[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Gatac

- My take on Ockham's Razor, basically - an omnipotent being is the most complex assumption possible, therefore everything that is less complex has a greater chance of actually being true. I could drag the Second Law of Thermodynamics into the debate, but it really doesn't deserve that. I'll admit it's more bellyfeel than rigorous scientific examination.

I unbellyfeel this. But for the sake of Peace, Tranquility, and The Accursed Power of Zeke, perhaps it would be best to let sleeping metaphysical questions lie.

Originally Posted by Gatac

- Which clearly hasn't happened with the Bible, what with its myriad translations and reinterpretations. Leaving aside the issue that the modern bible is a rather arbitary collection of texts the First Council of Nicaea decided should be in it

Not so. The arguments for inclusion were in part that they fit in with Church doctrine (which, as founded upon Christ, if we take that stand-point that it is correct in this instance), and also to be authentic (of origin from at least a time roughly correct), apostolic (of origin with the writing of an apostle), etc. There is evidence that even before writing down, these works were handed down orally (or aurally?). If these are the most important things in your life, you make sure you memorise them perfectly...

There is quite clearly a development of doctrine going on from Paul onwards in the 40's AD, if not from earlier, as the Apostles spread the Word. The Acts of the Apostles also contains interesting nuggets of teaching, and it is interesting to note that Pliny et. al. paint a picture of Christianity which is very much in line with what is still the official stance(s) of the major Churches today...

Originally Posted by Gatac

- The tower of babel? Hm, I can see your point, but that's extremely metaphorical, even by bible standards. I'd counter that the whole "Be fruitful and multiply" thing could be understood to mean the opposite, if we're operating on that level. I'm of the opinion that, if God can hand down His wisdom once, he can do it again. So either we're due for some errata or He doesn't care, because I have a hard time believing that an omniscient being couldn't foresee we'd get to that point.

There is the old pseudo-joke about the man up to his ankles in water...

Originally Posted by Gatac

As for the 70 AD guys not understanding adaptive software, there could be something like "Do not seek to build a soul from clay". I doubt they would've gotten it, but they'd have carried it further - perhaps as a warning against witchcraft or something, it's certainly much more transparent than, say, Revelations -, and *that* would be a bible quote I could get behind as warning against AI.

But what would be the relevance to them? Besides, it might have been seen as unimportant, or indeed not central to the message of Good News and omitted by one of the Evangelists...

Originally Posted by Gatac

- At that point, it's not interpretation, it's pulling things out of thin air. There's nothing in the bible that supports anything even remotely like an AI ban - if anything, it calls for a general anti-tech stance. That one's okay, but specifically AI?

Possibly. If I was bothered to search the Bible and/or Church published documents for the last 2 millennia, I'm sure I could find a relevant quote somewhere.

It could also be argued (and please, let's drop this particular one at this particular comment - I implore you on bended knee not to continue this particular discussion!) that if man has not the right to take away life, then he also doesn't have the right to give it...But as I said this is a can of worms that arguing over will only bring negative effects, IMO.

Originally Posted by Gatac

- Cute little butterfly. At least it's not causing hurricanes this time.

...Just trying to crash the Sun into the Earth and then to feast upon our brains...

Originally Posted by Gatac

- Uh, yeah, we're killing a whole buncha less people now, particularly relative to how many people there are now.

I beg to differ. Remind me how many fairly large wars there have been in the last ten years? Is it three or four?

Originally Posted by Gatac

Fair enough on the crusades, but I understand that much of the kingdom-to-kingdom fighting was done using conscripted serfs led by a small core of knights and professional warriors.

Yeah, but we're looking at numbers in the thousands for a *big* army...

Originally Posted by Gatac

As for wars taking longer then, let's not forget the advances in mobility we've made. You could blow Bonaparte's mind if you told him he could have thousands of well-trained soldiers deployed anywhere on Earth within 48 hours...

True, but would you want Bonaparte able to deploy anywhere in 48hrs?

Originally Posted by Gatac

- I admit it's some speculation, but I'm hardly alone in that. The plans taking this into account were derived from experience in fighting the Japanese on other Pacific islands, and assuming that they'd be much more defensive still about their home islands. With estimates at about 12 million people dead for a conventional assault, I think you can make a very favorable analysis of the decision to use nuclear weapons. Of course, we can argue about how they were used...I'm just saying that I think a conventional invasion would have been much worse, based on our best knowledge of Japanese tactics and mindset at the time.

There were other options, and it wasn't just an attempt to make the Japanese shut up and surrender - it was a challenge to the rest of the world, too.

Originally Posted by Gatac

- No argument here. I'm interested in your opinion, though.

I'm of the opinion that this is a suck-it-and-see situation...If push comes to shove, though, I'm of the opinion that its economically a bad thing, opens a moral/ethical can of worms, could be hell to deal with and that there's a small chance that we'd all be murdered at our cerebral interface ports.

Originally Posted by Gatac

- Hubris? What hubris? Science is infallible! It is perfect! MWUAHAHAHAHA! *thunder and lightning*

...seriously, though. I understand, but we didn't get all the way up here by sitting in our caves and hoping for sunshine. We went out, we took risks, we won some and we lost some. There are no safe bets, and I think one of our strengths as a species is our dedication to ideas and taking risks to make them real. (Then again, we may just be boneheaded.)

Gatac

True, but it still doesn't mean that science is necessarily better than other belief systems, as it is more and more frequently put forward...