| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Paul Almond" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2003 08:41:11 PM |
| Object: |
Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
Paul Almond
.
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 05:01:36 PM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> writes:
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
Paul Almond
No Silicon Heaven? But where would all the calculators go?
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Saddam's name coded in a famous and old book: http://tinyurl.com/6mr4
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
10 Aug 2003 11:32:22 PM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
If mine's religious, it's not doing enough to appease me, its creator and
lord...
One more crash and it's the LAKE OF FIRE!!!
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"And the knowledge that they fear
Is a weapon to be used against them."
--Rush, "The Weapon"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
10 Aug 2003 09:42:38 PM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
Paul Almond
You seem to be saying that the Intelligant Agent Illusion may be the cause
of belief in God in Human Societies.
You seem to have postulated that the Intelligent Agent Illusion mayy cause
some people to disregard logical contradictions and to resort to "blind"
faith.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with absolutely no
evidnece of this, except your wish to be correct.
Personally I have no interest whatever in whether machines can believe in
God or not. It seems however that if you could prove that machines could
believe in God you would have explained away religion entirely, and very
cleanly and logically at that.
If it were that simple, people would have figured it out by now. It would
just be too obvious that God was a construct of mankind, and had no
supernatural aspects. The belief in God would therefore already be classed
as a mental illness
The belief in God therefore fills a purpose far beyond simply explaining
the cause of eruption of volcanoes, the weather, the human condition, life
and death, etc. It is a social mechanism by which groups of people
experience cohesion, and it is based on mass hysteria, self-hypnosis,
control of natural resources by ethnic groups, etc. The irrational aspects
are a means to trigger neuro-linguistic "anchors", eliciting common behavior
patterns.
Your computers, and the more advanced ones you postulate are far from being
able to communicate in theboth verbal and non-verbal ways that humans do. I
hate to say this, but I really think your article is HOGWASH.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 01:58:17 PM |
|
|
On 10 Aug 2003, "Ike Milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:bh6vvc$se6$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net:
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
Paul Almond
You seem to be saying that the Intelligant Agent Illusion may be the
cause of belief in God in Human Societies.
You seem to have postulated that the Intelligent Agent Illusion mayy
cause some people to disregard logical contradictions and to resort to
"blind" faith.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with
absolutely no evidnece of this, except your wish to be correct.
Personally I have no interest whatever in whether machines can believe
in God or not. It seems however that if you could prove that machines
could believe in God you would have explained away religion entirely,
and very cleanly and logically at that.
If it were that simple, people would have figured it out by now. It
would just be too obvious that God was a construct of mankind, and had
no supernatural aspects. The belief in God would therefore already be
classed as a mental illness
The belief in God therefore fills a purpose far beyond simply
explaining
the cause of eruption of volcanoes, the weather, the human condition,
life and death, etc. It is a social mechanism by which groups of
people experience cohesion, and it is based on mass hysteria,
self-hypnosis, control of natural resources by ethnic groups, etc. The
irrational aspects are a means to trigger neuro-linguistic "anchors",
eliciting common behavior patterns.
Your computers, and the more advanced ones you postulate are far from
being able to communicate in theboth verbal and non-verbal ways that
humans do. I hate to say this, but I really think your article is
HOGWASH.
I personally think he made some very good points. The objections you
raise are based on the obvious fact that religions go beyond some
explanation of unknown phenomena.
There are two ways for the human mind to deal with unknown phenomena --
one is to postulate an unknown source, and the other is to say "I don't
know." The article argues that the instictive way for the human mind to
react to a system that defies known modeling is to postulate
intelligence as an explanation. If this is the case, then the mind that
is attempting to arrive at such an explanation assigns certain
properties to the postulated intelligence, giving rise to the religion
around it. This step in the mind simulation amply explains the facets
of religion that go beyond simple explanation of the unknown.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Almond" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
10 Aug 2003 10:38:30 PM |
|
|
Thank you for your comments.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with absolutely no
evidnece of this, except your wish to be correct.
That would suggest I had 100% confidence in this and was being dogmatic - I
am not. It is merely a hypothesis, which could be tested and the article
merely suggested that it might be observed. Would I bet my life on it? No.
Asperger's syndrome is only mentioned as a possible way of testing such a
hypothesis.
Wish to be correct? Of course anyone publishing anything wishes to be
correct. That does not cause me to imply a higher degree of certainty than
seems justified.
If it were that simple, people would have figured it out by now. It would
just be too obvious that God was a construct of mankind, and had no
supernatural aspects. The belief in God would therefore already be classed
as a mental illness
To people who do not believe in a god it often does seem to be quite obvious
that god is a construct of humans. It would be unlikely that religion would
be classed as a mental illness, whatever the evidence, as, if it is, so many
people - a majority indeed - would seem to suffer from it. A significant
number of the people who would have the job of doing the classifying would
be being asked to classify themselves. Any classification of religion as a
mental illness seems more likely to me to occur in a hypothetical future
society where there is a lot less of it.
The belief in God therefore fills a purpose far beyond simply explaining
the cause of eruption of volcanoes, the weather, the human condition,
life
and death, etc. It is a social mechanism by which groups of people
experience cohesion, and it is based on mass hysteria, self-hypnosis,
control of natural resources by ethnic groups, etc. The irrational aspects
are a means to trigger neuro-linguistic "anchors", eliciting common
behavior
patterns.
and I don't dispute that at all. The article never claimed to be giving 100%
of the explanation for the existence and propagation of religion in human
societies. The article also admits that the causes for religion that it
hypothesises may have been much more relevant in the past than they are now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 06:12:32 AM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f370fb6$0$11384$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
Thank you for your comments.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with absolutely
no
evidnece of this, except your wish to be correct.
That would suggest I had 100% confidence in this and was being dogmatic -
I
am not. It is merely a hypothesis, which could be tested and the article
merely suggested that it might be observed. Would I bet my life on it? No.
Asperger's syndrome is only mentioned as a possible way of testing such a
hypothesis.
Wish to be correct? Of course anyone publishing anything wishes to be
correct. That does not cause me to imply a higher degree of certainty than
seems justified.
<snipped>
Now, after having visited the links in your article, about Asperger's
Syndrome, I cna't see anything about that condition that would either
support or undermine your fantasic ruminations.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 05:10:49 AM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f370fb6$0$11384$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
Thank you for your comments.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with absolutely
no
evidnece of this, except your wish to be correct.
That would suggest I had 100% confidence in this and was being dogmatic -
I
am not. It is merely a hypothesis, which could be tested and the article
merely suggested that it might be observed. Would I bet my life on it? No.
Asperger's syndrome is only mentioned as a possible way of testing such a
hypothesis.
Wish to be correct? Of course anyone publishing anything wishes to be
correct. That does not cause me to imply a higher degree of certainty than
seems justified.
This is a minor point, but bringing in an unproven, and unprovable
speculation about Asperger's syndrome to support your argument, is not
science, it is "thinking out loud".
If it were that simple, people would have figured it out by now. It
would
just be too obvious that God was a construct of mankind, and had no
supernatural aspects. The belief in God would therefore already be
classed
as a mental illness
You are not even dealing with the content of your own article in your
rebuttal to my reply. You are trying to boil the God-belief down to merely
an attempt to explain or account for the unknown. Are you sure this article
is your own "work"?
To people who do not believe in a god it often does seem to be quite
obvious
that god is a construct of humans. It would be unlikely that religion
would
be classed as a mental illness, whatever the evidence, as, if it is, so
many
people - a majority indeed - would seem to suffer from it. A significant
number of the people who would have the job of doing the classifying would
be being asked to classify themselves. Any classification of religion as a
mental illness seems more likely to me to occur in a hypothetical future
society where there is a lot less of it.
Again you are missing my point. I'm not suggesting religion is a mental
illness. If your ideas expressed in the article had validity, however, it
would be.
The belief in God therefore fills a purpose far beyond simply
explaining
the cause of eruption of volcanoes, the weather, the human condition,
life
and death, etc. It is a social mechanism by which groups of people
experience cohesion, and it is based on mass hysteria, self-hypnosis,
control of natural resources by ethnic groups, etc. The irrational
aspects
are a means to trigger neuro-linguistic "anchors", eliciting common
behavior
patterns.
and I don't dispute that at all. The article never claimed to be giving
100%
of the explanation for the existence and propagation of religion in human
societies. The article also admits that the causes for religion that it
hypothesises may have been much more relevant in the past than they are
now.
The article CLAIMS that the causes for religion are as it states, not
ADMITS. While pouring over this statement I was at first puzzeld by the
word "hypothesises". After I realized that you meant "hypothesizes", I was
able to reply. You not only can't spell but you are incorrect in nearly
everything else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Almond" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 11:21:04 PM |
|
|
"Ike Milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<bh7q43$p5e$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f370fb6$0$11384$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
Thank you for your comments.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with absolutely
no
evidnece (sic) of this, except your wish to be correct.
That would suggest I had 100% confidence in this and was being dogmatic -
I
am not. It is merely a hypothesis, which could be tested and the article
merely suggested that it might be observed. Would I bet my life on it? No.
Asperger's syndrome is only mentioned as a possible way of testing such a
hypothesis.
Wish to be correct? Of course anyone publishing anything wishes to be
correct. That does not cause me to imply a higher degree of certainty than
seems justified.
This is a minor point, but bringing in an unproven, and unprovable
speculation about Asperger's syndrome to support your argument, is not
science, it is "thinking out loud".
The speculation would reasonably follow from the view that is common
(though by no means universal) amongst psychologists that Asperger's
syndrome involves a partial failure of social modelling capability.
The correctness of this speculation would be conditional on the
earlier suggestions made in the article being correct, but that is why
it was introduced: if such a statistical link was not found it would
weaken the argument.
If it were that simple, people would have figured it out by now. It
would
just be too obvious that God was a construct of mankind, and had no
supernatural aspects. The belief in God would therefore already be
classed
as a mental illness
You are not even dealing with the content of your own article in your
rebuttal to my reply. You are trying to boil the God-belief down to merely
an attempt to explain or account for the unknown. Are you sure this article
is your own "work"?
The ad hominem comment there is noted. The article did not simply
suggest that god belief is an attempt to accountfor the unknown, but
attempted to propose a mechanism which might explain WHY a thinking
machine (such as a human brain)would resort to behaving in such a way,
using an explanation based on the difficulties of social modelling.
To people who do not believe in a god it often does seem to be quite
obvious
that god is a construct of humans. It would be unlikely that religion
would
be classed as a mental illness, whatever the evidence, as, if it is, so
many
people - a majority indeed - would seem to suffer from it. A significant
number of the people who would have the job of doing the classifying would
be being asked to classify themselves. Any classification of religion as a
mental illness seems more likely to me to occur in a hypothetical future
society where there is a lot less of it.
Again you are missing my point. I'm not suggesting religion is a mental
illness. If your ideas expressed in the article had validity, however, it
would be.
I never thought that you were suggesting that religious belief is a
mental illness.
The belief in God therefore fills a purpose far beyond simply
explaining
the cause of eruption of volcanoes, the weather, the human condition,
life
and death, etc. It is a social mechanism by which groups of people
experience cohesion, and it is based on mass hysteria, self-hypnosis,
control of natural resources by ethnic groups, etc. The irrational
aspects
are a means to trigger neuro-linguistic "anchors", eliciting common
behavior
patterns.
and I don't dispute that at all. The article never claimed to be giving
100%
of the explanation for the existence and propagation of religion in human
societies. The article also admits that the causes for religion that it
hypothesises may have been much more relevant in the past than they are
now.
The article CLAIMS that the causes for religion are as it states, not
ADMITS. While pouring over this statement I was at first puzzeld by the
word "hypothesises". After I realized that you meant "hypothesizes", I was
able to reply. You not only can't spell but you are incorrect in nearly
everything else.
The article suggests a cause for religion and explicitly mentions
other things that could help it to propagate in a human society near
the end of the article. The article does not say "this may be..." "I
suggest that.." in every sentence as it would become unreadable. It
makes a hypothesis and proposes ways of testing that hypothesis. It
makes no suggestion that the testing proposed would be adequate to
prove the hypothesis.
Your comment about the spelling of "hypothesizes" is in error. The
current edition of "The New Oxford English Dictionary", one of the
dictionaries regarded as authoritative by professional writers in the
English language, in its definition of "hypothesize", gives
"hypothesise" as a permissible, alternative spelling. The sentence you
make that remark in contains a spelling error ("puzzeld"), which is
unfortunate and the rest of your posting has numerous spelling errors.
Maybe you regard your own spelling errors as not relevant in any
discussion of literacy or lack of it? Alternatively, maybe your own
spelling errors are "typing errors", while other people's are
"spelling errors". If you want a discussion to descend to this level
you should at least make sure that you are correct. I am aware that
American dictionaries may not give an option regarding the spelling of
"hypothesize" (I actually have no idea whether they do or not), but I
am not American. If you are American you should have given
consideration to the use of English in other parts of the world and if
you are not American, you are just misinformed and should buy a
dictionary. Maybe you would like me to "Americanise" all my own
spelling as a special concession to you?
Do I think your own spelling/typing errors, not to mention your
numerous errors in grammar, in an informal posting are really that
significant? No, I regard it as a trivial issue which is only being
discussed now because you used it to make an insulting comment about
my degree of literacy. You seem to think that such errors are
indicative of intellectual ability, however.
A discussion in which someone is going to make flawed allegations of
illiteracy as a method of insulting me is one which I do not think I
shall find pleasant and, for this reason, I have no further desire to
read your postings or respond to you. From the tone of your previous
message I assume that it is mutual anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
12 Aug 2003 07:45:52 AM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <info@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:6b97f5a9.0308112021.721fc83e@posting.google.com...
"Ike Milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<bh7q43$p5e$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f370fb6$0$11384$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
Thank you for your comments.
Then you make a leap to Asperger's Syndrome and hypothesize that
those
having that condition are less likely to believe in God with
absolutely
no
evidnece (sic) of this, except your wish to be correct.
That would suggest I had 100% confidence in this and was being
dogmatic -
I
am not. It is merely a hypothesis, which could be tested and the
article
merely suggested that it might be observed. Would I bet my life on it?
No.
Asperger's syndrome is only mentioned as a possible way of testing
such a
hypothesis.
Wish to be correct? Of course anyone publishing anything wishes to be
correct. That does not cause me to imply a higher degree of certainty
than
seems justified.
This is a minor point, but bringing in an unproven, and unprovable
speculation about Asperger's syndrome to support your argument, is not
science, it is "thinking out loud".
The speculation would reasonably follow from the view that is common
(though by no means universal) amongst psychologists that Asperger's
syndrome involves a partial failure of social modelling capability.
The correctness of this speculation would be conditional on the
earlier suggestions made in the article being correct, but that is why
it was introduced: if such a statistical link was not found it would
weaken the argument.
If it were that simple, people would have figured it out by now. It
would
just be too obvious that God was a construct of mankind, and had no
supernatural aspects. The belief in God would therefore already be
classed
as a mental illness
You are not even dealing with the content of your own article in your
rebuttal to my reply. You are trying to boil the God-belief down to
merely
an attempt to explain or account for the unknown. Are you sure this
article
is your own "work"?
The ad hominem comment there is noted. The article did not simply
suggest that god belief is an attempt to accountfor the unknown, but
attempted to propose a mechanism which might explain WHY a thinking
machine (such as a human brain)would resort to behaving in such a way,
using an explanation based on the difficulties of social modelling.
<snipped>
It was a question, not an ad hominem comment. The question was, "Is this
your own work?" It appears not to be anything new.
The article CLAIMS that the causes for religion are as it states, not
ADMITS. While pouring over this statement I was at first puzzeld by
the
word "hypothesises". After I realized that you meant "hypothesizes", I
was
able to reply. You not only can't spell but you are incorrect in nearly
everything else.
The article suggests a cause for religion and explicitly mentions
other things that could help it to propagate in a human society near
the end of the article. The article does not say "this may be..." "I
suggest that.." in every sentence as it would become unreadable. It
makes a hypothesis and proposes ways of testing that hypothesis. It
makes no suggestion that the testing proposed would be adequate to
prove the hypothesis.
Quote from the article:
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
I am suggesting that the agent illusion does account for the existence of at
least enough believers in society to cause religions to be created and that
it is the main explanation for how religious beliefs get into the world.
People with religious beliefs can then persuade other people to accept these
beliefs and set up religious institutions, which can use a variety of
methods to promote belief by more people.
End Quote.
Shows a lack of understanding of the origin and purpose of religion.
Religion is irrational. Its purpose is to unite people to do irrational
things. If it were an attempt to expalin the unknown it would be rational
and a mere adjunct to the "scientific method."
Your comment about the spelling of "hypothesizes" is in error. The
current edition of "The New Oxford English Dictionary", one of the
dictionaries regarded as authoritative by professional writers in the
English language, in its definition of "hypothesize", gives
"hypothesise" as a permissible, alternative spelling. The sentence you
make that remark in contains a spelling error ("puzzeld"), which is
unfortunate and the rest of your posting has numerous spelling errors.
<snipped>
A discussion in which someone is going to make flawed allegations of
illiteracy as a method of insulting me is one which I do not think I
shall find pleasant and, for this reason, I have no further desire to
read your postings or respond to you. From the tone of your previous
message I assume that it is mutual anyway.
So you don't like the rules and are going to take your ball and go home.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gammon" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
10 Aug 2003 11:01:18 PM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f370fb6$0$11384$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
To people who do not believe in a god it often does seem to be quite
obvious
that god is a construct of humans. It would be unlikely that religion
would
be classed as a mental illness, whatever the evidence, as, if it is, so
many
people - a majority indeed - would seem to suffer from it. A significant
number of the people who would have the job of doing the classifying would
be being asked to classify themselves. Any classification of religion as a
mental illness seems more likely to me to occur in a hypothetical future
society where there is a lot less of it.
A widely accepted, though certainly not undisputed description of the
minimum requirements of a mental illness is that the behavior must be
atypical, maladaptive, disturbing, and unjustifiable. Currently, the
prevalence of religion pretty much precludes it's classification as
"atypical." So you're correct in saying that there would have to be much
less of it in order to begin gaining wide acceptance of religion as a mental
illness. You could probably make a case for the other three criteria, but
again the huge number of believers would put up quite an opposition.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 02:52:34 AM |
|
|
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message news:<3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
Children are only religious because of what religious parents
tell them. Computers only know what people tell them.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 05:13:08 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0ED3F1.22190610082003@central.giganews.com...
In article <bh704f$n43$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
I don't know, but mine often makes me say, 'Oh God!'
There are times when I am sure that my work computer is possessed by a
sinister force.
Quit your job.
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
12 Aug 2003 12:32:49 AM |
|
|
In article <bh7q7t$vn3$2@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Ike Milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-0ED3F1.22190610082003@central.giganews.com...
In article <bh704f$n43$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
I don't know, but mine often makes me say, 'Oh God!'
There are times when I am sure that my work computer is possessed by a
sinister force.
Quit your job.
I would if I could, but I have this expensive habit to support. It's
called living. :-)
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 08:54:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:47:43 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
I don't know, but mine often makes me say, 'Oh God!'\\
Hi, June! My computer makes me say a lot worse at times.
Right now, it's taking several minutes for my computer to
sign on due to a disconnect with user32.dll. Capella has
offered to help, and I'll be writing back to him about it.
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
atheist/agnostic list ordainer
EAC Bible thumper thumper
BAAWA Knight who says SPONG!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
13 Aug 2003 03:11:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fqhgjv4sqbuqs0uts71lgb2qf1h9sa7v14@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:47:43 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Paul Almond" <mail@paul-almond.com> wrote in message
news:3f36f42d$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
I don't know, but mine often makes me say, 'Oh God!'\\
Hi, June! My computer makes me say a lot worse at times.
Right now, it's taking several minutes for my computer to
sign on due to a disconnect with user32.dll. Capella has
offered to help, and I'll be writing back to him about it.
Hi Mickey! Nice to see you. User 32.dll trouble, eh? You're using what my
son calls 'web words' - in other words I haven't a clue what you're talking
about. :)
An error message appears saying "The user32.dll cannot start. Check
the file to determine the problem." It doesn't seem to be affecting
anything but the speed of signing on, though it can sometimes block
me from getting into various programs until I sign off and then back
on again. It's a real pain.
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
atheist/agnostic list ordainer
EAC Bible thumper thumper
BAAWA Knight who says SPONG!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Article: Could Computers be Religious? |
11 Aug 2003 11:56:46 PM |
|
|
Paul Almond wrote:
http://www.paul-almond.com/CouldComputersBeReligious.htm
Comments welcome.
Have you looked at these?
Ray Kurzweil (1999), _The age of spiritual machines :
_when computers exceed human intelligence_
David Gelernter (1994), _The muse in the machine :
_computerizing the poetry of human thought_
My impression is that at least some AI workers believe
that any truly intelligent system will have behaviors that
we would recognize as spiritual (not intended
supernaturally).
The idea of a spiritual mode of thought being just one
end of a spectrum of natural human thought (running from
calculating to creative to spiritual) seems reasonable
to me. I base this on my own experience inside my mind
and on the persistence of some form of spirituality
in every human culture I'm aware of.
The idea of religion, and especially as specific a religion
as one with a monotheistic creator, I do not see as
inevitable at all. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
If all you're saying is that computer religion is
possible, then fine. But many things are possible, and
without some way for me to say, this is more reasonable
than that, it seems kind of futile.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
