Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 513 posts

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#231

Post by gtech1 »

titanomachy wrote: post #224

> the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities grante…

Mind you, it also can'y answer this: who really goes to heaven or hell ? Your spirit as you were at 10, 20, 30, 50 ? what if you have a stroke at 60 and die as a vegetable at 70 ? Which one is the real you ? Because if it's as you were when you die then it's pretty silly

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#232

Post by breuleux »

JackFr wrote: post #196
breuleux wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself---which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work. Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings? The hubris! It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions…

> I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings? Yes. > The hubris! It seems obvious to me I would turn that around and claim hubris on your part. You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.

> You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar,

How come? You think I'm saying that the infinite creator of the universe is unlikely to care about the fate or well-being of humans because... I wouldn't if I was him? I mean, I would. Because I have a human mind. But if there are indeed no similarities between God's mind and my own, well, anything goes, doesn't it? Him caring is just one small possibility out of trillions of alternatives.

> and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.

What limitations? I haven't listed any limitations. Neither a God who cares nor a God who doesn't care is limited. I just don't see why I would assign a particularly significant probability to the former case. It sure would be convenient, but I feel like God being moral in any way that I can relate to would inevitably be projection on my part.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#233

Post by amanaplanacanal »

carlosjobim wrote: post #216
esafak wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it were alive? If you could not tell it apart from things that you consider alive? And why is being alive necessary to you for it to have rights?

These are things you have to understand in your heart, just like all the important things in life. I cannot communicate it in text to you, because the medium is limited. Meditate on it. You like all of us have only a limited time of life on this earth, why would you throw away that incredible gift by pursuing untruths?

That particular argument could be used to justify any belief.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#234

Post by Eisenstein »

radlad wrote: post #87
kouru225 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these words, “sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment” are all words that we’ve developed and yet have no full understanding of. In any philosophy paper they’d be challenged in a second.

> Sensory input refers to the information received by the body's senses, like sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, through sensory organs like the eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, which is then transmitted to the brain as electrical signals for processing and interpretation; essentially, it's anything you perceive using your senses. Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in compa…

So how much less of a human was Helen Keller?

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#235

Post by rhaps0dy »

martin1975 wrote: post #222

Reminds me of one of my favorite ST: TNG episodes, "The Measure of a Man" - I urge anyone who read this note to watch this episode. Ultimately it comes down to the question of whether machines, regardless of how smart they can be made to appear, even if they pass the Turing test with flying colors, are imbued with a soul. In the episode, the Enterprise JAG officer, questions whether we humans "have souls." C.S. Lewis…

Humans create AIs but humans also create other humans, through conception. And yet we do not say that humans were created by humans. Could we not say that AIs were created by God, by making the patterns of intelligence evident in Nature and letting other intelligences unravel them?

As you say, AIs also reflect the image of the Creator (through having intelligence). Maybe AIs can also reflect on the nature of Truth and connect with God, and thus a have a soul.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#236

Post by nprateem »

titanomachy wrote: post #224

> the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities grante…

That's pretty close to the Buddhist view if you look at the immaterial jhanas. Obviously they don't couch it as God though, just the mind.

It's basically progressive layers upon nothing which becomes something.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#237

Post by Eisenstein »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #207
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is deep wisdom in the Bible that absolutely can provide us clear moral guidance in our modern problems Of course there is. It’s a text that has survived two millennia. Almost anything that old is interesting due to selection effect. The problem is not only has the book survived, but so have several political institutions and ways of thinking around it. Not from the time of Jesus. But from the centuries and mi…

I agree on most of that. A few comments: > Pick a social issue fifty years ago, take most institutional church’s positions, and they’re pretty consistently wrong. (There are notable exceptions, of course.) According to what definition of wrong? What is decided by popular vote? Although democracy in America has a Christian foundation (congregational churches), Christians pretty much defer right/wrong to the biblical t…

I suppose one could say 'wrong' would absolutely be something they changed their position on, regardless of any other definition.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#238

Post by cynicalpeace »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #225
cynicalpeace wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Athiesm is actually just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable as Theism.

[flagged]

This is a subtle and fascinating reference I had to Google. It's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

The problem with the argument is that the Athiestic viewpoint is indeed just as fantastical as the Thiestic viewpoint. It's basically switching out "Yahweh" with "Chance".

It basically comes down to which God you believe in and how you define God.

In my reading, a definition of God that is "caused everything, exists onto itself, is in all places at all times, and completely miraculous" is the definition that best describes our universe and what we know about the Big Bang. I'm happy to hear other definitions, but let's not pretend the fact that anything exists at all is totally mundane and explicable.

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#239

Post by aubanel »

titanomachy wrote: post #224

> the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities grante…

> So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities granted by the corporeal form?

What makes you think that there would be only spirit/soul left in Heaven?

The idea is that people would be there in a "glorified body", a body without decay, suffering, or pain. But a real body!

Re: Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between AI and human intelligence

#240

Post by [deleted] »

titanomachy wrote: post #224

> the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual... the human person transcends the material world through the soul... the human spirit does not exercise its normal mode of knowledge without the body I have a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what it is that Christians believe about immortality. So the soul lives on forever, but without the reasoning and intellectual capabilities grante…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN