7 ms·

I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69

by rotexo 2y ago

I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams). At a more profound level, I really appreciated point 18 under "Relationality": 'human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.' I was raised Protestant, but taught to be fundamentally skeptical of the political and historical baggage of any religious institution. Though I recognize that writings like this are a result of deeply held faith, it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? That probably sounds basic, but it is my reaction. What draws me back in is the emphasis on our relationships with other human beings. Those relationships are the things that are actually in front of us, and can make a meaningful difference in our day-to-day lives. Something very useful to keep in mind when developing AI (or ABNECUI).

mrguyorama 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  If you could please make your substantive points without fulminating, we (and the site guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) would appreciate it.
- aeneasmackenzie 2y ago
  Papal infallibility is not invoked that often. Here’s an example, in section 4 (wherefore…) [0] In particular papal infallibility was not involved in the Protestants’ complaints, and the response to their complaints (Trent) was a council and again has nothing to do with papal infallibility. The pope was also an absolute monarch at the time, but protestants didn’t care about that aspect. 0: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters...
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    I must confess that my knowledge of christian history from 300AD to 1800AD is what you can get from a few paragraphs in middle school social studies. I was trying to allude to the indulgences with my "bullshit" but I failed. I tend to focus more on the great awakenings and all the horrible things they led to in how they influenced America. I thought Protestants were also at some point very against the way the Catholic faith focused on "here's what god meant" rather than letting people interpret the bible themselves? Papal infallibility is just a part of that.
nyokodo 2y ago
> How could they know? I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Mathew 16:13-19) and through the Bishops the successors of the Apostles (Acts 1:12-26)(Acts 15)
- grahamj 2y ago
  Books are written by people. It’s humans all the way down.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    OP is giving the correct answer for the Catholic worldview. You and the Catholic Church are operating under completely different axioms, so there's no point in responding to someone's explanation of Catholic axioms by just repeating your own axioms more forcefully.
    - buu700 2y ago
      I think it's a more interesting approach to disregard the metaphysical claims, which are inherently unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant to life in this universe, and look at religious texts as constitutions governing human behavior and morality. The metaphysical bits are just a side note to help sell that social contract and give it a theoretical enforcement mechanism. In other words, the relevant question isn't how some pastor "knows" that God says to do XYZ. Obviously they don't. The relevant question is whether and to what extent there's value to be extracted from the collective wisdom of generations of members of an institution whose history stretches back thousands of years. Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans. If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone. I think it makes more sense to just accept a religion and its culture and teachings for what they are, and try to be the best person you can be without worrying about how the guy controlling the simulation we live in may choose to mete out rewards and punishments.
throw0101c 2y ago
> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? Perhaps we were told it: > "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment Which is taken from the Torah. See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan The leaders are probably just reiterating/reminding people.
- rotexo 2y ago
  Yes, I recognize that these are articles of deeply-held faith. I am open to the idea of God, I am open to the idea that God is fundamentally mysterious and beyond our mortal understanding. I simply feel that I always have to exercise skepticism regarding the words of religious institutions, though, because it seems to me that power-hungry individuals could use legitimate teachings as a camouflage for their immoral selfish impulses. Though maybe some institutions can effectively guard themselves against this, selecting people truly committed to God for leadership (I find myself likely to believe, for instance, that Pope Francis in particular is truly committed to God via the humans around him). I guess all of the doubts are a reminder for me to focus on other humans with love. That is the part of the Bible's teachings (or the teachings of other religions) that are accessible to my experience.
  - macrocosmos 2y ago
    I too am wary of "power-hungry individuals" who could use legitimate teachings for illegitimate ends. I think the types of people you speak of are all too real. But I have recently decided I will not let a fear of them keep me from those legitimate teachings or from anything else good in this world. At least I will not anymore. I did for a long time.
jajko 2y ago
AI term if fine, no need to muddy the waters even more. There is the first word - Artificial in past and current world means subpar, fake, imitation that often breaks apart when you get closer and you should never expect to match original in quality nor experience. Artificial plants, artificial meat, artificial light, and so on. Nothing great there, just cheaper, tolerable, often low quality, don't expect that much etc.
BalinKing 2y ago
I'm not Catholic, and I share your distrust of religious institutions. So with that disclaimer, I think my answer would be that God chooses, at times, to teach us things in a "small enough" way that we can understand them. For example, consider when the Bible gives concrete statements about what God wants us to do or not to, or when Jesus uses analogies and parables. Do we necessarily get the full picture? No, and there's a lot about the Christian life that one only learns through experience. One of those things IMO is that some questions have unknowable answers. E.g. "why did this particular tragedy occur?", or perhaps more fundamentally, "how could a holy and perfect God ever show mercy to us imperfect humans?". Or maybe even more directly to the thrust of your comment, "how could we ever hope to understand anything about God?". Something else that comes to mind is that God became human Himself, and I imagine that—at least in part—this would be to allow us to understand Him better. Through Jesus' life, we got to see what it would look like for God to live a human life. (Admittedly, the question then becomes, how does God become man in the first place, which I have to categorize under "questions with unknowable answers".) Finally, the Bible often talks about the Holy Spirit helping Christians to understand "spiritual" things. That is to say, it's not quite a matter of us trying to reach logical conclusions on our own, since—as you say—that wouldn't be possible for a God that's beyond our limits of comprehension. Rather, we get some supernatural help in the matter. Maybe the tl;dr is that, just because we can't understand everything (or maybe even most things) about a God that is fundamentally greater than us in every way, doesn't imply that we can't understand anything.
- jcarrano 2y ago
  I once read that the collapse of the Roman empire set back technological progress a few centuries. Maybe it was a good thing. Could you imagine having atomic bombs with a XV century mentality? I'm not saying that the 500 years ago the mentality was worse, but maybe we weren't prepared yet.
  - BalinKing 2y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment, perhaps? (If not, and I'm just failing to understand your comment, then my apologies, and I'd appreciate clarification :-) )

by rotexo 2y ago

mrguyorama 2y ago

[flagged]

dang 2y ago
If you could please make your substantive points without fulminating, we (and the site guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) would appreciate it.
aeneasmackenzie 2y ago
Papal infallibility is not invoked that often. Here’s an example, in section 4 (wherefore…) [0] In particular papal infallibility was not involved in the Protestants’ complaints, and the response to their complaints (Trent) was a council and again has nothing to do with papal infallibility. The pope was also an absolute monarch at the time, but protestants didn’t care about that aspect. 0: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters...
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  I must confess that my knowledge of christian history from 300AD to 1800AD is what you can get from a few paragraphs in middle school social studies. I was trying to allude to the indulgences with my "bullshit" but I failed. I tend to focus more on the great awakenings and all the horrible things they led to in how they influenced America. I thought Protestants were also at some point very against the way the Catholic faith focused on "here's what god meant" rather than letting people interpret the bible themselves? Papal infallibility is just a part of that.

nyokodo 2y ago

> How could they know? I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Mathew 16:13-19) and through the Bishops the successors of the Apostles (Acts 1:12-26)(Acts 15)

grahamj 2y ago
Books are written by people. It’s humans all the way down.
- lolinder 2y ago
  OP is giving the correct answer for the Catholic worldview. You and the Catholic Church are operating under completely different axioms, so there's no point in responding to someone's explanation of Catholic axioms by just repeating your own axioms more forcefully.
  - buu700 2y ago
    I think it's a more interesting approach to disregard the metaphysical claims, which are inherently unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant to life in this universe, and look at religious texts as constitutions governing human behavior and morality. The metaphysical bits are just a side note to help sell that social contract and give it a theoretical enforcement mechanism. In other words, the relevant question isn't how some pastor "knows" that God says to do XYZ. Obviously they don't. The relevant question is whether and to what extent there's value to be extracted from the collective wisdom of generations of members of an institution whose history stretches back thousands of years. Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans. If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone. I think it makes more sense to just accept a religion and its culture and teachings for what they are, and try to be the best person you can be without worrying about how the guy controlling the simulation we live in may choose to mete out rewards and punishments.

throw0101c 2y ago

> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? Perhaps we were told it: > "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment Which is taken from the Torah. See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan The leaders are probably just reiterating/reminding people.

rotexo 2y ago
Yes, I recognize that these are articles of deeply-held faith. I am open to the idea of God, I am open to the idea that God is fundamentally mysterious and beyond our mortal understanding. I simply feel that I always have to exercise skepticism regarding the words of religious institutions, though, because it seems to me that power-hungry individuals could use legitimate teachings as a camouflage for their immoral selfish impulses. Though maybe some institutions can effectively guard themselves against this, selecting people truly committed to God for leadership (I find myself likely to believe, for instance, that Pope Francis in particular is truly committed to God via the humans around him). I guess all of the doubts are a reminder for me to focus on other humans with love. That is the part of the Bible's teachings (or the teachings of other religions) that are accessible to my experience.
- macrocosmos 2y ago
  I too am wary of "power-hungry individuals" who could use legitimate teachings for illegitimate ends. I think the types of people you speak of are all too real. But I have recently decided I will not let a fear of them keep me from those legitimate teachings or from anything else good in this world. At least I will not anymore. I did for a long time.

jajko 2y ago

AI term if fine, no need to muddy the waters even more. There is the first word - Artificial in past and current world means subpar, fake, imitation that often breaks apart when you get closer and you should never expect to match original in quality nor experience. Artificial plants, artificial meat, artificial light, and so on. Nothing great there, just cheaper, tolerable, often low quality, don't expect that much etc.

BalinKing 2y ago

I'm not Catholic, and I share your distrust of religious institutions. So with that disclaimer, I think my answer would be that God chooses, at times, to teach us things in a "small enough" way that we can understand them. For example, consider when the Bible gives concrete statements about what God wants us to do or not to, or when Jesus uses analogies and parables. Do we necessarily get the full picture? No, and there's a lot about the Christian life that one only learns through experience. One of those things IMO is that some questions have unknowable answers. E.g. "why did this particular tragedy occur?", or perhaps more fundamentally, "how could a holy and perfect God ever show mercy to us imperfect humans?". Or maybe even more directly to the thrust of your comment, "how could we ever hope to understand anything about God?". Something else that comes to mind is that God became human Himself, and I imagine that—at least in part—this would be to allow us to understand Him better. Through Jesus' life, we got to see what it would look like for God to live a human life. (Admittedly, the question then becomes, how does God become man in the first place, which I have to categorize under "questions with unknowable answers".) Finally, the Bible often talks about the Holy Spirit helping Christians to understand "spiritual" things. That is to say, it's not quite a matter of us trying to reach logical conclusions on our own, since—as you say—that wouldn't be possible for a God that's beyond our limits of comprehension. Rather, we get some supernatural help in the matter. Maybe the tl;dr is that, just because we can't understand everything (or maybe even most things) about a God that is fundamentally greater than us in every way, doesn't imply that we can't understand anything.

jcarrano 2y ago
I once read that the collapse of the Roman empire set back technological progress a few centuries. Maybe it was a good thing. Could you imagine having atomic bombs with a XV century mentality? I'm not saying that the 500 years ago the mentality was worse, but maybe we weren't prepared yet.
- BalinKing 2y ago
  Did you reply to the wrong comment, perhaps? (If not, and I'm just failing to understand your comment, then my apologies, and I'd appreciate clarification :-) )