Researchers make strides in creating artificial intelligence

Oddly enough learning and education will be a big part of Inquisitive Bliss. I’m happy to link anything I feel is interesting, but my favourite ones will be topics that force us to question. The following article will hopefully be one of these kinds.

http://machineslikeus.com/news/researchers-make-strides-creating-artificial-intelligence

Although still a long way off we’re another step closer to creating not only life, but intelligent life. Many people think only gods have the power to create life. So far their ignorance has been kept safe, but only because we haven’t done it yet.

The day will come when humanity takes its first step into our own Genesis story and succeeds in creating life. Even if you don’t agree with that (and if you don’t I ask you what barriers do you see preventing this?) it raises interesting philosophical questions.

Assuming gods exist, why should they be the only ones to have this power?

If souls exist, will a bio-engeneered organism have one? Why/why not?

 

Advances like this force us to ask difficult questions about faith and the ‘facts’ of those faiths. As to the nature of souls and who gets one, it feels to me that the answers to these questions make so much more sense if we assume the world is as we see it and souls do not exist.

Your thoughts?

Advertisements

About Jamie D
I'm an entrepreneur and small business owner working in 3D animation and multimedia. I also have a keen interest in technology and education.

6 Responses to Researchers make strides in creating artificial intelligence

  1. Rob C. says:

    Yes, it happens fairly often that some individual or group of individuals think they know best and define and limit God, with assumptions of his will. And you are correct that there isn’t a verse in the Bible forbidding the creation of life. A consistent point is to be accountable for ones actions. If you create it, you are responsible for it until it gets to the point where it can think and decide for it’s self. Then you are in an advisory capacity.

    Sadly there are several definitions of a soul. A common one is that it is some super matter entity within our bodies that contains all that one would define as us or the individual. My beliefs are that, while yes there is this entity within us, I refer to it as a spirit, it is the union of entity or spirit and the body that is a soul. Everything has a spirit and that everything is a soul. However this isn’t Pocahontas, and a spirit doesn’t have to be intelligent or communicate, as in the case of rocks or trees. More like a super structure beneath defining it’s characteristics. Human characteristics are of course much more complex.

    According to dictionary.com atheism would be considered a religion.

    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

    You have set beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe….no god was involved in it. You have a set of fundamental set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a group of people…..god does not, can not and will never exist. You and MANY other people adhere to these beliefs and practices. Atheism is a religion of practicing no religion.

    I guess I might have had a limited view last night, I was tired and that’s not an excuse but a contributing cause. I was trying in my own limited way to propose that defining yourself as atheist would limit your ability to discuss topics closely related to the religion of others. Anytime in which one deals in absolutes, one limits themselves. Science proves that to us. People believed that science dictated that the world was flat and limited all other thoughts after that absolute. We find that it wasn’t until someone stopped believing in the absolute prescribed by others that it was discovered the world wasn’t flat but in fact round. Agnostic, is to believe that god(s) can not be understood in any way shape or form, unfathomable. Again an absolute by which they limited themselves.

    I am so sorry if my posts are considered too long. I just do not want to be misunderstood.

  2. Rob C. says:

    Don’t we already have the ability to create life? My parents created me, and your parents created you. What’s the difference?

    Anywho, moving on to your question.

    Q: If souls exist, will a bio-engeneered organism have one? Why/why not?
    A: Logic would dictate yes. If we have souls, then everything should have a soul. However, it would really get down to your definition of a soul.

    Going along with the logic thing, you openly state that you’re atheist and actively disbelieve or choose not to believe or just don’t believe. What is the point in discussing theological topics if you can not even imagine it from a different perspective, since you care actively trying not to according to your religion? Just my thoughts on the subject.

    • archdragon87 says:

      A good question why pro-creation doesn’t count as creating life. My guess (at least from the Christian perpective) is that man and woman were told to “go forth and multiply” and therefore pro-creation is possibly considered God’s realm. Honesty though, I’m not aware of a passage in the Bible that forbids the creation of life. I think it is something people have added as God’s will, rather than it being scripturally based.

      You’re absolutely right, we would need to define the soul to really be able to answer the question properly. Personally I try and avoid defining things other’s believe in. If you believe the soul exists, do you have a definition we could work from? I would have thought a soul was something that a god would bestow upon people. If the god doesn’t get the chance to create the person, would they necessarily still receive a soul?

      You’re last paragraph really opens a can of worms and it’s made me realise I’ve been hanging around atheist corners too much lately. I stupidly assumed people would mostly know the atheist perspective, but after reading your questions here I think it would be wise to dedicate my next post to defining atheism (strong and weak) and laying down my personal beliefs.

      But, I will try and answer your questions with as few words as possible. Hopefully it will be enough until I can get around to a full fledged post.

      Atheism technically isn’t a religion. It is a simple statement of belief “There are no gods”. I believe this based upon the evidence I have collected so far. It is worth discussing theological implications as it’s possible new evidence may be revealed that could change my opinion. There is nothing about my belief that says it has to stay the way it is and I’m more than happy to try imagining the world from another perspective.

      • JohnMWhite says:

        Atheism is not only ‘technically’ not a religion, it is enormously not a religion. To use the old standby, it’s as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is a true shame that people are so ignorant* and isolated from the concept they end up only perceiving a twisted, distorted notion of it.

        *I mean that in the literal sense and not as an insult, though it is a word that tends to send feathers flying.

        • Rob C. says:

          Some how my reply wasn’t a reply…….strange. The one at the top was supposed to be in response to archdragon and it ended up at the top.

          Well I guess everyone has a different definition for atheism. I prefer to go by the one listed in dictionaries. They are usually right when kept up to date.

          1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
          2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

          Your example isn’t very accurate. It would be more like, it’s as much of a hobby as actively having no hobby.

          • archdragon87 says:

            Generally I like to stick as close to dictionary definitions as possible too, but I’ve read through your quote from Dictionary.com and if you break it down atheism doesn’t actually fit. At first glace you’d expect it would and it’s only once you get technical that it doesn’t. I intend to use your definition in my next post, so I’ll return to how and why this is so shortly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: