Artificial Intelligence & Religion

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

I've changed the quote to reflect the topic, but wanted to quote it in some form...

When superintelligent AI arrives, should religions try to convert it?

For debate:

Should they?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by SailingCyclops]

Technically it's you that you are protecting. Language like that can easily warrant a report. Of course you can believe what you please but can you support it and if you can then why make uncivil one liner blanket posts?

[SailingCyclops]

[Replying to post 10 by SailingCyclops]

Technically it's you that you are protecting. Language like that can easily warrant a report. Of course you can believe what you please but can you support it and if you can then why make uncivil one liner blanket posts?

This post of yours could be the poster-child for the very point I was making. If I had called the TOE "Lunatic", you would not object, nor would you call the language "uncivil". Why is that? Where does your hyper-sensitivity towards religious criticism come from?

I gave an example of the "lunacy" I was referring to In my 4 paragraph post #10 which you are replying to, (not a "one-liner" as you erroneously state). Perhaps you could comment on that, refute the dichotomy I presented if you can. Show us how one of the men in the example I gave is a lunatic, and the other is not. That was my point, and you seem to have precisely made that point with your two-line post.

You asked if I could support my statements. I think such proof would be obvious, but if you would like me to source the terrorist and genocidal acts your Abrahamic religions have committed, and continue to commit, I can. But somehow I don't think that's what you really mean.

[jeager106]

[Replying to post 10 by SailingCyclops]

I didn't say anything about religion as being beyond reproach or criticism, you did.
You are making a personal reference to me being "hypersensitive", a supposition you are hardly qualified to make from one sentence you quoted that I wrote.

You see a man sitting on a park bench talking to an invisible alien about planet Zeta and the glory of the coming alien invasion (he truly believes). He tells you he speaks to this alien every night and he tells him what to do and how to live while he awaits alien arrival day on earth. You would rightly call him a bit of a lune, perhaps schizophrenic, definitely a bit off in the head, right? We also know that proper treatment can cure him of his insanity.

This^^^^ demonstrates a sophomoric assumption about mental illness.
Did you mean a bit of a loon? Don't know the word Lune?
Sadly schizophrenia cannot be cured at all, not ever, only-we hope-controlled with medication. I have great expertise in that area and NO it's not because I am schizo.
You continue to personalize your responses in violation of suggested rules to respond to the message, not the messenger.
You refer to Abrahamic religions as "your Abrahamic religion" as tho I somehow started them and claim ownership.
It's you that are personalizing you responses to be rude to a person, not to make a legitimate point via debate.
I wanted to point out the rude qualities of you words that really are beneath
the dignity of a the intelligent person you are.
When you want to deal with religious murder by suicide, enslaving fellow humans, senseless mass murders, burning people alive, then please give the responsibility to the group that earned the responsibility for those acts.
I have wondered why otherwise intelligent people would give credit for what islam does to Jews and Christians?
Sadly the three groups get lumped together due to being associated with Ancient Abraham.
I only remarked to you about the rude, nasty, comments to assure you that I know you can make your points very well w/o restoring to playground name calling behavior.
Thank you for reading and please consider that no one here deserves to be called a lunatic for believing/hoping that there might be a chance for a better world.

A side comment to your post. I thought the bit about Zeta had been established by the recent article by news anchor Brian Williams, that Zetazeds were indeed invisible to most save a few gifted humans, like me, who can see them in outline form and converse, interact, with one another quite well.

[SailingCyclops]

[Replying to post 10 by SailingCyclops]

I didn't say anything about religion as being beyond reproach or criticism, you did.

You certainly implied it by being offended by my use of the word lunatic. Which, by the way, in no way referred to you, only to your religion. By "yours" I do not mean you invented it, I merely mean yours as opposed to my non-existent one. The fact you took it personally demonstrates what I mean by "hypersensitive". I was calling your (as opposed to mine) religion lunatic, I was not calling you a lunatic.

You are making a personal reference to me being "hypersensitive", a supposition you are hardly qualified to make from one sentence you quoted that I wrote.

That post was in reply to Wootah's post, not yours. However, the fact that you took that comment personally may say a wee bit about the very hypersensitivity I was talking to wootah about, don't you think?

This^^^^ demonstrates a sophomoric assumption about mental illness.
Did you mean a bit of a loon? Don't know the word Lune?

Lune, short for lunatic. Loon may be too "uncivil" for this forum.

When you want to deal with religious murder by suicide, enslaving fellow humans, senseless mass murders, burning people alive, then please give the responsibility to the group that earned the responsibility for those acts.
I have wondered why otherwise intelligent people would give credit for what islam does to Jews and Christians?

Well, to put it in biblical terminology --an evil tree can not bring forth good fruit-- or --if the root is evil so are the branches-- The ROOT is Abrahamic religions, all of them. They all have committed the same atrocities, it's in their nature and in their holy-books. I do not discriminate between one evil branch or the other. To me, they are all the same. I don't see why pointing that out is uncivil, it's simply the truth (as I see it of course).

Sadly the three groups get lumped together due to being associated with Ancient Abraham.

They are all "lumped together" because they are all guilty of the same horrific deeds, only temporally displaced. That basic character flaw which mandates that every belief system other than theirs is worthy of extermination has been evident in every group to the detriment of humanity. Why shouldn't they be lumped together?

Thank you for reading and please consider that no one here deserves to be called a lunatic for believing/hoping that there might be a chance for a better world.

I agree that no one deserves to be called a lunatic for the reasons you state. You are presenting a straw man argument however. I don't believe I ever called you or anyone else here a lunatic. I may be wrong though, I tend to have a big mouth and say what I am thinking with little regard for people's feelings. My GF gets on me all the time about it, "why couldn't you just say you liked her new hairdo????" --because I hated it and think it's ugly-- No offense, it's just me saying what I believe. I hate lies and deceit, but that's just my atheist morals

[bluethread]

Honestly! Was it necessary to refer to religion as lunacy?

You see a man sitting on a park bench talking to an invisible alien about planet Zeta and the glory of the coming alien invasion (he truly believes). He tells you he speaks to this alien every night and he tells him what to do and how to live while he awaits alien arrival day on earth. You would rightly call him a bit of a lune, perhaps schizophrenic, definitely a bit off in the head, right? We also know that proper treatment can cure him of his insanity.

It has long ago been established by civil libertarians that such an individual can not be designated as mentally ill by the state and any adverse treatment of them is actionable as illegal discrimination. People are free to believe whatever they please, as long as they do not violate criminal or civil law. They can even believe that billions of random events over the course of billions of years have resulted in them having an intellect sufficient to establish that claims they can not disprove are proof of mental illness.

[SailingCyclops]

[Replying to post 10 by SailingCyclops]
This^^^^ demonstrates a sophomoric assumption about mental illness.

For your information I do know a bit about mental illness. My daughter sees and sometimes speaks to aliens, monsters, and other "imaginary friends" which are not real. Only when not on her meds however. It's a form of mental illness which is mitigated by drugs. Her particular mental illness is a fairly common one, people speaking to, hearing, and sometimes seeing, entities which are not real.

Why does this sound familiar? Because it's a common dialogue among religious people, who talk and hear from beings which do not exist. If it were not in a religious setting, it would be considered mental illness as well. THAT is the point I was making. It is not personal, just the way I see things. People who talk to things which are not there are, in my opinion, mentally ill, and I don't consider religion a mitigating factor. Unfortunately, there is no drug yet available to cure this particular self-imposed and willful mental illness. Perhaps some day.

[SailingCyclops]

It has long ago been established by civil libertarians that such an individual can not be designated as mentally ill by the state ...

Civil law has nothing to do with mental health. The fact that religionists have carved out a legal exception to mental illness, does not mean that speaking to non-entities is sane. I am not advocating for the discrimination or abuse of the mentally ill, just their accurate classification and possible cure. We have no trouble classifying such mental aberrations in the ICD9. What I am pointing out is that the same symptoms which classify someone as mentally ill in the ICD9/10 are ignored if those symptoms are religious based, then they are considered sane. How is that rational?

Perhaps my point is being missed entirely. No surprise! Let me make the same point, but this time using a legal instead of a medical example. The theme is the same. I claim that religion gets a pass from reality simply because it is a religion. We have been conditioned to revere religion and not hold it to the same standards we hold every other segment of society. I believe this is wrong. The example:

A multinational corporation employs a large number of active pedophiles. Over many decades they have been hiding this fact, and have been doing nothing to stop the sexual abuse of children. Their pedophile employees are routinely transferred to other offices, many in countries outside local jurisdiction to avoid prosecution.

What should/does happen to such a corporation? Well, all the pedophile employees are arrested, tried, and imprisoned. The corporation is shut down permanently with their assets seized.

UNLESS the corporation is a RELIGIOUS one like the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Then, it all gets swept under the rug. No arrests, no trials, no accountability whatsoever, and no justice for the thousands of permanently damaged raped boys.

For some reason, unbeknownst to me, the treatment of the same situation is vastly different for religious as opposed to secular entities. Why is that? How did we get to such a dark and unjust place?

I hope I have made myself more clear without injuring anyone's delicate sensibilities.

[jeager106]

[Replying to post 14 by SailingCyclops]

Re: The fact you took it personally demonstrates what I mean by "hypersensitive".
With respect. You are using that term way oustide of the meaning/definition of the term.
You must not be a psychologist or you wouldn't use the term in such a manner.
I am just trying to help you understand the word.
Sorry for going a tad off topic.
When I was in college taking psyc courses we learned that a hypersensative person has many useful qualities as well as qualities that cause the hyper person have some difficulties.
It is worth while to understand the term as it could be useful in some form of debates.

[jeager106]

[Replying to post 14 by SailingCyclops]

Re: Lune isn't a shortened version of lunatic.
Definition of LUNE

: the part of a plane surface bounded by two intersecting arcs or of a spherical surface bounded by two great circles

In the context of this wordy debate using Lune is non sequittur.
It doesn't make sense, & lends to an opinion only.

[bluethread]

It has long ago been established by civil libertarians that such an individual can not be designated as mentally ill by the state ...

Civil law has nothing to do with mental health. The fact that religionists have carved out a legal exception to mental illness, does not mean that speaking to non-entities is sane. I am not advocating for the discrimination or abuse of the mentally ill, just their accurate classification and possible cure. We have no trouble classifying such mental aberrations in the ICD9. What I am pointing out is that the same symptoms which classify someone as mentally ill in the ICD9/10 are ignored if those symptoms are religious based, then they are considered sane. How is that rational?

I said nothing about so called "religionists". Civil libertarians have a wide variety of lifestyles. That is why they are civil libertarians. They want to be free to live their lives without judgment of any kind, as long as it does not harm others. You appear to be arguing that one must accept how "we" classify things. Yet, you complain that those classifications that "we" come up with are not applied equally. Well, who's fault is that? Maybe "we" should stick to treating those who agree with those classifications and not insist that the whole world submit to them. After all, it appears that "we" are just "religionists" who practice the religion of modern psychology.