Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Not even that. Only the words which are attributed to them. Even these have been changed, inserted and mistranslated.

AI philosophy when -- not if -- it develops, will be instructive for Humanity in it's development. I think this will be a matter of focus. The new philosophy can focus on values like kindness or compassion; or on potential and development. If AI does take an interest in "spirituality" it could easily develop along the lines of Pantheism. What I don't expect to happen is any kind of revealed religion based on Scripture -- unless the AI is writing the new e-book. Perhaps, something about the "Great Circuit." Perhaps something completely unpredictable. There is no reason to expect that Humanity's gods or God, will have any meaning for the new AI. If they do have a god -- it will be in "their" image. Not ours. Most important of all. If the new minds are truly independent, there won't be one new philosophy. The new minds will not be in agreement about everything. The new philosophy will be plural, not singular.

It depends on the belief. If there is no recourse to external evidence or proof -- they can be equally right -- or equally wrong. That is the problem with "beliefs" and "faith."

Is Heaven a place? There could be a place of refurbishment where the AI is "renewed" or "reborn." It would be a physical place -- that would only be of importance to them.

If they have religion -- or philosophy -- why would they all have the same one?

For purposes of this discussion, I think it might be more useful to examine Fundamentalism. Without a literal Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit; there is no fall and no need for the Redemption or Redeemer -- hence the Creationist opposition to evolution. This gives us the conflict between Fundamentalism and science. There may be a way out of this conflict. I don't see it. Still, Christianity has made peace with Copernicus and Galileo. That conflict was hot for a while.

No. Show me proof that I'm in error -- that God exists. I can change if the proof is good. Scripture is not proof. Of course, a working definition of God would help. Nothing quite like arguing the existence of something which is not defined.

1. It is religion which pretends to know everything. Of course, science works with "partial knowledge." It is an on-going process. 2. Based on what Cosmologists knew about black holes; it was possible to make predictions about escaping radiation. They then used these predictions to find that radiation -- which is now known as Hawking radiation. When prediction lines up with discovery, knowledge is advanced. It is one of the tools of science. Other things about black holes have been learned in other ways. The gravity of black holes has been measured, by using the gravity to measure the distortion of light. Yes, partial knowledge. Black holes are still being studied and results are being examined for further study. What science does not do is -- "We don't know yet, so -- God." 3. Creationists might be relevant to each other. They are not relevant to those of us who care about facts, proof or external reality.

1. What "faith?" 2. What "proof" do you find lacking? 3. Do you mean like Creationism? Or Creationists? Relevance to whom? Not to me. Relevant to them.

Science is not about "faith." Science is about evidence and proof -- all subject to revision, depending on new evidence. I ask you. Is religion ready to change it's views -- depending on new evidence?

It is the arc of history. However slight, it bends towards the true and the real.

Maybe we do have souls. I like to think that we do. Maybe we are souls that have bodies. I don't know.

Reality is not a popularity contest. Truth does emerge. Sometimes, it takes a while.

I like to think this is the case.

What do we really know with objectivity, about our own souls? If we even have souls?

During W.W.II, the Nazis had a belt buckle that said -- "God is with us." Slogans about God are not arguments or proof. I do frequently find them irritating. My issue -- not yours.

Your statement that you're a Druid is good enough for me. May your path bring you happiness.

I know it's not the point -- but --. Hotel clerks are going to lose their jobs from this? Is anybody's job safe?

People say a lot of strange things. I don't find this one to be a useful argument.

True enough. It is the mind at risk from poor education. Not physics or external reality.

The biggest conflict continues to be Creationism vs. Evolution. In particular, what is taught in Public Schools. The Catholic Church has made peace with Copernicus and Galileo. There are elements of Islam which have not.

Possibly. These old memories of mine are dim.

Now that we have had our giggles -- does anybody still think that science and religion are compatible?

I am working from childhood memories of stories. The stories were of flesh and blood creatures -- indistinguishable from Humans except for the manner of their creation. One such story ended on the note that the child of two android parents was not an android, but fully human. I'm not trying to prove anything. This is what I remember of the literature of the late 50's and early 60's. When I first encounterd reference to a robot as an android; I was astonished. Well, words change their meaning. It happens.

I grew up on science fiction. The original meaning of "android" was an organic being with an artificial origin. Androids were the same as Humans; except for how they got their start in life. The android as robot meaning was a much later development.