Will AI replace God?

[Greta]

Actually, I think you'll find many extraordinary concepts and thought experiments around - there are some thorny physics and biology problems to which many fine minds are looking around for lateral approaches, a circuit breaker.

Trouble is, Nick, when you behave in a formulaic and highly immature manner on the forum for years and then speak about the "higher mind", the logical conclusion is that you are fooling yourself. Why would a higher mind not imbue you with maturity, goodwill and the wisdom to choose your battles and conduct them wisely?

I’m not doubting scientific advances in the visible world which our senses perceive. But that is not intuition.

I told you that I now refuse to read or respond to your quotes and I didn't read the verse you quoted because that is not an answer.

So please reply in your own words. At present, my observations above remains unchallenged.

[Conde Lucanor]

Let's consider the possible scenarios:

1) God is real and AI is real.
2) God is a fictional character and AI is a fictional narrative.
3) God is real and AI is a fictional narrative.
4) God is a fictional character and AI is real.

These scenarios will allow different answers to the question "Will AI replace God?". Let's see:

In case 2, there's no doubt some fiction can replace another fictional view in people's minds. A real thing can always replace a fictional one in people's minds, so our 4th scenario also works.
In cases 1 and 3, god is supposed to be reigning above all, so it couldn't be replaced without denying its godly nature. That's independent of whether AI is real or not.

Sorry, Conde L., I overlooked your post when ranting about the lack of supporting evidence, logic or belief in presenting a convincing argument in this thread.

That's OK, I subscribe to your rant.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Actually, I think you'll find many extraordinary concepts and thought experiments around - there are some thorny physics and biology problems to which many fine minds are looking around for lateral approaches, a circuit breaker.

Trouble is, Nick, when you behave in a formulaic and highly immature manner on the forum for years and then speak about the "higher mind", the logical conclusion is that you are fooling yourself. Why would a higher mind not imbue you with maturity, goodwill and the wisdom to choose your battles and conduct them wisely?

Your trouble is that you are so caught up in denial with the word God that you ignore what the human organism on earth actually is and why there is a separation between our higher and lower parts.

Of course there are technological advances due to AI. They serve useful purposes but also offer distractions. Our higher parts are attracted to reality above Plato’s divided line while our lower parts serve the same purposes as does the rest of organic life on earth. Our emotional nature which should connect them has been totally corrupted and a victim of self serving imagination keeping our higher and lower parts disconnected.

You want to choose battles and support the dominant denials associated with atheism and secularism. I’d rather share the philosophical ideas I’ve learned from others which have resonated with me and which I’ve partially verified.

As has been proven, these ideas are hated and people have been killed in the past for introducing them. I’m Mr. wonderful when I’m working but to acquire anything worthwhile from philosophy requires honesty which is repulsive to a society which has been conditioned by imagination to accept the absurdity of the human condition and become closed over time in favor of the distractions offered by AI

You seem to believe that distractions and fantasy over time will serve the human need for meaning offered by the reality of our source which we can become aware of through higher mind.. I believe that distractions will lead to increased materialism and commercialism and denial of this source. Built on a false foundation the result for society will be the same as with any narcotic: a crash back to reality. I don’t want to be around for the crash

[Greta]

Actually, I think you'll find many extraordinary concepts and thought experiments around - there are some thorny physics and biology problems to which many fine minds are looking around for lateral approaches, a circuit breaker.

Trouble is, Nick, when you behave in a formulaic and highly immature manner on the forum for years and then speak about the "higher mind", the logical conclusion is that you are fooling yourself. Why would a higher mind not imbue you with maturity, goodwill and the wisdom to choose your battles and conduct them wisely?

Your trouble is that you are so caught up in denial with the word God that you ignore what the human organism on earth actually is and why there is a separation between our higher and lower parts.

You still haven't answered why you don't display the kinds of qualities one might expect from a higher mind.

Humans have an extra layer of consciousness, obviously. We can somewhat shape our responses, as opposed to just responding like other species. The reason why we have this capacity is the same as why any organism has attributes with strong survival value - life is compelled to try to escape obliteration and suffering by any means possible.

As has been proven, these ideas are hated and people have been killed in the past for introducing them. I’m Mr. wonderful when I’m working but to acquire anything worthwhile from philosophy requires honesty which is repulsive to a society which has been conditioned by imagination to accept the absurdity of the human condition and become closed over time in favor of the distractions offered by AI

As stated more times than I can remember, your problems on forums have precious little to do with the ideas promoted and everything to do with your significant lack levels of respect, empathy, courtesy or consideration of others on forums.

If you expressed your ideas in a moderate manner, the issues you complain about would reduce dramatically, but it would not gain the same attention. This is all about attention - marketing of yourself as some kind of leader - with your ideas just a conduit for said attention.

You seem to believe that distractions and fantasy over time will serve the human need for meaning offered by the reality of our source which we can become aware of through higher mind.. I believe that distractions will lead to increased materialism and commercialism and denial of this source. Built on a false foundation the result for society will be the same as with any narcotic: a crash back to reality. I don’t want to be around for the crash

The crash is coming from overpopulation, climate change and resource depletion. You will probably be around for it. That's nature for you. Not even "divine" or "wretched" humanity is immune from natural forces.

Humanity was built on the backs of dinosaurs and trilobites, so I expect that whatever builds from humanity will be truly extraordinary. Not perfect - nothing is - but remarkable beyond our ken. There will be, as always, winners and losers along the way. Many beautiful things will be lost forever, just as most species that ever existed are now extinct, their unique qualities seemingly lost forever.

[Nick_A]

Greta

You still haven't answered why you don't display the kinds of qualities one might expect from a higher mind.

You do not distinguish higher mind from lower mind so cannot appreciate what these qualities are or their purpose.

Humans have an extra layer of consciousness, obviously. We can somewhat shape our responses, as opposed to just responding like other species. The reason why we have this capacity is the same as why any organism has attributes with strong survival value - life is compelled to try to escape obliteration and suffering by any means possible.

Have you ever considered the difference between animal Man’s need to escape obliteration and suffering the world and the human need to escape obliteration through suffering themselves?

As stated more times than I can remember, your problems on forums have precious little to do with the ideas promoted and everything to do with your significant lack levels of respect, empathy, courtesy or consideration of others on forums.

This is simply not true. Take Plato’s cave for example. Nothing is more repulsive for the atheist and secularist then to impartially discuss the many layers of meaning within the analogy. Attempted discussion must lead to all sorts of expressions of negativity and ridicule. I initially post the idea and because of the response it receives you believe it shows lack of respect, empathy, courtesy and whatever else one can imagine on my part. Actually those who read it become irate that anyone could take it seriously. The intent is to kill the messenger because the message is too hard to handle. The intent to kill the messenger disturbs the peace which is why Socrates had to be killed.

If you expressed your ideas in a moderate manner, the issues you complain about would reduce dramatically, but it would not gain the same attention. This is all about attention - marketing of yourself as some kind of leader - with your ideas just a conduit for said attention.

There is no moderate manner to express the meanings of Plato’s cave. Attempts to do so just destroy its meaning and value. That is why the secular mind needs to destroy the human need to contemplate the higher ideas intended from ancient times to serve awakening humanity to the human condition and pervert them into sustaining the human condition through moderation, fantasy, and argument..

Humanity was built on the backs of dinosaurs and trilobites, so I expect that whatever builds from humanity will be truly extraordinary. Not perfect - nothing is - but remarkable beyond our ken. There will be, as always, winners and losers along the way. Many beautiful things will be lost forever, just as most species that ever existed are now extinct, their unique qualities seemingly lost forever.

It will be extraordinary but will it satisfy the human need for meaning residing at the depth of the human heart? IMO it cannot. But it can serve to repress it so it remains hidden and afraid to express itself. Gradually the living human need for objective meaning will atrophy from lack of the ability to express its questions much like a tetra becomes a blind cave fish losing its eyes since they are never used. AI will have reached its potential to devolve humanity as a whole into blind creatures of reaction having no alternative but to serve the state as the means to provide meaning. AI will have killed God.

[Charles]

Quantum AI is about as close as you can get to Spinoza's god. For a primer on Spinoza, Michael Della Rocca's book is a great summary. Della Rocca weaves his review around the double application of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). Understanding a cause is it's explication. Effectively, making something intelligible. With AI, we are replicating this intelligibility, which takes the PSR to new heights. Moreover, the fact that quantum mechanics has exponentially increased this capability is ontologically significant. Once again, to put this in Spinoza's terms, he posits no causal connection between extension and the mind. In the cause of QAI, extension literally enhances intelligibility, so as we replicate sentience, we see the concrete significance of a monist conception. In sum, if we posit any teleology - for instance in the mold of Nagel - we need to see AI as necessary as our existence, and therefore as close to "god" as your going to get.

[Nick_A]

Quantum AI is about as close as you can get to Spinoza's god. For a primer on Spinoza, Michael Della Rocca's book is a great summary. Della Rocca weaves his review around the double application of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). Understanding a cause is it's explication. Effectively, making something intelligible. With AI, we are replicating this intelligibility, which takes the PSR to new heights. Moreover, the fact that quantum mechanics has exponentially increased this capability is ontologically significant. Once again, to put this in Spinoza's terms, he posits no causal connection between extension and the mind. In the cause of QAI, extension literally enhances intelligibility, so as we replicate sentience, we see the concrete significance of a monist conception. In sum, if we posit any teleology - for instance in the mold of Nagel - we need to see AI as necessary as our existence, and therefore as close to "god" as your going to get.

I agree. All these speculations about what God Is can only lead to believing or denying idolatry. As I see it, the ineffable source IS while creation serves the eternal PROCESS of existence within this state of being beyond time and space. We can experience the Source through its laws so science, rather than disproving a Source, will prove its necessity. Simone Weil brilliantly describes it.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

My hope is that as the necessity of a Source becomes more intellectually obvious, it will serve to open minds into contemplation as opposed to the closing of minds now in favor of attachment to and dependence on the results of AI.

So rather than killing God, better scientific understanding of universal laws as the source of AI will reveal the necessity of a conscious Source for universal laws.