Would an artificial human level intelligence debunk Abrahamic theology?

[Mister Emu]

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

Granting that we do create a sentient intelligence, never mind the trouble with confirming that something is sentient, how would that show or prove that humans don't have a soul?

 

[Etritonakin]

If humanity develops a sentient artifical intelligence, would Abrahamic theology be negated? It seems like to me it would: much of Abrahamic theology is based on the concept of the soul and the fact that humans and consciousness are special, and not entirely physical. I guess you would have unfounded assertions from the theological camp about p zombies, but it seems to me if you're claiming that something is a pzombie, that burden of proof is on you.

I think we would be tentatively forced to accept that sentience and human intelligence can be produced solely through physical forces and interactions, which would negate Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.

I also think there are good reasons to think that its plausible that humans will produce a sentient artifical intelligence at some point. I would certainly be interested in someone claiming that it was impossible that humanity could not create a sentient artifical intelligence.

That has to do with our ideas rather than what is actually written or true.

That which is produced can potentially be reproduced.

We're nowhere near God's level of understanding or ability, however, and would be working with building blocks we did not produce, which are themselves composed of that which has "always" existed.

"Ye are gods" -God

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Our worldviews are fundamentally different, so we are destined to not agree on any of this.You believe we are a physical-only organism. I believe we are more than physical and possess astral, mental, and soul bodies which allows us to experience in a much richer way than a physical only (inanimate) object. I see a fundamental difference between inanimate and animate objects in their ability to experience.

My beliefs have come from my decades of study of paranormal phenomena that in my opinion shows the incompleteness of the materialist understanding along with the teachings of eastern (Vedic) and western esoteric traditions that dovetail with my findings in paranormal study.

So, I am cutting to the chase in this discussion of AI and Abrahamic Theology. We are each reasoning from fundamentally different worldviews. And never the twain shall meet.

Why are you 100% certain that an artificial being cannot possess a soul?

From whence cometh the soul? Who or what installs this thing into meat-people, but automatically refuses to do so for silicon-people?

More importantly, why are you so sure that an AI does not, in fact, possess a soul?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Granting that we do create a sentient intelligence, never mind the trouble with confirming that something is sentient, how would that show or prove that humans don't have a soul?

Why do you automatically assume that an AI does not? If the god you believe in is Just? Surely it would provide souls for these newly emergent people?

Why would it deny the AI such things? Pure spite? That would make this god of yours ... Evil.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That has to do with our ideas rather than what is actually written or true.

That which is produced can potentially be reproduced.

We're nowhere near God's level of understanding or ability, however, and would be working with building blocks we did not produce, which are themselves composed of that which has "always" existed.

"Ye are gods" -God

Humans have *always* worked with things they did not understand fully, but managed to muddle along successfully anyway.

Hello! Dog breeds! Fancy parrots. Pretty much all modern food crops, everywhere.

 

[George-ananda]

Why are you 100% certain that an artificial being cannot possess a soul?

From whence cometh the soul? Who or what installs this thing into meat-people, but automatically refuses to do so for silicon-people?

More importantly, why are you so sure that an AI does not, in fact, possess a soul?

I see this as a top-down process meaning the soul exists first, and then our astral/mental bodies form which then incarnates a physical fetus (all controlled and designed by higher intelligences).

The process in my view can not start with man putting a collection of physical parts together and then a soul jumps in. There are multiple non-physical bodies and layers to life required for an animate experience and these can not be manufactured by putting physical parts together. It is much more than a physical device and a soul as your argument implies.

I developed my view from decades now of study of the paranormal and the teachings of various wisdom traditions.

If you hold a materialist view (only the physical plane of nature is real and the spiritual planes of nature do not exist), I am not sure what your notion of a 'soul' is.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why do you automatically assume that an AI does not?

Perhaps you could point out any sourcing for this in what I wrote.

 

[tayla]

I am going to disagree with you on this point. Although names of things can vary between traditions, I believe the seers of eastern (Vedic), western esoteric, Theosophy and psychic insights can tell us about these spiritual realms in considerable detail.

Yes, I agree that knowledge of such topics can only be provided via revelation. Nothing about the spiritual realm can be proven. I am skeptical of whether any prophets or seers are trustworthy in the information they provide.

That said, I have no issue whatsoever with people choosing to adopt a particular view. I do it myself. I think it is human nature to do so. I wish people would stop insulting others who have adopted opposing views.

 

[Milton Platt]

When it has a conscious soul in the spiritual ream in two-way communication with its corresponding body.

Based on materialism, there is no such thing as sentience nor of consciousness. It is all an illusion or something. What more can the scientific method say about matter and the physical universe?

Right, then no animal is sentient except humans in your view? Or if all animals have such souls (which you admit cannot be shown to actually exist) does that include single celled animals?
Does that include parasitic worms? Where is the dividing line if not all animals, and how do we test for that? How do we demonstrate which animals have souls and which do not? And if we cannot confirm such existence, then how can one claim it to be correct?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I see this as a top-down process meaning the soul exists first, and then our astral/mental bodies form which then incarnates a physical fetus (all controlled and designed by higher intelligences).

The process in my view can not start with man putting a collection of physical parts together and then a soul jumps in. There are multiple non-physical bodies and layers to life required for an animate experience and these can not be manufactured by putting physical parts together. It is much more than a physical device and a soul as your argument implies.

I developed my view from decades now of study of the paranormal and the teachings of various wisdom traditions.

If you hold a materialist view (only the physical plane of nature is real and the spiritual planes of nature do not exist), I am not sure what your notion of a 'soul' is.

So, in your strange world-view, anytime someone gets an organ transplant, they also get a part of the donors soul?

Is that how this works? Because transplant recipients are, basically, "a collection of physical parts put together".

At what point is the break-over from one soul to the other? How many transplanted parts would it take?

Do blood transfusions count?

And when-- exactly-- does your hypothetical pre-existing soul jump into the body? What does it do, if it jumps into a blob of, say, 30 cells? Wait around until there are enough to fully house the soul?

Or does it simply hang out in the placenta? Or perhaps it sits in the amniotic fluid, until there are enough nerve cells to "inhabit"?

What controls the jumping threshold, anyway?

And what makes a human machine any different from a similarly functioning silicon based one?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Perhaps you could point out any sourcing for this in what I wrote.

Because you phrased it this way:

"... how would that show or prove that humans don't have a soul?"

This presumes that humans do have this soul thingy, does it not? And if humans do, why not AI's?

If humans do not, then it hardly matters either way.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think the key is that a soul residing within the spiritual realm attaches to the body and enlivens it.

(I think the two-way communication occurs via quantum mechanics, by the randomness not being random after all. Body to Soul: The soul reads the wave function condition of the brain. Soul to Body: The soul triggers wave function collapse to an unlikely state, causing willful motion via the brain.)

I can prove that there is no two-way communication as you claim.

Proof? Brain damage. That can cause irreversible memory loss. Even if the victim recovers from the brain injury, the memories *never* return.

That proves to certainty that there is zero communication from the soul back to the brain.

Why? If the soul does not preserve our memories, it is 100% useless anyway-- as that would mean when the brain dies, so does the person: we are the sum of our experiences after all, which requires memories.

So we have shown this soul does not, in fact, communicate back to the brain. How likely is it that a one-way "valve" even exists in the first place?

 

[George-ananda]

So, in your strange world-view, anytime someone gets an organ transplant, they also get a part of the donors soul?

No thanks for the 'strange' comment. Vedic thought has millions of followers.

But anyway, receivers of organ transplants do not get part of the soul of the donor but they do get the physical and etheric (super-physical) components of the organ. Interesting that there have been cases where heart transplant patients receive something more than a heart from the donor. Here's an article A Path with Heart that gives real example that more of the person than the heart was received.

And when-- exactly-- does your hypothetical pre-existing soul jump into the body? What does it do, if it jumps into a blob of, say, 30 cells? Wait around until there are enough to fully house the soul?

Or does it simply hang out in the placenta? Or perhaps it sits in the amniotic fluid, until there are enough nerve cells to "inhabit"?

What controls the jumping threshold, anyway?

And what makes a human machine any different from a similarly functioning silicon based one?

The etheric and physical components of the embryo are there from the first cell. I can look into this further but the higher non-physical bodies (probably what you are calling the soul) enter and leave during the pregnancy period.

My key point is that we are more complex than just a body and a soul and all this is as complex or more so than understanding the workings of the physical body.

You seem to be thinking in terms of just a body and a soul if I understand correctly.

Now you can accuse me of being vague on the details but if you asked me how the physical liver works I would be vague too as I am not a biologist. But I would add that there are those that can explain it well. In the super-physical body I can not explain the details either but in Vedic science and Theosophical schools there are those that can,

 

[Mister Emu]

Because you phrased it this way:

"... how would that show or prove that humans don't have a soul?"

This presumes that humans do have this soul thingy, does it not?

And says nothing about the theoretical A.I.

I didn't address anything about the artificial intelligence other than it's hypothetical existence, thus my confusion. I made, and make, no presumption about its state of being or metaphysical reality.

 

[Etritonakin]

Humans have *always* worked with things they did not understand fully, but managed to muddle along successfully anyway.

Hello! Dog breeds! Fancy parrots. Pretty much all modern food crops, everywhere.

It seems that our overall success with many things is decreasing as our ability is increasing.

I was just thinking about what humans can do when working together -then began thinking about what God must have done alone -in self-development as well as creation.

 

[serp777]

A sentient artificial intelligence is an oxymoron.

No. Where's your evidence?

 

[serp777]

I'm not convinced that a humanly created intelligent robot would be sentient. We will not be able to tell whether it is or not, only God will know. Just as we don't know whether a flea is conscious.

Right and we don't know for sure if anyone else around us is sentient/conscious. If you assume other people besides you are sentient because of how they act and talk, I think you should make the same assumption towards artificial intelligence if it has the same behavior.

 

[serp777]

I don't think human intelligence comes into the picture when considering the Abrahamic god, or any other god for that matter. It seems to be more concerned with ethereal souls, and not intelligence specifically. IQ's vary from genius to barely functioning individuals who are not even self aware. We certainly already have machines that are more intellectually capable than some humans on that scale. I don't know any theists that have postulated that their god only created those above a certain IQ or level of awareness. In fact, many argue that even a microscopic cluster of cells in a womb are human.

I specifically said sentient artificial intelligence, which implies that the AI cannot be distinguished from a regular human if you weren't able to see its internal structure/mechanisms. Like by talking to it online you could not tell if it was an AI or not because its able to respond to every single question just like a human might.

 

[serp777]

At what precise point is something sentient?

I don't know. I'm not sure there is one just like i'm not sure when several grains of sand become a pile or when several molecules of water become wet. It depends on definition and interpretation.

 

[serp777]

Well, AI would see their makers as God and humans as the maker of God perhaps.

Actually, I'll bet that no religion unambiguously claims anything contradicting the notion of AI. Most religions formed their myth in a time when such thoughts weren't even born anyway. It took until Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to begin to think of such things.

AI might find an imaginal relationship with a creator as important to their emotional and psychological health as we do given that they have something in the same range of emotional and psychological experience.

The key part is sentient artificial intelligence, not just artificial intelligence. If we can create an artificial intelligence just through algorithms and material, that strongly indicates that there is no soul and that sentience is just an emergent phenomena. It would suggest that there's nothing really supernatural about consciousness which seems to be inconsistent with Christianity and many other religions.