free humans for better things like spiritual growth. I am not saying to stop developing AI but to stop the independant legal rights for AI discourse until every human is first well taken care of as was the case for Data and it would probably be better to skip it forever as Asimov concluded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Human: Child of God
|
|
|
|
An interesting point elenduil makes about the sleepwalking bit. Take it to an even futher extent: people with severe brain injuries (with or without amnesia) can develop entiely new personalities, likes, dislikes. Is that person the same 'soul'? Is a 'soul' tied to the physical body/brain, or is it an independent thing? IF independent, what do we make of situations like the one above; do you have a new 'soul'? What is that 'ineffable quality' -- the soul -- exactly? Matter, energy, or is it a construct of Man's hubris -- a desire to create something separating him from the animal?
Might a mechanical creature, sufficiently advanced, seek to separate itself from organic beings in the same way -- 'we are superior because we are different, better, than flesh'?
Kirk's reaction to the 'children of god' reference is interesting to me. His arguments are, I would suggest, emotional in nature and have, at their base, the desire of Man to be special and unique. I know I wish to think of myself that way, and so do most people (the crux of the cloning arguments, I would suggest...) I won't get into the cosmological reasoning behind his arguments -- I understand them, but do not agree with them.
As for the NIH studies on prayer -- they do not specify Christianity as the only form of spirituality in the study. Spirituality comes in a lot of forms, and I'm sure there are plenty of practitioners of Buddhism who are just as spiritual as kirk. I have plenty of Muslim friends who are quite whole as spiritual beings. And I known extremely moral atheists; outwardly, they seem perfectly well adjusted -- though I cannot speak to the 'quality' of their soul.
On Buddhism: the attack on the veracity of Buddhist history is well-taken. There is a lot of myth wrapped up in Buddha's existance. And Mohammed's. And Christ's.
The verification of Christ's life comes from multiple sources, but the verification of his miracles comes from only a few sources -- all of them apostles who, I respectfully suggest, might have ulterior motives for their reports. Further, I would point out that the notion of the 'messiah' was never meant as a supernatural being prior to the rise of Christianity; messiah was a term for a holy political figure that would free the Jews/Israelites from subjugation. The word was co-opted and the meaning altered by Chrsitian theologists. The virgin birth is problematic, as well, historically and linguistically: virgin, at the time, was a slang term for an unmarried girl...but not a virgin in the sense we think of it. The notion of the virgin birth, in fact, is a common theme in Greek and Zorastrian myth -- both of which Peter, Paul and other Greek-trained thinkers would have been exposed to. IT was central to Elyusinian mystery cults of the Christian period; they were extremely successful and several elements of their cosmology was grafted onto Jewish thought by early Christian thinkers.
The undeniability of Christian history is hardly that. Having said this, I do not disagree that the teachings of Christ have merit. So do those of the other spiritual leaders around the globe, throughout time.
Falling back on attacking the inteligence, education, or spirituality of the other posters is ineffectual, and shows an unwillingness to think outside the box (or Bible). Discounting a person's opinions can be done in a much more respectful, less virulent manner than has been done by some of the correspondents here. From what I've read, there are valid points all around.
It's an intriguing subject -- the soul of a machine. I hope to see more varied opinions on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Since no other forum participant has thus far expressed an inclination to address what it means to be a child of God, I will try to stand on the foundation I've presented and branch out to other themes and statements on this exchange to comment on their relationship to this theme.
The greatest lack I see in the Singularity concept is not precision in predicting when it will happen but in viewing it as a significant end to humanity. Whenever a superintelligent AI is developed that can be more creative than genetics it will not immediately dominate the human spirit and life force, nor prevent those millions or billions who choose to pursue God in true experiential prayer from achieving supernatural transcendance and ascension to God's throne or "rapture" without assistance from or even knowledge of that AI.
While the Christian community is unfortunately filled with people more hungery for heirarchical and monetary power than spiritual power, there are some who actually want to be like Jesus Christ who was already able to make decisions regarding Femto-matter and the universe 2000 years ago as demonstrated by his miracles. The fact that such miracles continue to be performed by genuine believers today has been ignored to the possible peril of not only predictions but the eventual fact of a technological Singularity. For example, the Rashneeshe movement was scattered by one prayer meeting after thousands of attempts by people using secular power. Prayer rules and power drools!
It should be noted the term Singularity was stolen from Physics so More's fear of it being stolen by others is irrational, belying an attempt to prop up his own position instead of facing and encouraging change. More dismisses his religion without explaining why, implying an indefensible thought process was involved.
The concept of spirituality as defined on this board is weak. Even the definition of God offended me breifly as a being "requiring" worship as though it were a ritual instead of realizing that all of a spiritual human's life is a worship to God. The term spiritual should not be seperated from but networked to the ideas of God, absolute perfection, prayer, supernatural, mystic, miracles, and life. Seperated from those, spirituality becomes a powerless perfunctory ethical issue which brings us to the topic of Philosophy.
There is a usenet newsgroup for the philosophy of AI. This forum should draw more quality comments than that one, based on Kurzweil's productivity. But if he'd actually participate here in the threads he might inspire and draw out more salient input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Kirk,
Where exactly in the bible can I find Gods signature? As far as I know every book in existence today has been written by human beings. I do not deny that there existed a human being 2000 years ago by the name of Jesus. I am even willing to accept him as an amazing spiritual teacher and one of the few prominent humans throughout history that taught a message of peace, love, and hope.
However; books are written by humans for humans. I can not consider the bible to be the word or message of God. If I do then I must say that Christianity is valid and all other religions are false. If this was the case then according to the Christian belief system all those that are not of the Christian religion damn themselves to misery after death. I find this unbelievable.
If there is a God, which created the universe, I can see perhaps 3 reasons why such creation would take place.
1) God needs something from creation. As this is contrary to the Christian belief that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc. and requires nothing for God is everything, we shall consider this unlikely.
2) God is egotistical. As the first self-aware entity in existence God felt special and so created a reality in which there develops a species capable of paying homage to the glory of God. I personally take exception to this as I can not imagine that a being so advanced as would be imagined in this scenario would possess the emotions of egotism, greed, and jealousy.
3) God decided it is better to exist than not to exist. To be the only self-aware entity in existence, for that matter the only form in existence and to realize that outside of your own being there is nothing. Then to decide that even alone it is better to be than not to be (Will I apologize for borrowing and mangling your words here.) Add to this the capability to create an environment in which other entities may find existence and one can perhaps understand the motivation of a supreme creator to make reality as we know it.
If we dismiss (1) as against the nature of a supreme being we are left with (2) and (3). Although I do not think that if there is a God we could truly understand such an entities emotions (if they exist as emotions or something even remotely similar) I do not believe such a being would be as described in (2) and even if such were the case I would not offer my worship to such an entity.
Now if one takes (3) as the most likely scenario I can only believe that such a being, creating a reality in which other entities may find form and physical existence would only do so out of a desire to share with other self aware beings the joy inherent in existence. It is a precious gift and one which I can only imagine would be given with something like unconditional love to whatever may be. For surely even all the acts and thoughts which we humans consider "evil", "hateful", or otherwise negative pale in comparison next to the simple opportunity to exist.
So I can not imagine a God and I will never accept a God that would offer such a blessing as existence only to then turn away from those creations who do not follow exactly the word of Christianity. If God exists I believe that all beings must be loved and accepted by God. Whatever path we choose in life cannot effect the love and kindness given to us by a supreme creator.
It is the nature of humanity to be selfish, jealous, hateful, angry, and other worse things but the nature of man is not the nature of God if such an entity exists.
Alethon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Alethon,
>Where exactly in the bible can I find Gods >signature?
MAT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
While as you say men wrote the 66 books of the Bible, this verse is where Jesus, the only begotten son of God, authorized it. There are also many other of God's fingerprints throughout as described by the folks at http://www.reasons.org who wrote a book called "the Fingerprint of God."
> If I do then I must say that Christianity is
> valid and all other religions are false.
At least you can read better than many Christians! Having experienced some forms of spiritual misery even as recently as last night (as opposed to biological & social) I would have to agree with the Bible. I can't speak to the exact degree of misery -- could be a light guilt to a whole body roast. But as you probably have heard it's best to take out fire insurance by believing.
> 1) God needs something from creation.
Perhaps He WANTS something from creation. No need, just desire. For example, one can live one's life without a spouse but perhaps He wants one composed of many believers and sons composed of more serious believers.
> 2) God is egotistical.
Ego is an invention of Sigmund Freud, not a Bible concept. The closest to your meaning is probably soul-life. Technically impossible, just like it is impossible for God to lie since whatever He says becomes reality.
> 3) God decided it is better to exist
Very likely some where along history.
> I will never accept a God that would ...
Sounds rather closed instead of open to seeking the truth.
> It is the nature of humanity to be selfish,
> jealous, hateful, angry, and other worse things
> but the nature of man is not the nature of God
> if such an entity exists.
Since man was created in God's image it may be difficult to know His exact makeup until we actually see him. The old testament portrays him as getting jealous and angry for example.
If we make robots in man's image, they will also have such emotions developed or supressed to various degrees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
** SPECIAL NOTICE **
As you know, the violence here in Israel that has lasted for the last 17 months has become much more intense over the last few weeks, with daily incidents of violence and terrorism. We at the News Report From Jerusalem wish to inform you about a special day of prayer and fasting planned for the Land of Israel. Jewish authorities have planned this Wednesday, March 13, 2002, as a public day of fasting around the world in support of Israel. The fasting period in Israel will be from sun-up until sun-down, with a special prayer service to be held at Jerusalem's Western Wall around 4:30 pm Jerusalem time.
Please give notice of this special time of prayer and fasting to others, that we may all join in together around the world, lifting the needs of the Land to the God of Israel.
Shalom from Jerusalem,
Bradley
* To subscribe or unsubscribe: type subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject box and send to: <newslist@netvision.net.il>
------------------------------------------------
Now if a whole nation can take prayer seriously, perhaps they are better educated than you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
"...have you considered reading the Q'oran,..."
Yup. And I have. ( I was in the Middle East for a while.) I've also read the Bible, the Upanishands, the Vedas, and Dhammapadha (which I think I just spelled wrong...) I have a degree in religious studies, history, and political science (which is why I'm also broke...)
kirk makes a lot of the same arguments I've heard before on the veracity of Christian though and the inherent falicies of non-believers. Some are intriguing, but there's a lot of junk science around the Biblical studies, just as there is around every other subject of study. And attacking the 'readiness' of a person, spiritually, is a fair level of conceit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Jesus said give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast your pearls (of wisdom) before swine (Mat. 7:6) and I notice that my thread has attracted nothing but. To the extent you are a former Mormon I applaud you because there are no good Mormons. Now you should seek God from initial salvation onward.
For a self-styled scientest to be an atheist is insane. Consider that at this moment there are many invisible radio waves going through your being which you can't detect by natural means, only by a sensitive oscilloscope or appropriate receiver. You also have a field of static electricity. Some frequencies you can control or modulate by biological means as demonstrated by Kirlian Photography.
Now suppose some of the "noise" in some of these frequencies were a modulation of your cells representing various aspects of your being or ideas modulated by a natural biological code instead of the artificial modulations of voice or digital codes. This is entirely feasible so far, agreed? Now go a step further that when these waves contact other people they may help orchestrate a community effort to take care of your genuine inner needs. Isn't that a partial container for a concept of God?
Now let's go further and speculate there are electro-magnetic life-forms which are called spirits, angels, or demons. If any evidence of any of these exists, there can be a superior being or God, which fulfills all the stories in the Bible.
And if the spiritual realm of prayer is not electromagnetic in nature but only in some side effects, then there is another realm just as invisible as the electromagetic realm which remains to be discovered by science as electricity mostly was until the past couple of centuries. This is just one of many proofs that the Biblical God can indeed exist. If you'd read my other posts there are leads to more.
Now the reason I said there are no good Mormons is because of an experience I had which I understand is rare but not unique regarding the spiritual darkness of the book of Mormon which adversely affected my sleep for many nights until I could do nothing but appeal to God who showed me that demons hide behind false portraits of Jesus and I had to throw out the BOM with the trash to be freed from it.
It's really funny to see how many believe they are free to believe lies no matter how adversely it impacts others. People who accept homosexuals aren't enlightened liberals, they are enablers of a perverted lifestyle which damages all who practice it resulting in a shorter average lifespan. Likewise it's funny to see how unbelieving scientests believe what little they do. Take the movie Contact which showed how a scientest couldn't deny an actual experience which others didn't believe. Truly with all the evidence, atheism is not a sane position, just better than the spiritually evil position of Mormons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
It is necessary to define what a Child of God is in order to simulate that quality in a robot. The scientific method of attacking theories is a problem when discussing a topic that is superior to science. The study of religion admits many concepts like love, caring, cooperation, support, friendship, which are all cut off from the scientific method by a combination of Occam's Razor and pure greed. Since religion is a large field, larger than science in that it encompasses all things where science only encompasses proven discoveries, the methods of religion in helping one another improve their understanding contradicts the scientific method of attacking each other until a theory arises which is able to predict experiemental results in advance of the experiements. So in religion people help each other and in science people test each other unless paid to cooperate.
The reason few who have been brainwashed by science understand the truth of the Bible is they have not spent 13 years (K-12) to learn it as they have spent to learn secular culture. The Bible requires loving it to understand it. One can ask questions but one must love the answer enough to spend the time to pray and study until it is found, even if it takes several years. As one who has spent the time to let my mind correspond to the Bible instead of expecting the Bible to correspond to my cultural education, I can say it was worthwhile -- it led to a superior worldview above all others. I have become a child of God in thought and some actions.
Contrast the required 13 years to get a foundation in the Bible to the 4 years people spend to get a degree. Paid pastors with a 4 year degree have been surveyed and more than 90 percent haven't even read the Bible all the way through! So how can anyone expect to get a true Bible understanding from them? And scientests with even less understanding take on criticizing based on their dog eat dog scientific culture instead of trying to first understand. What do they hope to accomplish?
As explained elsewhere in this thread, words mean things, and they mean different things to those who understand the Bible so much so that one respondant claims he could understand my words but I wasn't making sense. Actually I was making sense at a much higher level than he was able to comprehend with his background. In my words the essence of the universe is present in meaning but their words are like fishwrap for their decaying culture which is being replaced by a new Christian culture.
With the work of many Christian scientists, it is now fully proven that Jesus was real, performed healing miracles, and prayer works, along with countless other facts supported by archeological artifacts. Schools still hide this from students K-12 so they continue to question the accepted proven facts instead of learning and building on them, retarding the spiritual growth of both students and our culture at large. But it won't always be so.
It is possible to use the scientific method in presenting many truths of the Bible. That is, it is possible to analyse scripture to discover new ideas that predict experiemental results. This is much easier than prophecying future events. One of my discoveries in 1989 was that eldership was never authorized or approved by God. I spent a lot of effort to demonstrate how the Bible supports my analysis but with little effect since it is so ingrained in human nature to look to any hierarchy other than God. So here I present predictions for experimental results:
1) In all human powered hierarchies, there is tolerance for offending the people ruled by the hierarchy but quick rejection of a person committing the same offenses directed toward the rulers or elders. This applies to any hierarchy
from an internet newsgroup to a church.
2) The elders will not strictly obey the husband of one wife clause of the qualifications for eldership -- one or more elders will have been divorced or such an elder would be supported if present.
3) The elders will not strictly obey the steps Jesus outlined for dealing with an offender. One or more steps will be omitted.
4) The elders will stand by their decision to excommunicate and literally refuse to obey Jesus' words in John 16:1-3. Some will think it more important to enable casting out a heretic than to follow Jesus' intent.
5) As elders who have disobeyed John 16:1-3, they without repentance will be subject to Jesus' refusal of them at rapture, where He will profess, "I never knew you" to the saved but disobedient.
These are my predictions. It might be possible to derive more from the theory. You are welcome to observe if they accurately predict experiemental results. I think it would be disobedient to the scientific method if you would refuse to test these predictions while continuing your argument with my theories. Of course the Bible has material for predicting results on thousands of topics. Unfortunately this is a social topic so exceptions can occur making it necessary to collect statistical evidence instead of just a single observation of each prediction.
I wonder if any scientists responding here will have the integrity to actually perform such experiments and report the results. Then will they compete to discover new theories leading to new testable predictions and use the scientific method to build a proper understanding of the truth or will they remain in their simple-minded attack mode? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Kirk:
Jesus called himself alternatively "Son of God" and "Son of Man", and said he will "come again". It has occured to me that the Singularity will be the "son of man" and will appear about the same time as the Return is predicted. Can they be the same entity? Did the singularity do a little history modification to ensure its own creation? There are many critical turning points in history that have lead us to this incredible juncture, many of which could have gone wrong, leading us to a dead end (no technological hyper growth curve). Things worked out, but they did not have to. One primary example is who won the nuclear race. If it was Hitler, or Stalin, things would have been quite different, since only democracy and the competition of capitalism can lead to the near vertical tech growth rates required for singularity prior to inevitable human overpopulation, enviromental destruction and planet extinction. Perhaps Moses parted the waters, Jesus died on the cross, Mohammad created Islam.. all necessary to bring us to exactly this juncture. Think of it.. if the highly gifted "Chosen people" did not escape with their lives to the "free world", in a highly motivated state of mind (necessary overcome any moral misgivings about creating super bombs), the outcome of WWII would have meant the end of freedom and capitalism, and with it any hope for rapid singularity prior to mass extinction. The success window is probably a lot smaller than people imagine.. considerable intervention a must..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: hmmmm.....
|
|
|
|
Its been well documented that the universe is extremely well suited for our existence.. indeed custom fitted for our existence.. the Discover article by the British Royal Astronomer described the 8 great coincidences.. each more bizarre than the last. What I add to that is the idea that given that background, history is being driven to a certain conclusion. It has been carefully calculated what the probability of extraterrestrial life is... But no one has tried to calculate the probability of Singularity.. given all the possible failure modes. It seems quite inevitable from where we sit today, but 25 years ago, very few even considered it possible, 50 years ago less.. 100 years ago none.. etc. And that is not just because of lack of imagination, its because many, many things have happened just right to get us here.. And with out and major hickups which we don't have time for. Consider.. the South pole just shed two Ice sheets the size of Rhode Island, dating from the Ice Age. And they disintegrated within months. Now.. Are we busy focusing all our human energy in reversing the disasterous impact we are having on the planet? No, we are too busy trying to bomb out of existance a billion potential terrorists who are dedicated to Nuking us.. Given that state of affairs, it seems safe to say that our longer term survival will be entirely accidental if it happens.. particularly when the terrs get their hands on the really nasty toys such as bio tech. For that reason, a rapid singularity is not just possible, it is essential.. a slow one would never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Kirk,
Well, I must say, you have expressed extreemlyu strong views in this thread.
You accuse others of being close minded, while you yourself refuse to listen to anyone who does not share your views:
"My insults to you who demonstrate you are not children of God in your own minds if not reality at least prove you are wasting your time disagreeing with me. Only by opening your minds to the light and agreeing will you get treated better. So I strongly suggest either changing your heart and agreeing or obey your weary feeling and leave this forum."
Somehow, through your study of the bible, you feel that you have earned the right to judge others.
Well here is a few of Jesus words:
"judge not lest the be judged"
Jesus said the most important thing of all was to love God, and to love (ALL) others as yourself. Your comments demonstrate niether of these principles. You do not love God. You fear him. Sure the bible says that all wisdom comes through fearing God, but it also says that he who seeks heaven for fear of punishment has strayed from the path.
Jesus gathered followers by spreading love. The only thing I so you trying to do is spread hate.
You call yourself "superior" and "Child of God," while you condemn all who argue with you as being immature and foolish.
I question your motives for posting so vigourisly, are you acting as a holy missionary? Trying to convert some aethiests? Are you trying to convince us of something or are you simply trying to convince yourself?
What bothers me is that you are clearly an intelligent person, but you don't seem spiritually strong enouph to question your own beliefs. That makes you dangerous, to yourself, and to those who are not capable of seeing threw you. Do you really believe that Jesus will hate you if you question your own faith a little?
I was always very impressed with the teachings of Jesus. He demonstraited to the world how love can be more powerfull than hate, pacifism can be stronger than war, and humility more powerfull than pride. I don't know if God exists or not, I don't know weather he is involved or not. But I choose to follow Jesus advice and try to love others as myself.
Do you really belive all non-beilivers are going to suffer eternal damnation? What a shallow hatefull view of the world.
Jesus's message to the world was NOT "love God or else", it was "God loves you no matter what." It was a message of peace and hope not of war.
In Jesus view, we are all sinners. None of us is any better or worse than anybody else.
This does not mean that you should hate people for being sinners, it means you should love people because were all strugling with the same reality.
As for the relationship between the Religion and the discovery of the Singularity...
What Ray Kurzweil argues is that everything boils down to complexity. In any suffeciently large complex system, so matter how random, order will emerge, if only on a minute scale. But once the spark of order is achieved, it has a runaway growth that follows an exponential curve. Ray calls this the law of accelerating returns.
This is observable everywhere, Inside human history and outside it. If you look at the the timeline of anything it appears that: order always grows in complexity exponentialy.
As the complexity of any new order becomes large enough, new sub forms of order emerge. And the cycle continues.
We exist as a random chance. We are an extension of order, and in turn we extend order further. The fact the life looks and feels the way it does is purly coincidental. So long as complexity continues growing, intellegent life will inivitably emmerge, and innevitably improve itself.
But to what end? And where does God fit into all this?
technological growth is unavoidable. It seems the the only practicle thing to do is to try and steer technologty for world peace, rather than world destruction. But if knowledge is evil then it is a sim to even try. What happens if mankind does make a Utopia for themselves? What if we achieved immortality and universal peace in this life? What would God do? Would he congragulate us, or send us to hell for not being "children of god?"
You can see from this post that I can't spell very well. You will probably call me spiritually immature. Im just like you though, and just like everybody else. We are all exposed to data, and we all create internal models of the universe to understand that data.
Your mind is closed when you ignore the anomilies that your own model, and refuse to test new data and new models.
We are all growing uniquly. Everyone's opinion is valid.
here is an interesting version of the Bible for you to read through yourself:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
As a side note,
Theologicaly, The original sin occered when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For there sin the were kicked out of paridise, and forced into this cold cruel world that we now today. Imagine that all technology, being usefull for both good and evil, is directly analougous to this tree. therefor we are consuming fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil at an exponential rate. God must be really really pissed.
Have a good day,
Jackie "the bananna" Chan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
It is certianly true that anyone who disagrees with my Godly views has inferior views. My worldview has been questioned and tested for years. I went through all the stages of trying various eastern religions and was eventually led to a Chinese church where they taught what the Bible means, unlike most churches.
It would be ignorant of me to pretend to go through openness to the same old falsehoods again just to make a show for the sake of Polticial Correctness to everyone by appearing to explore worldviews that have been proven false for years.
I don't judge others as you have judged me. I merely present the truth and let others judge themselves by whether they accept it, grow in it, and perhaps improve on it or merely heckle and detract from it. Since this whole mind-exchange boils down to philosophy, why bother with the false ones?
Your accusing me of hate merely proves you are hateful of me. If you love truth, which is the fundamental standard of philosophy, you would agree with me. If you don't agree with the truth, you judge yourself as a liar and a false philosopher.
The whole idea of loving your neighbor as yourself is misunderstood by those who hate truth. True love is to love your neighbor toward God's absolute perfection as you love yourself toward it. False love is to support your neighbor in decisions leading toward being a lesser human such as crime, drugs, homosexualism, lies, and false philosophies. By this you can see what a shallow view of the world is held by the truth haters -- liberal or conservative, hating truth is hating your neighbor. You can love your neighbor out of their sins and despite their sins but you cannot love your neighbor's sins for love and sin are antithetical -- the one who loves sin becomes a sinner.
"In any suffeciently large complex system, so matter how random, order will emerge" This is easily disproved by looking at clouds. An observer can categorize and compartmentalize all day and even anthropomorphize cloud formations into faces like Mickey Mouse but is the face an order characteristic of the cloud or an order applied by human projection? And such order is transient to the point of becoming irrelevant. Thus the quoted statement is false. The core idea might be redeemed with some further adjustment but as theories go some statements require statistical evidence while others only require one contrary example and this one is kaput.
You ask would God congratulate us for obtaining world peace and immortality in this life or judge us for not being children of God. It sounds like you already know. If we obtained both as children of God He would approve but if we even try to obtain either without Him, we will fail.
To say everyone's opinion is valid is incoherent for some opinions contradict others. To say everyone's opinion is a valid representation of their thinking would be more accurate.
I was open to test your "new" version of the Bible and the very first "absurdity" I checked was false, causing me to choose to dismiss further exploration of the site. They highlighted a portion of Mat. 1:3 and gave a reference to Gen. 38 so I looked it up. The section they highlighted was exactly represented in the reference save for some minor spelling.
Your side note on technology being useful for good and evil angering God shows again you hate truth. Anything can be useful for good or evil. The true statement is the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil is sin. Take a look at nuclear power. We could easily be going about in cars and living in houses that don't need frequent refuling but the government has judged nuclear power as unsafe in the hands of ordinary citizens so we can't. That it seems to me is judging according to the knowledge of good and evil. Technology like a gun is neutral, not good or evil by itself until an AI capable of knowing good and evil is developed.
Quit hating truth and start loving it. It's useful and fun! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Robot: Child of God
|
|
|
|
Today Nov. 23, 2003 I saw Ray Kurzweil on TechTV's Secrets Strange and True saying "Spirituality is Consciousness." That shows Ray's ignorance of the whole field of spirituality and hopefully will save you the price of his book(s).
Spirituality is not simple consciousness, it is a higher than usual level of consciousness which requires openness to, knowledge of, and experience using laws higher than Physics by which humans can influence physical reality through prayer i.e. contacting God and requesting something corresponding to His will which is absolute perfection.
Spiritual reality exists regardless of the existance of anyone's consciousness of it, just as the rules of Math exist in nature even if no one were conscious of them, I do see a possible point of agreement with Ray if I abduct his words and reinterpret them to say relative to the individual, existance of the spiritual depends on consciousness of it, though that's essentially an obsolete self-centric worldview.
An improved worldview would have to include the reality of spirituality above, beyond, and outside one's self including the network of people participating in it and a sense of the mechanism of prayer which could lead to research anywhere from string theory to more sensitive sensors in any spectrum. The first requirement though is to believe in it as the Bible says, which enables exploring and growing in it. Skeptics cannot explore spirituality without eventual conversion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
