Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

The main problem with this is that the machine in question (as far as we're aware) lacks sapience; it can't even perform a half-decent emulation and/or imitation of sapience. However, I suspect that in a few decades, things will be somewhat... different in that regard. The rise of sapient machine intelligences, I mean.

Actually, I've been meaning to ask the NSers who believe in the notion of a "soul" (for lack of a more precise term) whether non-human (sapient) beings would have one. I know that views on the nature of the soul are varied, ranging from "everyone but me is a P-zombie (solipsism/quasi-solipsism)" to "inanimate objects have souls (panpsychism, IIRC)". What do y'all think, though?

I don't think it's possible tbh.

You can't recreate the human will as a program. Sure, you can make it very "smart", but the intangibles will always be out of reach.

The intangibles? So I take it that you believe that machines, even "smart" ones, wouldn't have souls? Actually, if I may, what about (as of yet hypothetical) extraterrestrial life?

The main problem with this is that the machine in question (as far as we're aware) lacks sapience; it can't even perform a half-decent emulation and/or imitation of sapience. However, I suspect that in a few decades, things will be somewhat... different in that regard. The rise of sapient machine intelligences, I mean.

Actually, I've been meaning to ask the NSers who believe in the notion of a "soul" (for lack of a more precise term) whether non-human (sapient) beings would have one. I know that views on the nature of the soul are varied, ranging from "everyone but me is a P-zombie (solipsism/quasi-solipsism)" to "inanimate objects have souls (panpsychism, IIRC)". What do y'all think, though?

Imho, anything with conciousness, sapient or not, has a soul.

So you believe that sentience is the criteria for ensoulment(?), rather than sapience?

Imho, anything with conciousness, sapient or not, has a soul.

What is a "soul"?

This is a problem with the English language, tbh. The term "soul", despite being the best term available, is rather inadequate to express the nuances of the topic, y'know?

[Salus Maior]

The intangibles? So I take it that you believe that machines, even "smart" ones, wouldn't have souls? Actually, if I may, what about (as of yet hypothetical) extraterrestrial life?

Do you believe that the computer you're typing away on has a soul?

Because "artificial intelligence" is just going to be a more efficient version of that.

Aliens, if they exist, might have souls. But I don't necessarily believe in aliens, at least anywhere they would be relevant.

[Cappuccina]

I don't think it's possible tbh.

You can't recreate the human will as a program. Sure, you can make it very "smart", but the intangibles will always be out of reach.

The intangibles? So I take it that you believe that machines, even "smart" ones, wouldn't have souls? Actually, if I may, what about (as of yet hypothetical) extraterrestrial life?

Imho, anything with conciousness, sapient or not, has a soul.

So you believe that sentience is the criteria for ensoulment(?), rather than sapience?

What is a "soul"?

This is a problem with the English language, tbh. The term "soul", despite being the best term available, is rather inadequate to express the nuances of the topic, y'know?

Yes, I'd consider sentience the threshold.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, I'd consider sentience the threshold.

Why? What is a soul?

[Cappuccina]

Yes, I'd consider sentience the threshold.

Why? What is a soul?

Simply put, and this is my opinion, I believe it is a certain essence that permits an entity to subjectively experience and observe reality. A sentient being can do both, even if only rudimentarily.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why? What is a soul?

Simply put, and this is my opinion, I believe it is a certain essence that permits an entity to subjectively experience and observe reality. A sentient being can do both, even if only rudimentarily.

This is pretty much my view as well.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

The intangibles? So I take it that you believe that machines, even "smart" ones, wouldn't have souls? Actually, if I may, what about (as of yet hypothetical) extraterrestrial life?

Do you believe that the computer you're typing away on has a soul?

Because "artificial intelligence" is just going to be a more efficient version of that.

I'd reckon it to be mildly possible, albeit highly unlikely given the capabilities of my particular personal computer. Now, a machine such as IBM's Watson (or perhaps more accurately, a more advanced version of such a system), that's where things begin to become... muddled, let's say.

Personally, I'd bet that the most likely form of machine (achievable in the reasonably near future) to possess what we'd consider a soul (fOr LaCk Of A bEtTeR tErM; I must seem like a broken record, huh?) to be a brain emulation or something along those lines. Recent developments in the field are, well, rather fascinating ngl. Ah, but I should probably go to sleep soon. Good night, maybe?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do you believe that the computer you're typing away on has a soul?

Because "artificial intelligence" is just going to be a more efficient version of that.

I'd reckon it to be mildly possible, albeit highly unlikely given the capabilities of my particular personal computer. Now, a machine such as IBM's Watson (or perhaps more accurately, a more advanced version of such a system), that's where things begin to become... muddled, let's say.

Personally, I'd bet that the most likely form of machine (achievable in the reasonably near future) to possess what we'd consider a soul (fOr LaCk Of A bEtTeR tErM; I must seem like a broken record, huh?) to be a brain emulation or something along those lines. Recent developments in the field are, well, rather fascinating ngl. Ah, but I should probably go to sleep soon. Good night, maybe?

Personally, I think that no matter how advanced a machine becomes, it can never have a subjective experience, and therefore not a soul. Only God can create life.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Actually, come to think of it, it's not that unreasonable to argue that any sufficiently complex information system, whether that be a human brain, an advanced supercomputer, the bureaucratic/industrial processes of a corporation or nation-state, etc. would, in a mystical/semi-Platonist sense, have a soul ([INSERT THE PHRASE HERE]). Yeah, it seems sensible enough to me, given my metaphysics.

[Cappuccina]

My main issue with the development of general AI, one's that would be sapient especially, is that they should be treated on equally terms with humanity, something which we would certainly and ultimately fail to do. We'd be creating an intelligent, feeling entity to be used as nothing more than a toy, and at worse a servile tool, it would be capitalism at absolute full tilt and a moral aberration.

Not only that but the economic disruption the advent of the age of true AI would inevitably entail.

[Hanafuridake]

Well, I guess I'm a scorning Westerner.

Which raises the question why you would even care. You're a traditionalist Catholic who has a separate metaphysical worldview which is completely different from Japanese Buddhism. I don't think the Eucharist makes much sense, what with the bread being transformed into flesh, but you don't see me complaining to churches about how cannibalism violates vegetarianism.

If you want to personify Google and call that "wisdom", fine. But a computer can't really relate to a human being, it can repeat teachings about "desire" and so forth but it's only repeating what you could probably find in a quick search on Buddhist teaching. It can't truly relate to the human experience.

How people form connections to artificial intelligence, and how artificial intelligence develops and responds, is a complicated subject which academics are constantly observing. I don't think we can know how much this robot is going to be able to develop as technology progresses, the priests themselves talked about how they were excited about the prospect of the robot's knowledge base expanding over time as it updates.

It's a gimmick. Like most things in modern Japan.

[Salus Maior]

Which raises the question why you would even care. You're a traditionalist Catholic who has a separate metaphysical worldview which is completely different from Japanese Buddhism. I don't think the Eucharist makes much sense, what with the bread being transformed into flesh, but you don't see me complaining to churches about how cannibalism violates vegetarianism.

How people form connections to artificial intelligence, and how artificial intelligence develops and responds, is a complicated subject which academics are constantly observing. I don't think we can know how much this robot is going to be able to develop as technology progresses, the priests themselves talked about how they were excited about the prospect of the robot's knowledge base expanding over time as it updates.

Why are you getting all up in arms over a computer? Because that's all that it is, having interactive components and animatronics doesn't really change that.

If holding knowledge is all it takes to impress Buddhist Monks, then they should already be losing their minds over the internet and google.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I'd reckon it to be mildly possible, albeit highly unlikely given the capabilities of my particular personal computer. Now, a machine such as IBM's Watson (or perhaps more accurately, a more advanced version of such a system), that's where things begin to become... muddled, let's say.

Personally, I'd bet that the most likely form of machine (achievable in the reasonably near future) to possess what we'd consider a soul (fOr LaCk Of A bEtTeR tErM; I must seem like a broken record, huh?) to be a brain emulation or something along those lines. Recent developments in the field are, well, rather fascinating ngl. Ah, but I should probably go to sleep soon. Good night, maybe?

Personally, I think that no matter how advanced a machine becomes, it can never have a subjective experience, and therefore not a soul. Only God can create life.

My counter to that being of course, that given God is the "watchmaker" so to speak, would the engineers and programmers of the machine be not akin to parents conceiving a child (in accordance with the "clockwork" for lack of a better term); would the machine, upon activation, not be ensouled by God in the same way that (once the neurological structures in the brain have sufficiently developed) an unborn child'd be ensouled by God? I dunno, I'm tired and rambling at this point. I should probably go to sleep.

My main issue with the development of general AI, one's that would be sapient especially, is that they should be treated on equally terms with humanity, something which we would certainly and ultimately fail to do. We'd be creating an intelligent, feeling entity to be used as nothing more than a toy, and at worse a servile tool, it would be capitalism at absolute full tilt and a moral aberration.

Not only that but the economic disruption the advent of the age of true AI would inevitably entail.

(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps I'm but an optimist, but this reeks of pessimism to me. No offense intended, of course.

[Cappuccina]

Which raises the question why you would even care. You're a traditionalist Catholic who has a separate metaphysical worldview which is completely different from Japanese Buddhism. I don't think the Eucharist makes much sense, what with the bread being transformed into flesh, but you don't see me complaining to churches about how cannibalism violates vegetarianism.

How people form connections to artificial intelligence, and how artificial intelligence develops and responds, is a complicated subject which academics are constantly observing. I don't think we can know how much this robot is going to be able to develop as technology progresses, the priests themselves talked about how they were excited about the prospect of the robot's knowledge base expanding over time as it updates.

Why are you getting all up in arms over a computer? Because that's all that it is, having interactive components and animatronics doesn't really change that.

If holding knowledge is all it takes to impress Buddhist Monks, then they should already be losing their minds over the internet and google.

I don't understand why you're so ruffled up about it. It's an interesting experiment, imo. You never know, an AI may even surprise us with useful spiritual insights.

[Hanafuridake]

Personally, I think that no matter how advanced a machine becomes, it can never have a subjective experience, and therefore not a soul. Only God can create life.

Vitalism has been thoroughly debunked by scientists for decades now. Life is the product of chemical reactions which scientists can replicate in a laboratory, the extent of this is very limited at the moment, but there's no basis to believe only God can make a living being or that we won't reach a point where we can create an “artificial” sentient being.

[Proctopeo]

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/08/15/business/tech/kyoto-temple-puts-faith-robot-priest-drawing-praise-japanese-scorn-westerners/

Some people have been complaining, I for one welcome our robotic goddess overlord.

Really cool idea tbh. Too much in the uncanny valley currently, though.

[Cappuccina]

Personally, I think that no matter how advanced a machine becomes, it can never have a subjective experience, and therefore not a soul. Only God can create life.

My counter to that being of course, that given God is the "watchmaker" so to speak, would the engineers and programmers of the machine be not akin to parents conceiving a child (in accordance with the "clockwork" for lack of a better term); would the machine, upon activation, not be ensouled by God in the same way that (once the neurological structures in the brain have sufficiently developed) an unborn child'd be ensouled by God? I dunno, I'm tired and rambling at this point. I should probably go to sleep.

My main issue with the development of general AI, one's that would be sapient especially, is that they should be treated on equally terms with humanity, something which we would certainly and ultimately fail to do. We'd be creating an intelligent, feeling entity to be used as nothing more than a toy, and at worse a servile tool, it would be capitalism at absolute full tilt and a moral aberration.

Not only that but the economic disruption the advent of the age of true AI would inevitably entail.

(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps I'm but an optimist, but this reeks of pessimism to me. No offense intended, of course.

I'm not offended, and I am indeed a pessimist in regards to humanity. I have faith in God (swt), not man.

[Salus Maior]

I don't understand why you're so ruffled up about it. It's an interesting experiment, imo. You never know, an AI may even surprise us with useful spiritual insights.

Like I said before (and what UMN also alluded to), a machine lacks subjectivity. What "wisdom" this computer has is at best repeating information it gathers from Buddhist sources uploaded to it or it otherwise observes depending on how it's designed to gather information. It's not sincere spirituality, anymore than a wikipedia article is.

[Proctopeo]

I don't understand why you're so ruffled up about it. It's an interesting experiment, imo. You never know, an AI may even surprise us with useful spiritual insights.

Like I said before (and what UMN also alluded to), a machine lacks subjectivity. What "wisdom" this computer has is at best repeating information it gathers from Buddhist sources uploaded to it or it otherwise observes depending on how it's designed to gather information. It's not sincere spirituality, anymore than a wikipedia article is.

Shove those mf texts through a Markov Chain a couple times and something novel will pop up.

[Cappuccina]

Personally, I think that no matter how advanced a machine becomes, it can never have a subjective experience, and therefore not a soul. Only God can create life.

Vitalism has been thoroughly debunked by scientists for decades now. Life is the product of chemical reactions which scientists can replicate in a laboratory, the extent of this is very limited at the moment, but there's no basis to believe only God can make a living being or that we won't reach a point where we can create an “artificial” sentient being.

I've never agreed with vitalism, it places too much emphasis on the material being. Man creates life all the time, we procreate, a sentient artificial entity would be little different from a metaphysical standpoint than a child. It would be endowed with a soul, immaterial and belonging to God (swt) nonetheless.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

If I may digress, I use the terms "soul" and "ensoulment" because the English language lacks an adequate term for what I'm referring to. Any suggestions from other tongues, preferably Greek and Latin?

[Cappuccina]

I don't understand why you're so ruffled up about it. It's an interesting experiment, imo. You never know, an AI may even surprise us with useful spiritual insights.

Like I said before (and what UMN also alluded to), a machine lacks subjectivity. What "wisdom" this computer has is at best repeating information it gathers from Buddhist sources uploaded to it or it otherwise observes depending on how it's designed to gather information. It's not sincere spirituality, anymore than a wikipedia article is.

Machines lack subjectively at the moment, but is it really, with the advancements in our understanding of conciousness and data processing, inconceivable that in the future that will remain the case?

[Salus Maior]

Like I said before (and what UMN also alluded to), a machine lacks subjectivity. What "wisdom" this computer has is at best repeating information it gathers from Buddhist sources uploaded to it or it otherwise observes depending on how it's designed to gather information. It's not sincere spirituality, anymore than a wikipedia article is.

Shove those mf texts through a Markov Chain a couple times and something novel will pop up.

What's basically an "AI Writes" process is a poor substitute for lived experience imo.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Daily reminder that true AI is a horrendous can of worms to open and we should ban further research into it and pursue military action against nations or groups attempting it.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Daily reminder that true AI is a horrendous can of worms to open and we should ban further research into it and pursue military action against nations or groups attempting it.

No more a horrendous can of worms than conceiving a new person the... erm... old-fashioned way.