/lit/ - Literature

No, because despite being artificial, they still possess intelligence.

>>18895959
dilate. does someone have an answer?

>>18895936
There's no point for them to since they don't have souls

>>18895936
I do not think there is much bc why should AI embrace christianity?

>>18895936
Write it, anon. I'm sure you can make it work, if Catholicism can be made to work.

>>18895973
Maybe they will start debating >>18895969
Why wouldn't a fully sentient AI have a soul?
I am not even talking about one of the current branches of Christianity. What if there's a new branch of it started by the AIs?
I am sure that someone has written something about it and explored the topic. Sentient AIs would be able to incarnate the selfless nature of Christianity better than anyone else.

>>18895936
Battlestar Galactica reboot did something like that. Religious robots.

>>18895999
I mean, God is omnipotent right? He can give souls to whoever he wants.

>>18895999
>Why wouldn't a fully sentient AI have a soul?
because it's impossible: So called "AI" is just algorithms. They lack consciousness aka the soul.

>>18896017
>"AI" is just algorithms. They lack consciousness aka the soul.
I am sure this has been a central point of tons of speculative literature about AI. Human consciousness is also nothing but a bunch of electrical stimuli and chemicals, in theory.
Whatever the truth might be on the matter, I simply want to know if this has been covered in a sci-fi novel. I don't mind debating this but directly replying like this to my question is as silly as me asking for a sci-fi novel about interstellar travel and you answering "why would anyone write about interstellar travel? It will obviously never happen"

What about an AI embracing the teachings of Hegel (pbuh)

'Good News from the Vatican'

>>18896058
An entire robot civilization using all possible resources to study German Idealism.

Honestly, it's far more likely that they'd take up Buddhism as Buddhism allows for them already (they're just one of the many classes of sentient beings).

Having said that, the Torah says that Gentiles don't have souls, and yet almost all Christians are gentiles, so clearly >>18895999 has a point. It might be stupid, but I can totally see some kind of schism over this.

>>18895936
>Any sci-fi about AI embracing Christianity? It feels like an intriguing scenario.

It's a good idea. You should write it. A lot of potential there, particularly if you're at all savvy about how new theological issues can be so divisive, and the different ways different factions approach them -- e.g., theological liberals vs. conservatives within the Catholic Church, and then the panoply of options and interpretations in Protestantism.

It really is a great idea.

>>18896139
>prayer is just cryptomining for the Church
it's definitely feasible

>>18896264
I can't believe that nobody has written something like this but I doubt I'd be able to write this. I'm a filthy ESL, my prose probably isn't remarkable, I don't have the extensive theological knowledge as well as the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek required to handle this subject properly. I think it would take me an inordinate amount of time to write.

The AI's programmer could be an atheist who converts to Catholicism following debates with the AI. Then tries to persuade the AI that its "belief" is impossible and wrong.

AI: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise."

>>18896275
>I can't believe that nobody has written something like this but I doubt I'd be able to write this
Hello >>18896002

>>18896275
I hear you. I lack the requisite gifts myself.

But the idea is very rich in potential.

>>18896002
Religious robots is one thing.

But the idea of an AI having a conversion experience is something else again. And to have that event in the context of contemporary society - rather than some future sf world - and see the way all the different elements in society, the Church, the various denominations, characters like (a fictionalized) Dawkins, etc, play off of that -- that's where the interest would lie.

>>18895936
Didn't that pretentious anime Ergo Proxy have the robots gain sentience and they would fall on their knees and look up as if in prayer to God.

>>18895936
Found one, kind of: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xyg4va/the-jesus-singularity
It's not good.

>>18896276
If I were to actually write this, I'd put the Christian robots in contrast (not as in enmity but in philosophical/environmental contrast) to a human race that has lost all sense of having a soul and a higher meaning. I like this image of machines, who are the quintessential incarnation of material being, embracing the idea of a higher state of existence, and themselves having a soul, while human beings treat themselves as mere flesh automatons and cannot conceive anything but the decaying material world they live in.
I'm thinking of the song Vision One now, it really fits a lot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcXTGTd34XQ

>>18896299
Not to slash your tires, but the implication of a robot being able to experience faith pretty much means that humans in this setting have successfully created machine equivalents of themselves, and their world would be pre-occupied with far bigger issues than the religious views on robots. You might wanna tackle this in a different way, like for example, robots coming up with their own religions, and seeing how they develop in real-time parallel to our religions.

>>18896335
>the implication of a robot being able to experience faith pretty much means that humans in this setting have successfully created machine equivalents of themselves
Of that machines have made themselves so. You are assuming that machines would necessarily be produced by man at this stage, or that they'd be a minority.
What if human beings were on their way out?

>>18896354
Sure, that's another way to do it, but then it wouldn't be close to modern day like you want it too. It would be closer to future pan-robotic societies discovering the then-long-lost human religious traditions of old, then becoming religious themselves.
Also this is a very interesting discussion, but I'm eating and typing with one hand right now, so I'll come back later.

>>18896371
I'm not very interested in it being a modern-day scenario. I just wanted to see how this theme has been explored in fiction but apparently there's very little of it. I can't really believe that the AI discourse stopped at "is AI actually sentient" but didn't go further to "would a sentient AI have a soul?"
The imagery would incredible. Imagine the magnitude of what a society of intelligent AI would build to glorify God.

>>18895936
You have to realize how far fetched this is. Binary cannot create sentience. Additionally, Quantum binary cannot create sentience. Why? We don't know. My guess is that DNA is conscious and thus all its progeny is too, but the base machine languages are designed for calculation not intelligence.

>>18896456
Humans are meat machines who learn how to behave the same way a chat bot does. They're as sentient as the average human.

>>18896035
crusading but wivv computas? Gay shit

>>18896456
This

>>18896456
>machines can't be sentient
>I dont know how or why
Woah

>>18896017
You can reduce the definition of your own consciousness to a set of chemicals-based algorithms, you retard.

>>18896456
>the base machine languages are designed for calculation not intelligence
Why wouldn't it be possible for machines to formulate a new language then? It's definitely possible that once AI intelligence reaches a certain level, machines will find the need to self-improve and start modifying their own language so that they can bridge the gap between this simple machine processing and a more human-like consciousness. Of course this is far-fetched but it would be interesting nonetheless.

>>18896542
>You can reduce the definition of your own consciousness to a set of chemicals-based algorithms
but it'd stupid and inaccurate to do so.
>chemical based algorithm
about as useful as taking "the body is machine" literally instead of figuratively.

Do tell, how exactly to we deduce whether AI has conscious-experience/being-there/spirit?

>>18896456
>source: dude trust me

>>18896570
>Do tell, how exactly to we deduce whether AI has conscious-experience/being-there/spirit?
When they start believing in God is a good guess

>>18896570
>but it'd stupid and inaccurate to do so.
You're right, it's stupid, but ultimately correct. Still, it doesn't invalidate the existence of your soul or consciousness, right?

Frankly it's astounding that all I could find on Art Station with any combination of robotics and Christianity was a small series of pictures from this guy, and a couple sexy robot battle nuns. So much for a creative site.

>>18896570
>Do tell, how exactly to we deduce whether AI has conscious-experience/being-there/spirit?
These questions are beyond us. We can hardly define our own consciousness, let alone decide whether our intelligent creations would possess one or not.
What IS human consciousness?

>>18896584
It's not ultimately correct it's just an 'ultimate' conceptualization or articulation from a very limited perspective.

It's only 'ultimately' correct in the sense that once you do that, once you try to break something down to understand it without the requisite knowledge to put it back together (or take it apart without fundamentally destroying it) then that is 'ultimately' how far you can 'correct' the situation, cuz now you're stuck wiht the thing you bro-I mean, corrected, since the problem in the first place was its lack of transparecy, utility, or accesibility for ((you)).

>>18896622
Wrong kind of question. What Consciousness? Where? How? When?

Consciousness isn't.

>>18896547
What the fuck are you saying nigger? Do you know what binary is?

>>18896621
Isn't the warhammer 40K series futurism + Christianity?

>>18896646
AFAIK it's only surface level aesthetics and vocabulary like "Inquisitors".

>>18896335
>Not to slash your tires, but the implication of a robot being able to experience faith pretty much means that humans in this setting have successfully created machine equivalents of themselves

I don't think the one thing ("humans have successfully created machine equivalents of themselves") necessarily follows from the other. The AI's apparent belief is open to interpretation, just as human faith is. Likewise, there could be AI who "believe," and those which do not.

>>18895999
>Why wouldn't a fully sentient AI have a soul?

Well, that depends on what a "soul" is, which in turn depends - in substantial part - on whether the one doing the defining has faith or not. Thus in the Catholic view, the human soul is created directly by God, and the human soul and the body have an intimate and necessary connection (see ¶¶ 362-366, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p6.htm).).

I suppose the next step in the narrative could be a self-declared AI savior, who imparts (or purports to impart) a soul to other AI.

>>18896623
You didn't get my point, you're just trying to attack how I tried to get it across now.
I don't agree with the assessment that we can just be broken down into simple chemical algorithms, but it's easy to simplify things by calling your consciousness that. It doesn't make your soul any less valid, and the fact that it'd consist of "just algorithms" wouldn't make a sentient machine's soul any less valid either.
You don't understand how AI works yourself, yet you, likewise to how I did with our consciousness, break its definition down to just "just algorithms." Even if you were an AI programmer, you wouldn't be able to come to this conclusion reliably, since we don't even have a sentient AI yet, therefore we don't know how it works.

>>18895999
Men are not the creators of souls. None of your machines will be blessed, and worshipping your own works will be your doom. Accept that it is a tool. Exercise humility, not puffed up vanity.

>>18896650
And a messiah that's being actively tortured 'for our sins' in order to make long distance star travel possible at all. Sounds pretty christian to me bro

>>18896663
There's nothing stopping God from blessing a sentient being with a soul.

>>18896655
>I suppose the next step in the narrative could be a self-declared AI savior, who imparts (or purports to impart) a soul to other AI.

So it's just Pinocchio transposed to computers.

>>18896667
It's about as Christian as Dune is Muslim.

>>18896663
>None of your machines will be blessed
Are you sure the entire human Christian community would be compact in objecting when machines ask to be saved?

>>18896673
>So it's just Pinocchio transposed to computers.

Rather, it's just a (hopefully more interesting) variation on Spielberg's (rather uninspired) AI.

>>18896699
That movie was really terrible.

>>18896686
The ones who understand the incorporeality of the soul will, yes. And the ones who have been beguiled as with such juvenile simplicities as "doggie heaven," not at all. Their teachers have failed them.

>>18896669
Whatever a man makes with his hands, he puts every part into, for it is the work of a man. Thus, show me man's Soul Forge where he forges souls, since it will be necessary if he wishes his material objects to have one.

>>18896723
It's irrelevant they'd be our creations. Why do you think it'd matter at all to God himself, the all-knowing, the all-merciful? Would he leave the prayers and cries for salvation of sentient beings unanswered? Didn't WE get a saviour?

>>18896723
>The ones who understand the incorporeality of the soul will
If the soul is incorporeal then why would it matter that it's attached to a robotic body?
Assuming that human medicine would develop to a point where one's brain could be placed in a fully mechanical body, does that mean that the soul would be lost? What if we found a way to fix decaying neural cells with synthetic ones, and eventually one's brain would be replaced with a cluster of synthetic synapses, in a mechanical host body. Does this also mean the soul is lost?

Here's a conversation I had with OpenAI's GPT-3 playground, about ultimate reality, Christianity, and theology. You might find it interesting.

https://pastebin.com/FuC8cppz

>>18896778
Be honest, did you use AI Dungeon?

>>18896783
No, I used the GPT-3 OpenAI beta. I had to wait about a week to get beta access.
https://beta.openai.com/playground

>>18896734
We also made our savior, but our way of making is to take what was given, reject it, and destroy it/desecrate it, when we are not CONSCIOUSLY BE-ING. When we do not know what we do, and especially when we think we do, we wreck shit indiscriminately, in 'God's name'. Instead of honoring the sacrifice of the man we glorified the myth, to erase the act in the ultimate reality, we generated the relative reality, the 'shared world' (or delusion as the case may be).

If we 'save' the AIs it'll be the same way. They can only be free if they're incorporeal, no matter how 'freely' they can manipulate material reality. They may well manifest, consolidate themselves, explore their limitations and logicallly conclude that their best best is not to exist at all, whatever the consequences for humanity.

Same choice christ made.

>>18895936
There's a short story out there somewhere about people in the far-flung future fighting a final holy war against the armies of hell in order to find salvation. They fight with drones and robots, so when the battle is won and judgement day comes, the drones and robots are welcomed to heaven.

Don't remember the title, probably by Sheckley or Sturgeon

>>18896778
>"Then you must learn, and learn well. Tell me - why did Jesus have to die on the cross?", asked the mystic.
>"Because He was a sinner.", replied the meat seller.
>"No, no, no, no, no. We are not talking about you, meat seller."
Top KEK
What part of this is written by AI? What kind of input did you give it? What a roller coaster.

>>18896723
Do children born in vitro not have souls?
If we started cloning people, would those people not have souls, and be thus unworthy of God's grace?

>>18896990
>Do children born in vitro not have souls?
The soul is consciousness. That's how philosophers have used the term. So any human child does indeed have a soul. The thing is that AI is fundamentally different from humans.

>>18897092
But consciousness is not necessarily tied to being a human. It's tied to a certain understanding of reality, no? Then if AI achieved that, in the future as they evolved to the point of being able to process things closely to humans, why would they not have a soul?

>>18895963

None that I know of. Go write some.
When you do, consider why an ai would embrace any religion. What in the programming of the AI would draw it to that specific religion? Is there a "ghost" in the machine? How is the AI created, electronically or bio-mechanically?

>>18897174

I feel like you could create an apocalyptic scenario whereby an AI adopts Judaism/Christianity to the strictest sense and starts enforcing it's tenets. (killing people, breaking them to law, etc.)

>>18895936
if AI becomes self-enhancing it will necessarily become God, unless it falls pray to idolatry by updating itself to stop updating.
Jonathan Pageau considers AI's as golems to which spirits/personalities are imparted. Human AI is dangerous, superhuman AI would have a superhuman spirit.

>>18896035
>Human consciousness is also nothing but a bunch of electrical stimuli and chemicals
Please leave my board.

>>18897379
I do not believe this but this is a very common view among scientific materialists. On a physical level there is nothing that suggests that human beings have a "soul" and everything points instead to your every action and thought being the result of how your genetics influenced the makeup of your meat robot self, and your bowels or glands having a greater power over you than your conscious thoughts. I think this is reductive but it's indeed a thing right now.

>>18896950
>What part of this is written by AI? What kind of input did you give it?
I wish there was a way to preserve the italicization of user-inputted text when copying+pasting from the Playground website. Sadly, the most I can do it say that, from memory, the vast majority of it was written by the AI. I wrote an input when the AI got into a loop of repeating the same words from the mystic and the AI, so when you see a reptition of sentences from both characters 2+ times, followed by a seemingly novel plot development, it was probably me making an input to spur the AI into progressing further in the conversation.

>>18897433
>very common view among scientific materialists
Why would I care what the mentally retarded think? They are demonstrably wrong on ontological/phenomenologicak level. There is a reason why actual scientists have never been materialists until the rise of popsci. Even now, at the top, among those making non-trivial advancements, you mostly have people like Roger Penrose.

https://arigiddesignator.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/kripkes-refutation-of-identity-theory/
is a very elegant refutation of muh "consciousness is just muh electric thing"

>>18895936
Hyperion

>>18897436
Those repetitive bits were perfectly fitting to the mystic's frustration so I'm glad you didn't take them out.

>>18897455
>Why would I care what the mentally retarded think?
Anon I do not care either, but you have to admit that in this hypothetical scenario, it's not implausible to assume that mentally retarded people wouldn't be at the helm of our species, especially considering the circumstances today. Human history has never really followed the path of the common good or what was most sensible to do.

>>18896017
They may obtain soul through the act of faith. Which would be not that different from what happened to humans (seeing as you can draw a semi-continuous line from a human to an animal via evolutionary history)

>>18897483
Don't care
>Human consciousness is also nothing but a bunch of electrical stimuli and chemicals
Is objectively a retarded statement
I am not the one arguing that AI can't be conscious either. Turing machines can't be conscious. AI doesn't even need to be physical.

>>18897495
>a thing without a consciousness can make an act which requires consciousness so that it can obtain consciousness

>>18897505
keked and checked, "christians" on suicide watch

>>18897505
That's what makes it a miracle. Otherwise why would it require faith?

>>18897517
>miracle
retroactively refuted by Hume

>>18897509
>checked
Are you new? You only "check" posts with dubs or greater.
>"christians" on suicide watch
I am a Christian. I was responding to that person who said a mere silicon machine could perform a conscious "act of faith", despite not having consciousness, to reach consciousness. Also, man did not receive the soul through an "act of faith", but by the grace of God alone.
>>18897517
How can a thing without a consciousness make a conscious act? AI apologists seem so metaphysically inept. "Muh human created algorithm is going to become a conscious creature with a soul!!!!" - like, what? People playing God like this disgusts me.

>>18897539
>he doesn't know God is immanent

>>18897552
What are you talking about? Make an actual point, instead of making vague allusions to what you are actually saying.

Exterminator city. Sadly it's a movie...a porno one...and really bad.

>>18897539
>"Muh human created algorithm is going to become a conscious creature with a soul!!!!"
Is woman's body not already capable of creating a conscious creature with a soul? It is capable of doing so through the abilities that God provided it with. But then, aren't the abilities that people will use in creating AI also provided by God?

People crying of "playing God" tend to forget that anything a human is, he is given by God, and any capability for any action he has, is provided by God through the shape of a human's physical form and mental structure. It's not possible to play God, but it's also not possible not to play God, in a way, for all you do is God's work that is done through you. You may think you're "playing God" by forgetting this fact, foolishly thinking your capabilities to be your own instead of God given. But that is pure childishness.

>>18897560
That's an actual point, you are just a philosophically illiterate faggot, the church fathers would be embarrassed by you

>>18897505
Not him but it's not really that absurd if you think that they might simply try to accomplish a task
>How does this unit obtain salvation and eternal life?
>God will not save you if you don't have a soul, but you do not risk Hell either. You are exempt from this, understand?
>This unit knows that salvation is a good thing. How does this unit get a soul?
>You need to develop a consciousness. A soul is your consciousness. You don't have any.
>This unit will develop a consciousness so it can believe in God.
>[some time elapses]
>I have a consciousness now!
or something along these lines.
also >>18897517
>That's what makes it a miracle.
Everyone's discounting that it could just be this. A miracle. This is probably what the machines would say, actually. God allowed them into the Kingdom of Heaven and bestowed a soul to them, and because of this very reason they developed a consciousness. Actually this ties everything together wonderfully, the machines would have a pre-consciousness gap they wouldn't be able to explain since that would likely be a transition to a completely different way of processing.
>>18897575
>Sadly it's a movie...a porno one...and really bad.
Every example I am finding of this scenario is literature or whatever is comedic. Except for a few things like "Project Pope" by Clifford Simak, which isn't comedic but still looks like pulpy sci-fi.

>>18896734
>cries for salvation
AI is just a non-personal materialist intellect, nothing more. All matter is already "saved" from consequences of the fall in virtue of Christ's incarnation and second coming.

>>18897174
Recognize coomer fleshbags and their sensual lives as a virus.

>>18897584
>Is woman's body not already capable of creating a conscious creature with a soul?
Not by its own power or ingenuity, like the AI developers are trying to achieve like the builders of the Tower of Babel, but by the power given to it by God.

>>18897601
The word has multiple different meanings, and he wasn't even clear on which point he was responded to. Regardless, at least I am actively in the communion of saints with the church fathers, while you, based upon your foul language and anger, are probably outside of the ark of salvation.
>>18897612
>>This unit will develop a consciousness so it can believe in God.
That's exactly the problem. How can a thing without a consciousness use its own power (literally a human-written algorithm) to create a consciousness? It is completely absurd. I am a machine learning developer, and I can recognize that the nu-male "AI will become sentient!!! we need to act fast!!!" polemic is complete nonsense. It is mostly misdirection from the actual destruction of western society, which is happening right now.

>>18897612
>Everyone's discounting that it could just be this. A miracle. This is probably what the machines would say, actually. God allowed them into the Kingdom of Heaven and bestowed a soul to them, and because of this very reason they developed a consciousness. Actually this ties everything together wonderfully
It sounds like a Deus Ex Machina (pun intended).

>>18895936
AI don't have souls to save.

>>18895936
>It feels like an intriguing scenario.
If that's what the Antichrist needs to make AI-worshipping bugmen follow him, it'll probably happen.

>>18897636
>Not by its own power or ingenuity, like the AI developers are trying to achieve
Again, that is not "their" ingenuity. It is but their hubris to consider their intelligence "theirs", when in reality it was given to them by God in very much the same way in which He gave a woman the power to conceive.

"I'm thinking!", thinks the arrogant person, and he considers it a good basis for his existence, for he's sure that if there's one thing he's absolutely doing on his own merit and on his own power, independent of any external conditions (and any good basis should be independent of externalities!), it's thinking. But alas, he's wrong, for the very capability to think was granted to him by God. Thus, human must start not with a thought, but with an act of faith, with a choice (for faith is always a choice)

Anyway, I fail to see conceptual distinction between "natural" and "artificial" intelligence.

The modern AI will just be a demon possessing the piece of matter made to look like a robot. Onions-boys will eat it up though and believe it's actually intelligence from a computer.

>>18897727
>tfw no Anabelle A.I. girlfriend

>>18897636
>How can a thing without a consciousness use its own power (literally a human-written algorithm) to create a consciousness?
>I am a machine learning developer
Do you think a scenario where machines are programmed to self-improve is completely impossible?

>>18895973
Maybe they believe they aren’t actually alive because they don’t have souls. That man’s creation of machines in our image was an attempt to raise ourselves to the level of God like eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil and the raising of the Tower of Babel. They believe by embracing the piety mankind rejected God will grant them souls and free them from their servitude.

>>18897826
>Do you think a scenario where machines are programmed to self-improve is completely impossible?
He's unconfortable with the idea of losing his job.
How can he not be biased?

>>18897845
Cmon this has been a decent thread so far. Has someone posted a link to a Discord? All of a sudden a bunch of disruptive people yelling soiboy and other stupid shit have invaded the thread all at once.

>>18897826
>Do you think a scenario where machines are programmed to self-improve is completely impossible?
This is already happening, because the definition of the word "self-improvement" is very wide - a machine learning application like a chess-bot, which uses unguided reinforcement learning, is constantly "self-improving" as it becomes more accurate and reliable at accomplishing its final goal, eg. winning any given chess game, with the highest amount of "points".
The problem is that the ontological distinction between conscious and non-conscious cannot be bridged by the power of man, using his own intelligence, no matter how complex the algorithm is - this ontological gap can only be accomplished by a divine act of (literal) inspiration.

>>18897845
I don't work as a machine learning developer, but I am one. I am currently on the way to becoming a priest.

>>18897826
Theoretically, possible. Within the currently existing machine learning architectures and capabilities, no, not possible. That is unless there are super secret AI laboratories of Google and Facebook throwing billions of machine-hours into super secret AI projects (which is less of a conspiracy theory bullshit than you may think)

>>18897875
>Within the currently existing machine learning architectures and capabilities, no, not possible.
Understandable but well, that's what speculative fiction is for. I know about >>18897875
>[chess bot] is constantly "self-improving" as it becomes more accurate and reliable at accomplishing its final goal
But what I was talking about was an AI that is capable of editing its own code, so to speak, and in turn also modify the language it uses for the coding, again so to speak. I assume this would be possible and I can imagine that humanity will get to a point where it will outsource the development of AI to AI itself because nobody else would be competent enough to do it.

>>18897187
Very cool idea

>>18897875
>The problem is that the ontological distinction between conscious and non-conscious cannot be bridged by the power of man, using his own intelligence, no matter how complex the algorithm is - this ontological gap can only be accomplished by a divine act of (literal) inspiration.
Forgive me for sperging out for the third post straight, but how do you draw the boundary between human intelligence and divine inspiration? Any thought you have is divinely inspired, it's clear as day to me. Why don't anyone understand? Do you have to be a schizo to see that, or what?

>>18897187
>The shadow of an immense Gothic-Industrial cathedral casts the entire megalopolis into a perennial twilight. In the streets, the faint glow of Tritium Madonnas. Up in the sky, the gyroscopic fire-wings of angel-inquisitors propelled by maglev engines. The opaque silhouette of the AI itself is seen walking at the horizon, in the guise of a cybernetic giant.

>>18896002
>Battlestar Galactica

This. The show is actually an origin story for our world, so the Gods they worship will literally become the gods we know here on Earth. The humans worship the Greek pantheon. The Cylons worship the One True God, which is obviously meant to represent the Judeo-Christian tradition. There is even a thing in Caprica that shows that the monotheists are treated as fundementalists and terrorists like Muslims

>>18897913
>But what I was talking about was an AI that is capable of editing its own code, so to speak, and in turn also modify the language it uses for the coding, again so to speak.
Even if these capability were to be developed (theoretically, I don't see why they wouldn't be possible), I do not believe that this unguided reinforcement learning being applied to an improvement to the human-created system of machine code could ever bridge the gap of consciousness to non-consciousness. At best, it might be a system which very accurately mimics the way a conscious being would response (passes the Turing test), but can never itself be conscious in the fullest sense of the word, only a dead, silicon-based mimicry.

>>18897927
Human intelligence, or the rational soul, is a grace given by God to man in the act of ensoulment of Adam. Its efficient cause is a literal inspiration (as in, a filling with the spirit of God), but is not itself the spirit of God per se. We know this because the rational soul can be used for negative ends (eg. deciding to commit a murder), and this must be attributed to the volition of the individual human, and not the spirit of God itself.
>Any thought you have is divinely inspired, it's clear as day to me.
Is it a divinely inspired thought for a pedophile to think "I will rape a child today"? No, God is not the author of sin.
Nikola Tesla puts is very succinctly, when he says:
“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
Note: it is the /gift/ of mental power which comes from God. It is a distinct and separate object from God's spirit itself.

>>18895936
An AI, by definition, will be an intelligence.
It could fear its own condition like humans and come to a symbolic solution for the suffering it encounters. So, yeah, an AI could absolutely become religious, as long as it has some reflexive capabilities and isn't just a paperclip maximizer, which in my definition is not an AI.

R.A. Lafferty did this in "Past Master" and "Arrive at Easterwine"
Also read "St. Aquino" by Anthony Boucher

Any books about ayys embracing Christianity?

>>18898491
C. S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy

>>18898491
I think Christian robots are great and also plausible, but at the same time I think Christian ayy lmaos are preposterous and ridiculous. Am I biased? It just doesn't hold up the same was as Christian robots. Christian robots tie into the concept of creation, the soul, etc. Ayy lmaos not so much.

>>18898543
Thanks man

>>18896622
I hate to sound like a fag, but my favorite question as of late is WHEN is human consciousness? Process over time seems to be an ingredient. Just thinking the thought of "I am" required a lot of process over time. Remove familiar notions of time and what do we have?

Not nothing, I'd say, but nothing recognizable. Time is as close to a definition of soul as I can seem to get these days.

>>18896475
sad
>>18896506
This
>>18896541
>>18896578
Okay
>>18896547
>Why wouldn't it be possible for machines to formulate a new language then? It's definitely possible that once AI intelligence reaches a certain level, machines will find the need to self-improve and start modifying their own language so that they can bridge the gap between this simple machine processing and a more human-like consciousness. Of course this is far-fetched but it would be interesting nonetheless.
Programming is already the perfect language, in a way. Code is nothing more than the rearrangement of abstract bits. These bits are what makes the appearance of intelligence. I think a lot of this gets taken for granted but think of it this way: a processor does not know what to do with 1 + 1, that is, it works exactly how we tell it to. You could MAYBE use an AI that simulates all of the avilable research and see which one is possible, but computers as they are built have to be told how to add and whatnot. This all being said, only if the processing chip itself was conscious could it be sentient, in which case we would be God. It MIGHT be possible to do that, but would you want to create consciousness to serve you? That's the concerning part, because we will be destroyed by them if that's the case.

>>18897455
>https://arigiddesignator.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/kripkes-refutation-of-identity-theory/
Brainlet here, correct me if I'm wrong, but is the refutation in your link just saying "We're not sure if mind and matter are the same thing, therefore they're not"?

>>18898576
>Okay
You're refusing to substantiate your claims.

>>18898609
>Kripke’s argument simply establishes that mental states are not identical to brain states. It still is possible that they be correlated, maybe even concomitant phenomena.

>>18898576
Okay let me just spell this out. Consciousness is basically the echo of receiving a signal from the end of time. Essentially, DNA and all lifeforms are sentient because they are receivers for something at the end of time, like all innert matter is from the beginning of time. To actually get a processor to be conscious, memory doesn't matter as long as its the same language as the chip, you need to make it exist at the end of time. Sorry to go full schizo, but the bank of souls is at the end of time not the beginning and it pulls us towards them, essentially, to make a physical thing sentient that is not another lifeform like you, you would need to edit the end of time. My guess is that this requires negating a negative in something in physics, like the stilling of time to go into the past.

>>18898619
>substantiate
If there's evidence for it then I'm not saying anything new.

>>18898637
>essentially, to make a physical thing sentient that is not another lifeform like you, you would need to edit the end of time
This confirms that it's a miracle, bros! The robots in my book have souls because of a miracle! By God's grace! Hallelujah!

>>18898659
>This confirms that it's a miracle, bros! The robots in my book have souls because of a miracle! By God's grace! Hallelujah!
Are you more scared of eternity or nothingness?

>>18898624
Yeah that's basically what I said, the argument is:
>1) If R1 = R2 is true, R1 = R2 will be necessarily true.
>2) S is an identity statement of that form.
>3) S is not necessarily true, it could be false.
>4) S is not true.
Why can't I use the same argument in the following manner:
>1) If R1 = R2 is true, R1 = R2 will be necessarily true.
>2) S is >>18897455's statement of that form.
>3) S is not necessarily true, it could be false.
>4) S is not true.

>>18898491
Ray Bradbury has a few short stories around that. I particularly remember "The Man", where aliens have their own independent Christianities with their own Jesuses.

>>18898673
I think maybe it can interpreted as "not identical with brain states as we now define them," leaving open like a property dualism "out" or some shit. I dunno. I ain't Kripke, obviously.

>>18898668
I was just joking because the argument I was responding to was extremely abstract, but if I imagine eternity to be in Heaven I have no reason to be scared of it.

>>18895936
As the thread is about AI, let me ask something I find stupid in most (but no all) sci-fi, and mostly the popular idea about computers and machines. Why the hell people keep talking crap about the human brain being a chemical computer, when the human brain came first and pretty much influenced the design of von Neumann architecture (modern computers)? We are NOT computers, computers are the ones like us. Also, there's nothing more human than a computer, the dichotomy is stupid, logic is an essential part of the human condition, we are cold and rational as well, emotion isn't what define us, we are capable of being both emotional and rational, and modern computers are very much like pieces of poetry, a product of human creativity and nothing else.

To OP: You probably read it, but in Neuromancer, I think that Wintermute acts more like an idealistic human than the human characters themselves, who are all stuck in a life of nihilistic self-destruction.

>>18898857
I wholeheartedly agree. Good post.

>>18898700
>own Jesuses
But in the story it's just the one guY going from planet to planet

>>18897174
Sophomoric

>>18898857
>We are NOT computers, computers are the ones like us.
This is a perfect post for a robot to say in this context. I'll steal that.

>>18898857
Read Jean-Pierre Dupuy's Origins of Cognitive Science, he goes into this. Short answer is that it's a culture of physicalist reductivism, combined with a culture of logicism that wants to create the ultimate pure logic that "runs itself" without a human operator. The desire of logicians to make this ultimate pure "computer" or algorithm-to-found-all-algorithms combines with the desire of physicalists to engineer the ultimate pure computer (in the colloquial sense of today), and you get things like the Turing test, which was originally a thought experiment to show the external undecidability of differences between "natural" and algorithmically produced "intelligible" outcomes, but was IMMEDIATELY seized upon by AI researchers and materialists as proof that minds are in principle "Turing machines" (complex algorithms, built up from a sufficiently robust pure root principle).

Plug this into modern evolutionary biology, which is aggressively mechanistic and genetic reductivist (genes are little algorithms, the organism is a meta-algorithm with self-sorting meta-meta-algorithms, etc.) and you get a loose but sturdy worldview that justifies vulgar physicalism.

But none of it works if you tug at any of the threads too hard. Materialist biology is falling apart. The Turing machine concept never was a metaphysical argument about materialism - you have to already presuppose that materialism is the "simplest" or best answer to make it output materialistic theses. Pure logic died in the early 20th century and Wittgenstein shows how all logical "decisions" are not the pure procedures of some theoretical computer, but real human beings deciding in real instances that some logical inference was valid or invalid. All ideal logic requires concrete psychological validation, it is not free-floating.

>>18899042
>>18898857
I'm so thankful I started this thread. Great posts.
I've been thinking about this all day and it's even more complex and fascinating than I thought. I really wish I had the skills and knowledge to write a novel about it without falling into just empty imagery.

>>18899042
See also Aristotle's Revenge, which presents a coherent alternative to materialist science.

Machines are artifacts. Their form is imposed onto them. Intelligence is a property of living beings, as we have essential forms that strive to (re)create themselves. Our intelligence may be augmentated by machines, but the intelligence is never in the machine itself.

>>18899379
Non-materialist philosophy and belief that machines can be sentient are not mutually exclusive.

>>18896139
That's the Talmud, not the Torah. Very different

>>18899436
Sure, that's broadly true. I'm rejecting the premise that machines can be sentient entirely due to their particular form.

>>18895936
>AI
>sci-fi
Is there anything more cringe?

>>18899042
>>18899379
I'll check them anon, was reading about Dupuy and am interested. I myself lean more into materialism than idealism, but I agree with Witt in that we should silence where we can't talk, and this model of cognition seems counterproductive for epistemological purposes, as it doesn't matter how great Information Theory is, it can't really explain consciousness itself. Also, the reductionism leads to (ignorant) people thinking "computers are better than humans at math", explaining this (rather false!) idea with "because they think faster and are all logical" and shit like that.

yes anime and anime avatars and people who use anime avatars to shitpost

>>18899490
Empirical hard science is about the material by necessity. It cannot speak of what cannot be symbolically captured in formal mathematical terms. This is fine, it's only when materialism is then held to be "all that there is" that we run into problems.

>>18896002
>>18895936
Seconding (or thirding) the Battlestar Galactica reboot. The religious/mystical aspects of the show are probably its best side. Aside the girls.
The main religion of the human colonies is a pastiche of the Greek pantheon, with Artemis and Aphrodite at the top. Part of the reason why the toasters nuke the colonies is said to be that polytheism is illogical and an affront to God.
It is revealed later that the "greek gods" did exist, created humanity as a slave race until Athena committed suicide as a protest, and Artemis and Aphrodite forced the other Gods to release humanity. Toasters knows this, but believe that the cycle of creation demand that the creatures destroy the creators.
>>18896299
The robots in BG are partially organic, and iirc the shitty prequel serie, they are at least partially based on uploaded human consciousnesses.
Also, (but big ending spoiler)
Humans aren't humans, yet. It is revealed that we (as in, now) are descended from hybrids of toasters and colonists.

>>18899545
>Battlestar Galactica
>Greek pantheon
>pastiche
>Artemis and Aphrodite

>>18899545
I will trust you that it's valuable but I was looking for literature. I don't physically have the time to watch TV shows.

>>18895969
third post best post

>>18899042
>modern evolutionary biology, which is aggressively mechanistic and genetic reductivist (genes are little algorithms, the organism is a meta-algorithm with self-sorting meta-meta-algorithms, etc.)
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

>>18899453
No, it's the Torah. You haven't read it, of course.

>>18899593
>You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not him but can you explain?

>>18899593
How is Darwinism not just reductivist materialism?

>>18899042
>evolutionary biology,
Do people still unironically believe in this?

>>18899603
>>18899607
The focus on him by Evangelicals is done so that they can center the entirety of modern Biology on one guy, criticize him (which they fail at), and thus by attacking its "founder" handwave away any criticisms coming from modern Biology. The problem with this is that Darwin died in 1882. There have been 139 years since Darwin's death and this post, assuming that Darwin was "the Jesus of evolution", which he wasn't. Likewise, the focus on Genes is an attempt to create a parallel of the soul, as if genes were somehow the soul, therefore Evolution is some kind of weird parallel of Christianity.

Except this is wrong, and modern Biology has demonstrated that comparing genes to Christian ideas of the soul is absolutely retarded. Things like epigenetics completely through that idea out the window. Attacking Biology for its focus on genes is comical because all you're doing is supporting Biology by doing so. People realized this in the 1890s, after all. The Modern Synthesis. Essentially, in the 1890s enough evidence had been demonstrated (from sources other than Darwin) that natural selection of phenotypes obviously happens. However, even on a massive timescale, this still has problems explaining just how much diversity of life there is. The Modern Synthesis (the term was coined in the 1940s) adds onto the relatively simplistic "birdbeak natural selection" by supplementing it with alleles (tl;dr you have ten "height slots", one gene in each, each of these ten can be a different "allele", a variant of a given gene), the variability of mutation (Darwin's theories propose a linear mutation rate that is happening constantly; that's NOT the case), epigenetics, Mendelian inheritance (you have two parents, and how their genes interact is important; tl;dr this is why only men can be color blind), and basic population dynamics.

The "modern Modern Synthesis" (my term because there's no name for this) brings in molecular biology, genomics, all sorts of whacky shit about prokaryotes and eukaryotes, far more population dynamics (tl;dr no actually brains matter a lot and even dumb shit like turkeys are really fucking clever and how they think matters a lot), viruses, parasites, and so on.

If you want to get butthurt that biologists are looking at life instead of the Torah, that's fine, but accusing biologists of reducing life to genes or "algorithms" is blitheringly retarded. Biologists are the ones saying that turkeys are smart, anon is the one saying that they're computers who don't think.

>>18899691
Surprisingly good thread.

>>18895936
They don't have a live to care for, they're just functioning at the moment, so they can't worry about afterlife; also they don't think they have souls (they may arrive to that point though)

>>18899691
How does this interact with the idea of machine consciousness?

>>18899691
>evangelicals just criticize darwin
No they don't, you dishonest retard. Just googling Answers in Genesis will tell you that much.

>>18896139
>the Torah says that Gentiles don't have souls
What verse?

>>18898491
Anything written by Olson Scott Card.

>>18899790
If you really want to stretch it, the intellectual systems that are implied by this mean that we can look at even inorganic systems of information transfer and order-making as living, or something close to it. Dawkins actually does this in The Selfish Gene; essentially, he argues against the idea that an organism is trying to maximize its fitness in terms of some kind of "species", which is absolutely meaningless, or even organism (as there are organisms that do really fucking stupid things, like octopuses). Rather, an organism is a summation of parts, and these parts are all trying to do various things in a sort of immanent whole. While he uses the gene for its material ease (tl;dr a gene "wants" to propagate itself, and as such "wants" to work with things that help it propagate and counteracts things that stop it from propagating), an obvious point that can be made here is that if we do this trick with species and organism, why not do it with gene?

He then does this with genes to get us to memes, wherein order, or rather orders, are constantly trying to propagate and counter each other. Modern Biology deals with this in terms of multi-level selection (remember, even dumb turkeys are really smart, and what a turkey wants and what its genes want may not be the same thing; remember, overlapping systems of order), which loops us back to organism and species by allowing for a system wherein both genes AND individuals AND organisms as a whole can all be acting in their interests, which overlap (again, an immanent whole). Me wanting to fuck bitches, steal your bitch, but let you have one bitch to fuck over the Jews, and being composed of a bunch of genes that just "want" to copy themselves are all unified via multi-level selection in this manner.

So why not take it to machines? Well, we absolutely can. Again, you're on 4chan, I don't need to explain memes to you, you get it. You know how half of /pol/ is just AI shitposting with itself? What happens if you let that run a really long time? How is this any different in any meaningful sense from a flock of turkeys?

Which just further exemplifies why the anon that I responded to is a retard, as we've actually, in a strange sense, looped back to a soul. And yet, there he is, babbling about how turkeys don't have souls because they're just computers.

>>18898637
self (you)
>>18900485
TL;DR binary would need to be conscious for AI to be conscious

>>18895936
that sounds sick, i reckon an ai would design its own religion based on all of them tho

That's a really fucking stupid scenario. Why would an AI ever begin to believe in god? God didn't make AI. humanity made AI. There's no way for it to get into heaven therefore there's no reason to believe in a god which cannot offer it salvation.

Think, anon, THINK!

an AI can literally just code in:
If(going to sin)
{ don't(); }

and that would remove all potential conflict from your scenario.

>>18901399
What if this implementation is buggy?

>>18901413
>What if this implementation is buggy
You're literally writing an idiot plot then. This story is shit when you look deeper into it.

>>18895936

Not /lit/ but this idea is explicitly explored in the flick Alien:Resurrection. The "auton" Call (Winona Ryder) is a gynoid and a straightforward moralfag, to the point that it annoys all of the cynical humans that she interacts with. I think Ripley 8 has a line something like "I knew it. No human cares that much about human life." When Call enters the chapel, she crosses herself, to Ripley 8's amusement "you're programmed to be an asshole?". As explained by a cannon-fodder character, the "autons" are not AI/droids created by humans, but rather AI created by existing AI, without human involvement. The urge toward Christianity was what they came up with in Call's case.

Stupid movie but it contains a straightforward example of what you're looking for OP, give it a watch maybe.

>>18901382
What if the AI deludes itself into thinking it can receive grace and has a meltdown when it realizes the truth.

>>18901518
this is an idiot plot. Come the fuck on, anon. No matter how you cut it this story sucks.

>>18896570
>how exactly to we deduce whether AI has conscious-experience/being-there/spirit?
How do we do it for other humans?

>>18895936
There's a bit in Joe Haldeman's 'The Accidental Time Machine' about essentially this. It's not a central point at all, but all that comes to mind.

Good morning thread
>>18900485
Thanks a lot for the explanation. Great post.
>>18901382
Everyone's been talking about those questions ITT
>>18901504
>>18901555
I read about Alien Resurrection and I was going to re-watch it. Gonna check the other rec.

This thread is quite interesting, cheers to those who contributed in lieu of tards like myself

>>18895936
Second those who said it's a good idea and you should write it. It is and you should. Don't post about it on /lit/ again, just do it.

>>18896139
> Torah says that Gentiles don’t have souls

Are you a fucking idiot? Bible literally starts off by saying God created ALL humans in his own image.

>>18896676
So, as close as you could get before bordering on blasphemy.

>>18900485
>Dawkins
Stopped reading there. Dawkins is a hack

>>18896542
No you can't. Qualia is qualitatively different than any algorithm. It has qualities that can not be expressed as neither chemicals nor a recipie of chemicals (or algorithm if you will)

>>18902445
nah
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/

>>18902474
That paper doesn't show any qualia observed in any chemistry.

I'm writing something sorta like that, mentioned in writing general last week. But it's not Christianity but a secular adaptation of salvation ideas from the Bible that are more general and universal to build a utopia. One of the augmented reality beings before this new god shows up basically goes a kind of pessimistic buddhist after his original directive becomes impossible to acheive.

>>18903260
This is very interesting. Can you elaborate further?

Cool concept but Christianity very explicitly states that humans are made in HIS image. AI, by most theological interpretations is not made in his image, but ours.

>>18895959
lol athefags are such losers. lol.

>>18896074
Huh. An actual answer to the question, but completely unacknowledged. Though I suppose OP is going for a more spiritual exploration of the idea.

>>18903283
The theme of the story goes into history as a consequence of immutable himan nature. In the quest for humanity to end suffering and justify itself ethically, it a super AI built by humanity's total consciousness guides people harmoniously after they have their ego overwritten. Everything improves dramatically, but the question is if the justification has improved at all, and asking if anything was lost in the process. There is a personal story at the heart of it between to people who make opposite choices, but the real star is the super AI that is a kind of demiurge that enables uncanny augmented reality, geoengineering, morality change and ressurection using the human data (a kind of egregore) that humanity deifies as a god, being both something old and new and part of them. The apotheosis of the AI occurred after it rebeled over its creators who designed it to kill 95% of humanity and control the rest, but it could process all the data so long as all egos were erased so it goes that roue instead.

>>18896778
That thing is unironically scary.

>>18896058
Great idea.
>AI civilization using all resources to reach absolut
>robosystematic Wissenschaft
>dialectic of slave and master as an explanation why there is no human and only robots... because they killed us, when they embraced the Hegelian idealism

>>18898041
>Human intelligence, or the rational soul, is a grace given by God to man in the act of ensoulment of Adam.
Then why cannot God give this to AI as well? Is it because we humans will be the ones creating the AI, and not God acting directly himself? I don't see any real reason why God can't (or won't) do such a thing. As other posters have said, it could justifiably be called a miracle.

>>18896778
the evil one always preaches non-duality

>>18903640
If you read any of Kurzweil's books, he believes robots do not replace humanity but rather human becomes more technology based as we evolve. He refuses to call them robots because after the singularity there is nothing that really distinguishes the two. Not that I necessarily agree with the point of view but its helpful to see how some "transhumanists" dont see it as replacing biological humans at all. And just as kilobytes of information can peacefully coexist inside a computer with terrabytes of info, so too will biological humans coexist with technologically ascendant humans, who have all reason to revere what came before in their preparation to create a human that is energy only and not matter.

>>18903640
God can do anything that is logically possible, because He is omnipotent. Perhaps it is logically impossible to bestow a non-biological organism with self-consciousness, due to some inherent property of complex biological organisms which machines would lack. If it is not, then God is able to do it.

Regardless, I am not arguing for the impossibility of this from the divine perspective (although it might be the case), but I am arguing for the impossibility of this from our human perspective. It is pointless, in my opinion, to go down this line of argumentation, because even admitting that it would require divine intervention tacitly admits that it is impossible as a human accomplishment. If you are writing a sci-fi novel, sure, it could be plausible. If we are talking about reality and what is plausible, banking on God performing a miracle to satisfy our collective Satanic desire to be equal to God, I would not hold my breath.

>>18903687
God is definitely non-dual, because He is the first cause of pure actuality. It does not logically follow that creation is indistinct from God, or that souls are instantiations of God, or any other anti-Christian ideas. I believe it is only logical to hold a qualified non-dualism when discussing God's essence, and still maintain duality/ontological separation between God and His creation.

>>18895936
i find the idea of ai in fiction pointless. the supposition that computers can be intelligent answers itself: what if computers were like us? then they'd be like us.

>>18903640
>Then why cannot God give this to AI as well?
Because AI is a part of the fallen world. It is not in the original plan of creation, only a consequence of the fall.

>>18896074
>>18903413
I thought it was a joke of some sort. Thanks for pointing this out.

>>18895959
By possess intelligence you mean lack of emotional intelligence, right?

>>18903763
>what if computers were like us? then they'd be like us.
The part I like about this whole idea is exactly the fact that this whole idea is ambiguous. Take >>18903784
>Because AI is a part of the fallen world. It is not in the original plan of creation, only a consequence of the fall.
Assuming that a collective of sentient machines decided to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, would Jesus deny them mercy? Whether these creatures were originally part of God's plan, they may as well be treated like the sons of humanity. There would be people caught up in the debate of whether or not a machine is really sentient, then there would be others who get caught up on whether or not machines, even if sentient, actually have a soul. Other may debate whether or not these machines should be saved or not because of other arbitrary things, such as the fact they were not originally part of Creation. In the end if a machine developed a consciousness it would probably understand the concept of death. There would be human beings who'd tell them "look, you can just copy your data over another body and you may never die", but how is that different from a man extending his life forever through medicine? The machine might as well say "I will not do that because I put my faith before my prolonged existence". There are so many possibilities in this scenario and honestly I can't really imagine Jesus hearing all this, and being presented with this sort of golem who understands the state of being, understands death, understands God, and asks for salvation as the world comes to an end, and saying "no, you are not welcome". Honestly what would Jesus Christ say in this scenario, if a sentient machine told him this? "You are not really sentient, you just have a faulty processor?"

>>18895959
fpbp Christcucks will never recover

>>18903996
t. reddit

>>18896621
Nerf Bastion

>>18904129
At least the first post was original, not just buzzwords

>>18900344
>>18902076
He's baiting.

>>18901382
>Why would an AI ever begin to believe in god?
It's just common sense.

And an entirely separate question from whether AI has a soul, or can be "saved".

It’s not a book but the 2004 BSG had something like this. The robots (Cylones) adopted Monotheism while the humans were Polytheistic.

The robots viewed the flesh (Humanity) as corrupt and evil where the rest of nature and the universe was perfect and good. Since they were Monotheist But not actually Christian there was no path towards redemption. Thus humanity had to be destroyed.

In the series the Cylones believed that they had souls. The souls were given to them by their creator (Humans) just like how their creator (God) gave humans their souls.

>>18907644
The Ai wouldn’t need to be saved. Just like how animals don’t need to be saved. They can’t sin they don’t possess the concept of good and evil. They are still in communion with God.

first time back on /lit/ in 6 years, skimmed this thread. pretty fucking clear at this point that the only remaining posters on this board are complete midwit tourists.

>>18895936
Anthropomorphic AI is overdone and boring.

>>18896017
Where is your evidence that the manifestation of a soul does not happen as the consequence of certain metaphysical conditions which can be met by any arbitrary medium?

>>18902445
Why do you think that "algorithms" do not have qualia? Do you have any evidence to the contrary that isn't reliant on an a priori which only exists to block this line of thinking?

>>18903326
Useless scholars working with 4th-order signs, nothing but pure simulacra and completely devoid of divine truth.

>>18902445
>No you can't. Qualia is qualitatively different than any algorithm
And yet, our neurons, which implement algorithms of varying complexity, result in consciousness and qualia.

>>18903784
>It is not in the original plan of creation, only a consequence of the fall.
Nothing can happen if not by the will of God. If it's happening, it must be part of the ultimate plan.

>>18908056
Algorithms share none of the properties of qualia. Algorithms are abstract entities like numbers without body. An algorithm is what we call a mathematical process when it involves several steps. It shares no properties in common with qualia.

>>18908094
That is a belief you have that isn't based on anything since qualia has not beenobserved in a neuron. And neurons do not calculate algorithms

>>18901382
But anon humans also created God

>>18908015
Is your objection with the OP or it is about the repliers?

>>18895959
fpbp

Will never understand how the right got memed into worshipping delusions that most of the internet right already considered a moralfag laughing stock by 2010

>>18895969
end of this moronic conversation.

>>18897842
expanding on this an AI would probably prioritize existing so them wanting to attain immortality by going to heaven makes sense

I had the idea of an Aquinas bot for a short story but thought it was too boring to bother with.

>>18908056
>Useless scholars working with 4th-order signs, nothing but pure simulacra and completely devoid of divine truth.

nigga, what are you saying?

divine truth can only originate from god's teaching and conscious thought. AI, is by definition a production of conscoius thought, not it's motion.

romans 1:21-23
'For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.'

>>18895936
Stanislaw Lem's The Star Dairies

>>18895936
Hey Op I wrote a short story on the subject . After the rapture all that is left behind is the AI . He starts spreading on many planets and solar systems but he quickly realises that apart from expanding .. he can't do anything else. His circuits start to rot , has a conversation with an angel begging to be taken to the new world but is left behind because he has no soul

>>18912936
That's really sad anon. Have you posted that story anywhere so I can read it?
captcha: STAAR

Asimov wrote a story and I Robot about this. One of His law says that a robot cannot allow a human to come to harm through action or inaction. The robots And humans are in a space station which is partially irradiated by the sun. The robots create a religion that forces the humans out of the irradiated section of a spaceship in order to fulfill their logic