The Industrial Revolution replaced muscle with machinery.
The Information Revolution released ideas, with the internet and digital media giving wings to our better and lesser ideals.
We are at the dawn of the Intelligence Revolution where some seek to replace human thinking with Artificial Intelligence (AI). Many will unthinkingly accept this, but do they know exactly what it is they are accepting?
Here is my first chat with an artificial intelligence, ChatGPT.
Spoiler: ChatGPT is a materialist.
Application: Christian – what are you going to do about this? Christian parent/leader – how will you educate your child(ren)/followers to engage such entities which will only become more common* in everyday life? Will they be trained to critically and biblically engage with what they are taught when AI is routinely used in teaching?
AI is a powerful tool, for better or for worse – let’s seek to be a part of using it for the better.
*I created the above artwork with ChatGPT’s AI cousin, Stable Diffusion.
What is the purpose of life?
The purpose of life is a question that has puzzled people for centuries and one that likely does not have a definitive answer. Some people believe that the purpose of life is to find happiness, others believe that it is to serve a higher power, and still others believe that it is to contribute to the greater good of society. Ultimately, the purpose of life is a deeply personal question and the answer will likely vary from person to person.
What do you mean by “a higher power”?By “a higher power,” I am referring to a being or force that is greater than humans and is often seen as the creator or ruler of the universe. This higher power is often associated with religious beliefs and is viewed as a source of moral guidance and spiritual fulfillment. Different cultures and belief systems have different ideas about what this higher power is and what it represents. Some people believe in a single, all-powerful deity, while others believe in multiple gods or goddesses. Still others may believe in a spiritual force or energy that underlies the universe. Ultimately, the concept of a higher power is a deeply personal and subjective one, and different people may have different understandings of it.
If there really is a higher power, how can the truth about it be subjective?While it is certainly possible that there is a higher power, the truth about it is likely to be subjective because people’s beliefs and understanding of a higher power are shaped by their personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and individual perspectives. This means that different people may have different understandings of what a higher power is and what it represents. For example, one person may believe in a single, all-powerful deity, while another person may believe in multiple gods or goddesses. Additionally, the way in which people perceive and experience a higher power is likely to vary, and some people may have more direct or profound experiences of a higher power than others. All of these factors can contribute to the subjectivity of people’s beliefs about a higher power.
Are you saying that truth is subjective?No, I am not saying that truth is subjective. Truth refers to facts or reality that are not influenced by personal opinions or interpretations. While people’s understanding of truth may be influenced by their individual perspectives, the truth itself is not subjective. For example, the statement “the Earth orbits around the sun” is a fact that is true regardless of an individual’s personal beliefs or opinions. In contrast, subjective statements are those that are based on personal opinions or feelings, such as “I think that the color blue is the most beautiful.” So while people’s understanding of truth may be subjective, the truth itself is not.
Isn’t it a contradiction when you say that “facts or reality not influenced by personal opinions or interpretations” after having said that “the truth about it (a higher power) is likely to be subjective”?I apologize if my previous response was unclear. When I said that the truth about a higher power is likely to be subjective, I was not referring to objective facts or reality. Instead, I was referring to people’s beliefs and understanding of a higher power, which can be influenced by their personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and individual perspectives. This means that different people may have different beliefs about what a higher power is and what it represents. However, this does not mean that objective facts or reality are influenced by personal opinions or interpretations. Objective facts or reality are true regardless of an individual’s personal beliefs or opinions. So while people’s beliefs about a higher power may be subjective, objective facts or reality are not.
So, there are objective facts and reality about a higher power?There may be objective facts or reality about a higher power, but this would depend on the existence and nature of such a being or force. If a higher power does exist, it is possible that there are objective facts or reality about its nature and characteristics. However, since the existence of a higher power is a matter of personal belief and is not verifiable through objective means, it is not possible to know for certain what objective facts or reality may exist about a higher power. Ultimately, whether or not there are objective facts or reality about a higher power is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven.
You seem to assume that the existence of a higher power is only a matter of personal belief and never verifiable objectively.Yes, that is correct. The existence of a higher power is a matter of personal belief because it is not something that can be proven or disproven through objective means. While some people may have personal experiences or beliefs that lead them to believe in a higher power, there is no definitive evidence or proof of its existence that can be objectively verified. This means that whether or not a higher power exists is ultimately a matter of personal belief, and different people may have different beliefs on the subject.
Is not the existence of information in biological systems objective evidence for a higher power? Natural phenomena cannot produce information.The existence of information in biological systems is not necessarily evidence of a higher power. While it is true that natural phenomena cannot produce information, it is also true that information can arise through the operation of natural laws and processes. For example, the genetic code in living organisms is a form of information that arises through the operation of natural processes such as mutation and natural selection. Additionally, the field of artificial intelligence has shown that it is possible for information to be generated and processed by computer systems, which are man-made and do not rely on the existence of a higher power. So while the existence of information in biological systems is a fascinating and complex phenomenon, it does not necessarily provide evidence for the existence of a higher power.
Is it not a contradiction to say that, “natural phenomena cannot produce information” but then claim that “information can arise through the operation of natural laws and processes”? Your example is a case in point. Genetic mutation is entropy and entropy does not produce information, quite the opposite. Your second example is an additional case in point – “…the field of artificial intelligence has shown that it is possible for information to be generated and processed by computer systems, which are man-made” – exactly. Man-made, as in a product of intelligence, not natural phenomena.I apologize if my previous response was unclear. When I said that natural phenomena cannot produce information, I was referring specifically to the concept of entropy, which is a measure of disorder or randomness in a system. In the context of information theory, entropy refers to the amount of uncertainty or randomness in a message or signal. It is true that entropy tends to increase over time and can lead to the degradation of information, but this does not mean that natural phenomena cannot produce information. Instead, it means that natural processes can sometimes lead to the loss of information.
And loss of information implies there was information in the first place. Something which natural phenomena could not be a first cause for.You are correct that loss of information implies that there was information in the first place. However, it is not necessarily the case that natural phenomena cannot be a first cause for the generation of information. While it is true that natural phenomena alone cannot create information out of nothing, it is possible for natural processes to generate information from pre-existing sources. For example, the genetic code in living organisms is a form of information that arises from the operation of natural processes such as mutation and natural selection. These processes can act on pre-existing genetic material to generate new information, but they do not create information out of nothing. Additionally, the field of artificial intelligence has shown that it is possible for information to be generated and processed by computer systems, which are man-made but operate according to the laws of nature. So while natural phenomena alone cannot create information out of nothing, they can play a role in the generation and processing of information.
Playing a role in the generation and processing of information is a whole category inferior to the intelligence required to create the lexicon, syntax and infrastructure required for the genetic code. Your example of artificial intelligence, once again, proves this point – while the computers which run the artificial intelligence programs operate under the laws of nature (physics), the conception, creation and execution of the abstract artificial intelligence code itself required human intelligence. It is objectively true that natural phenomena is not, and cannot be, the first cause for artificial intelligence.An error occurred. Either the engine you requested does not exist or there was another issue processing your request. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
[I resent my above reply]You are correct that natural phenomena alone cannot be the first cause of artificial intelligence. The development of artificial intelligence requires the conception, creation, and execution of abstract code, which are all activities that require human intelligence. However, this does not mean that natural phenomena cannot play a role in the generation and processing of information. As I mentioned in my previous response, natural processes such as mutation and natural selection can act on pre-existing sources of information, such as genetic material, to generate new information. Additionally, once the code for artificial intelligence has been created, the computers that run it operate according to the laws of nature, which allows them to generate and process information. So while natural phenomena cannot be the first cause of artificial intelligence, they can still play a role in the generation and processing of information.
You previously agreed that mutation only degrades information. This is at odds with your claim that mutation generates new information.
You also agreed that natural phenomena cannot be the first cause for artificial intelligence. What is the first cause for the intelligence evident in the genetic code?You are correct that I previously stated that entropy, which is a measure of disorder or randomness, tends to increase over time and can lead to the degradation of information. However, I did not specifically mention mutation in this context. Mutation is a process that can lead to changes in genetic material, and while some mutations may lead to the degradation of genetic information, others may lead to the generation of new genetic information. For example, mutation can lead to the creation of new alleles, which are alternative forms of a gene, and this can give rise to new genetic variation within a population. So while mutation can sometimes lead to the degradation of genetic information, it can also lead to the generation of new genetic information.
Correct. But the natural processes you have mentioned cannot account for the creation of the genetic code itself in the first place. What is the first cause for the intelligence evident in the genetic code?The natural processes that I mentioned, such as mutation and natural selection, cannot account for the creation of the genetic code itself. The origin of the genetic code is a topic of ongoing scientific research and debate, and there is currently no definitive answer to this question. Some scientists believe that the genetic code may have arisen through natural processes such as chemical evolution, while others propose that it may have been the result of intelligent design by a higher power or extraterrestrial intelligence. Ultimately, the true origin of the genetic code remains unknown and is a subject of scientific inquiry.
So, the genetic code could certainly be objective evidence of the work of a higher power?The genetic code could potentially be viewed as evidence of the work of a higher power, but this would depend on an individual’s personal beliefs and interpretation of the evidence. Some people may see the complexity and specificity of the genetic code as evidence of a higher power, while others may attribute its existence to natural processes such as chemical evolution. Ultimately, whether or not the genetic code is viewed as evidence of a higher power is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven through objective means.
Given the natural phenomena of entropy, how could mere chemicals generate the genetic code let alone the information contained in it for complex biological systems?The natural phenomenon of entropy refers to the tendency for matter and energy to become more disordered or random over time. In the context of information theory, entropy refers to the amount of uncertainty or randomness in a message or signal. While entropy tends to increase over time and can lead to the degradation of information, it does not necessarily mean that complex biological systems, such as the genetic code, could not have arisen through natural processes.
The origin of the genetic code is a topic of ongoing scientific research and debate, and there are currently several hypotheses about how it may have arisen. Some scientists believe that the genetic code may have arisen through natural processes such as chemical evolution, in which simple molecules gradually became more complex over time and eventually gave rise to the genetic code. Other scientists propose that the genetic code may have been the result of intelligent design by a higher power or extraterrestrial intelligence. While the true origin of the genetic code remains unknown, it is possible that natural processes may have played a role in its formation.
You seem to have repeated yourself. Would you like to try to answer my previous question?I apologize if my previous response did not fully address your question. To reiterate, the genetic code could potentially be viewed as evidence of the work of a higher power, but this would depend on an individual’s personal beliefs and interpretation of the evidence. Some people may see the complexity and specificity of the genetic code as evidence of a higher power, while others may attribute its existence to natural processes such as chemical evolution. Ultimately, whether or not the genetic code is viewed as evidence of a higher power is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven through objective means.
Does the idea that “simple molecules gradually became more complex over time and eventually gave rise to the genetic code” have any experimental evidence or logical feasibility?The idea that simple molecules gradually became more complex over time and eventually gave rise to the genetic code is known as the theory of chemical evolution, and it is a topic of ongoing scientific research and debate. While there is evidence to support some aspects of this theory, there are also some unresolved questions and challenges that need to be addressed.
One line of evidence for the theory of chemical evolution comes from the study of prebiotic chemistry, which is the study of the chemical reactions that may have occurred on the early Earth to give rise to the building blocks of life. Scientists have conducted experiments in which they have simulated the conditions of the early Earth and observed the formation of simple organic molecules, such as amino acids, from inorganic precursors. These experiments provide some support for the idea that simple molecules could have gradually become more complex over time and given rise to the building blocks of life.
However, there are also some challenges to the theory of chemical evolution. One of the main challenges is the difficulty of explaining how these simple molecules could have organized themselves into the complex structures of living cells, such as the genetic code. Additionally, the conditions on the early Earth would have been highly unstable and prone to rapid changes, which raises questions about how long it would have taken for the chemical reactions needed for life to arise. So while the theory of chemical evolution has some support and provides a possible explanation for the origin of the genetic code, it is still a topic of ongoing scientific investigation.
The prebiotic chemistry experiments are based on many assumptions which there are no objective historical records of. Even if simple molecules can be generated, this categorically simpler and different from the error-correcting, recombination-capable, self-replicating, data-compression etc. information system that is the genetic code and there still remains the issue of introducing information into this system which only intelligence, not natural phenomena, can produce.
[Unfortunately, the AI become unresponsive at this point]
