David O’Hara wonders whether technology could be part of some bigger plan to enable us to perceive other dimensions:
David O’Hara makes clear that he does not claiming that there is a God or any spiritual reality. He is saying that, assuming there were, machines may help us find them:
“Humility demands we recognize that we don’t have the final picture of reality. The more our technology has advanced, the more it has allowed us to see beyond the limits nature imposed upon our ability to see the world in all its detail…
“As our technology grows, it allows us to “see” deeper and deeper into the structure of the natural world. Is it possible that just as technology that imitated the eye has allowed us to see what the eye could not see, so technology that imitates the mind will allow us to perceive what the mind cannot perceive? – David O’Hara, “The Mystical Side of A.i.” at One Zero Medium”
Wait a minute. Our technology allows us to perceive things our physical senses cannot perceive. It does not allow us to perceive spiritual realities that no human faculty—or any enhancement of that faculty—can perceive in our present state. Indeed, the traditional view is that in a sinful state, one cannot see God and remain alive, except by an act of divine mercy.
Most traditional theists would say that we are not talking about what Dr. O’Hara seems to think we are talking about.
News, “And now… can AI have mystical experiences?” at Mind Matters News
You may also enjoy: A.I. Jesus Sputters from the King James Bible. The developer emphasizes that the program is a purely human creation. Possibly tongue-in-cheek, Durendal thinks his creation is the right sort of religion for humans and robots over the next few millennia.
and
Common reasons for dismissing miracles are mistaken, study shows. Religious people are more likely to say they’ve experience a miracle but they aren’t the only ones who do. Educated and well-to-do people are just as likely to be part of the 57% who say they have experienced a miracle as poor and uneducated ones
The premise is flawed. “Technology that imitates the mind” only imitates the part of the mind that imitates technology. Computers think like people who think like computers. Reducing the fraction, computers think like computers.
One semi-related point is true. Advances in tech make new analogies and metaphors possible. Programmers can use concepts like instantiation to understand certain theological ideas better. But beyond that, the tech itself can’t do what O’Hara wants.
First, all of our scientific instruments that enable to see, hear, ‘taste’, smell, and ‘feel” better than we normally do are intelligently designed.
Not one scientific instrument, (i.e. telescope, microscope, spectroscope, microphone, “Taste sensor’. mass spectrometer, olfactometer, thermometer, pressure meter, weight meter, or etc.. etc..), was ever naturally constructed by nature and found just lying around on a beach somewhere.
Every scientific instrument that man has ever invented has come about by man infusing immaterial mathematical and/or logical information into material substrate, via his immaterial mind, so as to construct instruments that enable us to ‘see’ further than we normally do.
In short, there is nothing ‘natural’ about man practicing science. All of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based upon the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based upon the presupposition of naturalism and/or methodological naturalism.
Second, what the extension of out physical senses by our scientific instruments has revealed to us is that we most certainly live in an Intelligently Designed universe.
Although atheists are notorious for claiming that the further science has progressed, the less the need for God as a explanation in science has become, (i.e. the infamous ‘God of the gaps’ argument), the fact of the matter is that the shoe is squarely on the other foot. That is to say, the further science has progressed the more the need for God as explanation in science has become, (and the less that atheistic naturalism makes any sense whatsoever.)
Here are a few examples,
Third, his presupposition that humans can create machines that, basically, have immaterial minds, souls, and/or spirits, that are capable of having mystical experiences, i.e. of ‘seeing’ further than the human mind, soul, and/or spirit can see is, as Pauli would have put it, ‘not even wrong’.
As Michael Egnor noted, “The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer.,,, The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.”
And as Michael Egnor succinctly stated elsewhere, “Your computer doesn’t know a binary string from a ham sandwich.,,, In a sane world, the proper suggestion to a fellow who believes that his computer knows things would be to tactfully suggest that he seek professional psychiatric help.”
Of note, if O’Hara wants to ‘see further’ on the spiritual realm, I suggest that he, as O’Leary suggested, ‘humbly’ look to scriptures for guidance.
Verse:
Of supplemental note: