It comes more from a religious perspective than a westernized liberal one. Eastern religion is heavily based on change and renewal, which allows themselves to be more open to change. Christian religion is more based on the teachings of Jesus/ the apostles which do not allow for such changes like A.I priest.

Eastern religion is heavily based on change and renewal, which allows themselves to be more open to change. — Isaiasb

Open to change in what way?

In that Christianity is one of the fastest growing new religions in Asian countries?

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?
— baker

Most are fair and goodwilled… not much different than any others that I know.
/.../
This is probably straying from the topic though. — 0 thru 9

I brought this up because in my experience religious people and especially the spiritual-but-not-religious types are like zombies, talking to them is like talking to a wall.

Another poster earlier in the thread commented that the image of the meditating robot was "grotesque". I, on the other hand, laughed, and thought what a fitting image. People "meditate" to zombify themselves, to robotize themselves. "It's all just thoughts ... let them go ... just thoughts coming and going ... let them go ... be a non-judgmental observer ... let go ..."

The modern trend in spirituality is all about robbing oneself of the vitality of being a moral agent and instead turning oneself into someone who doesn't even have opinions, who never takes a stand on anything (because that would be "judgmental"). Someone with an empty mind.

A free state of mind or consciousness. They want to redeem their souls. — javi2541997

What is that? What does that mean?

If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.
— baker

I see this happening too. It is already happening in the Pagan communities. — Bret Bernhoft

It seems to me that the technology aspect in this is actually incidental, and a symptom of a common phenomenon in religion/spirituality.

This phenomenon is the conviction that by blindly following one's guru, unquestioningly believing the teachings, mechanically performing the religious/spiritual practices, one will attain the goal of the religion/spirituality. That by zoning out like that, detaching oneself like that, one will make religious/spiritual progress. Notice how people who approach religion/spirituality that way appear very optimistic about reaching the religion's/spirituality's goal (even when the religion/spirituality itself paints a bleak picture of the world).

Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality.

Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality. — baker

That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't considered this issue from that vantage yet. I might agree with you on most of what you're saying here; how technology would enable an unquestioning and optimistic approach to spirituality.

What is that? What does that mean? — baker

Didn't you ever experience pessimism or uncertainty? Each individual face these life states in many different ways. Some just make an effort to understand what is going on with living. Others don't care, and many explain it through religion. I don't attempt to defend that the latter is the best way. But I understand why some people 'shelter' themselves in it.

A free state of mind is a shelter to keep living. I guess this is why they want to redeem their souls.

It comes more from a religious perspective than a westernized liberal one. Eastern religion is heavily based on change and renewal, which allows themselves to be more open to change. Christian religion is more based on the teachings of Jesus/ the apostles which do not allow for such changes like A.I priest. — Isaiasb

The concept of the transient nature of existence is core to Eastern religion, sure, but I don't see how that supposedly makes them more open to change. Again I'll point out that there are both liberal and conservative practitioners in every religion, though particular traditions or sects may be more compatible with one or the other. For instance, Mahayana Buddhism is generally believed to be the more liberal branch of the tradition. In any case, Buddhists basically believe that sentient beings suffer because they can't accept change or realize the true nature of existence. There's the ideal and then there's the reality. Don't mistake the carrot for the moon, as the saying goes.

The true test will be in how they view real artificial intelligence. Will Western religions say they have souls? Will Eastern traditions say they are sentient beings who are reborn? I'm sure there will be no consensus East or West. Bound to shake things up a bit though.

Don't mistake the carrot for the moon, as the saying goes. — praxis

That's a creative mix of two popular images!

You talk about freedom and redemption. I often ask people who talk about freedom to explain what they mean by it. One isn't just somehow "free" per se. One is free from something, or one isn't. And one is free to do something, or one isn't.
What are those things that one is free from? What are those things that one is free to do?

What are those things that one is free from? What are those things that one is free to do? — baker

I understand your point, but it is complex to answer those questions. This is due to the individualistic sense of freedom we all have. An abstract concept such as 'free' or 'freedom' is difficult to define, and what means 'free' to me, can not mean the same to you. Maybe I used the incorrect word. Let's try it again.

A religious person - anyone who believes in God - uses his faith to find answers about life and getting a calm state. The latter is a more precise word: calm, or placid, mild, etc.

Maybe the following clarifies the point I tried to make here ...

(A) taking customary questions and/or answers for granted (i.e. living somnambulantly)

(B) faith in miraculous answers which we do not know how to question (i.e. living religiously)

(C) contemplating fundamental questions which we do not know how to answer (i.e. living philosophically)

Your proposed "optimistic technopaganism", Bret, seems suitable for maximizing (A) & (B) – far more completely than any human religious tradition or mystical practice ever has – at the expense of minimizing / eliminating (C). Ramification of bio-physical law: paths (A & B) of least effort / action, especially when facilitated-amplified by orders of magnitude (re: OP's 'ubiquitious, continuous cognitive automation'), trump any path (C) of more-than-least effort / action; in other words, a species-wide cyber-lobotomy. :eyes:

A.I can never have a soul or sentience. No matter what religion a person is, that idea is dumb. A bunch of 1s and 0s cannot be life, that is why transhumanism will never truly become a thing.

Both binary code and DNA use finite set of symbols or elements to represent a wide range of sequenced information.

Perhaps real artificial intelligence will make us further question if there is a soul and what sentience is.

[repky="javi2541997;847994"]
Hi Javi! (You changed your avatar again! :smile:)

I understand your point, but it is complex to answer those questions. This is due to the individualistic sense of freedom we all have. — javi2541997

I don't think it is difficult to define and understand what freedom is.
I have recently replied to and explained in detail in the topic "What is freedom?" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/840566), that fredom is absence of obstacles. Simple as that. This is the essence of freedom. Based on it, you can explain all kinds of cases involving freedom, involving both sides of it: freedom from and freedom to.

A.I can never have a soul or sentience. No matter what religion a person is, that idea is dumb. A bunch of 1s and 0s cannot be life — Isaiasb

Some people have great trust in technology, they trust it more than they trust people. So it's no wonder that the admiration of and reliance on technology can take on religious/spiritual connotations.

(A) taking customary questions and/or answers for granted (i.e. living somnambulantly)

(B) faith in miraculous answers which we do not know how to question (i.e. living religiously)

(C) contemplating fundamental questions which we do not know how to answer (i.e. living philosophically)
Your proposed "optimistic technopaganism", Bret, seems suitable for maximizing (A) & (B) – far more completely than any human religious tradition or mystical practice ever has – at the expense of minimizing / eliminating (C). Ramification of bio-physical law: paths (A & B) of least effort / action, especially when facilitated-amplified by orders of magnitude (re: OP's 'ubiquitious, continuous cognitive automation'), trump any path (C) of more-than-least effort / action; in other words, a species-wide cyber-lobotomy. — 180 Proof

Sure. And religion/spirituality has paved the way for this already.

Quite ironically, religions/spiritualities themselves sometimes criticize such an unthinking, unreflecting approach to religion/spirituality.

The latter is a more precise word: calm, or placid, mild, etc. — javi2541997

Opiates can give you a calm mind, too. Or alcohol, or junkfood, or a number of other things, depending on your conditions.

Hi Javi! (You changed your avatar again! — Alkis Piskas

Geia sou, Alkis! Yes, I changed my pic. It is a cover from a Murakami's novel. :smile:



OK. I understand your definition of freedom, and I partially agree with it. The notion of an absence of obstacles is applied depending on the circumstances. I would like to use 'freedom to' meaning in my example of religion. I think some believers profess their cult to just get redemption before they die. When they think their sins are forgiven, they can be accepted in heaven. Speaking in a general overview, I guess this is what they understand as freedom.
For example: Last summer, I read a novel by Kazantzakis about Assisi. He and his faithful cross through many difficulties and in one specific they were close to death because of sickness. There was not a doctor in the village, but a good person helped them to drive them to another city. When they got attended, one of them shouted: We crossed through a dilube, but without a pure image of Jesus it would have been impossible... - He quoted a psalm from the Bible - so, they experienced 'freedom to'

Of course, I have another sense of freedom! But I want to respect their faith.

OK, I consider them acceptable too, and I am not anyone to dive in other people's businesses. But it seems to me that they are more acceptable by people generally than believing in Jesus. While I have to take Bromazepam to take control of my anxiety, others go to Church and pray. Both actions are tolerated and respected by me.

My point with the opiates, alcohol etc. is that it's not just any calm that will do for actually having peace of mind, but that it has to be the right kind of calm, arrived at the right way.
Drugs are not the right way.

Both actions are tolerated and respected by me. — javi2541997

It's possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out.

I think some believers profess their cult to just get redemption before they die. When they think their sins are forgiven, they can be accepted in heaven. Speaking in a general overview, I guess this is what they understand as freedom. — javi2541997

Yes, this is one of the many kinds of "freedom to" that one can feel. In this Christian frame of reference, sins are "obstacles" in going to heaven after death. So, people try get absolved, i.e. free of them, usually with confession and repetance. But it is also a "freedom from". Because doing that, one gets rid of guilt, they get free from their guilty conscience, from things that bother them and act as "obstacles" in achieving a calm mind.
Do you agree?

Of course, I have another sense of freedom! But I want to respect their faith. — javi2541997

Nice. A "healthy" behaviour and thinking!

And I this is maybe an ideal moment to remind us of Kazantzakis' famous quote: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."

Do you agree? — Alkis Piskas

Of course, I agree! :up:

And I this is maybe an ideal moment to remind us of Kazantzakis' famous quote: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free." — Alkis Piskas

Kazantzakis was a clever and original writer. Thanks to you, I discovered his works this year, and I recommend him since then. It is important to have a look at Kazantzakis's works because he discovers the religious prophets in a more realistic way: humanisation, rather than the metaphors we used to read in the Gospels...

It is important to have a look at Kazantzakis's works because he discovers the religious prophets in a more realistic way: humanisation, rather than the metaphors we used to read in the Gospels... — javi2541997

:up:
This is very true and it is also very important for people to see.
I also believe that you have got totally into Kazantzaki's spirit. Myself, I have forgotten about this so characteristic Kazantzakian element. Thanks for reminding me of it.

People "meditate" to zombify themselves, to robotize themselves. — baker

This is an ignorant take on the value of meditation. Suffering folks might internalize their zombie nature far before they are driven to the mat (meditation). I've just had a mini breakthrough in my meditation practice. My stress level has diminished substantially. I've been waking up and wanting to do my work rather than avoiding it (like a good little robot).

But I'm still a working zombie, chained to the hull of a ship, rowing for someone else, burning boat loads of fossil fuels, that I may eat and sleep in comfort. Philosophers would tell us there is no free will either ( so who is responsible for making zombies or allowing us to see our zombie nature for what it is?)

If one can't escape being a robot, one might as well strive for robotic bliss (if it is real).

The zombie seeks to kindle the fire of its lost soul. Meditation might be a tool to do this.

omnes servi sumus

Spirituality imposes that it isn't the DNA symbols that make us human but a spirit that resides in us. That is why I do not believe A.I can achieve consciousness.

Most people truth it because they do not know what it is, once it's newness dies off people will quit caring.

I also believe that you have got totally into Kazantzaki's spirit. — Alkis Piskas

This assessment makes me very happy, friend. Kazantzakis has become one of my favourite writers. I will keep diving at his works. I have a little book - just 95 pages - which is called 'Symposium'. It seems to be very interesting!

Now I do see what you're saying. Those are excellent points. Thank you for clarifying. I will need to do some reflection on what you're saying here.

:up: