[ExI] From Friendly AI to Loving AI

[Kelly Anderson]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:23 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> ... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> ...
>>> 2011/5/6 spike<spike66 at att.net>:
> ...
>
> Kelly do take care with attributions.  I didn't write any of that which as
> under my name.  No harm done in this case.  {8-]

Sorry, I try to be careful, did you not ask how a religious person
would make a case against sex with a sexbot? If it wasn't you, who
asked that question?

>>...Religions view themselves as a path to self control...
>
> Ja, although where I was going with this to start with is I know of a class
> of religions which hold the notion of sola scriptura, or scripture only,
> which means they are not allowed to add any thought or concept to the sum
> total of that which is literally and specifically recorded in the sacred
> texts.  An example of how that is used is seen in the Seventh Day Adventists
> going to church on Saturday.  In the old testament, they did it that way.
> The new testament does not specifically say the sacred day was changed to
> Sunday.  Therefore by sola scriptura, Saturday is still the day.

I see. I have never been a sola scriptura type... it's a difficult
position to take since some scripture seems to conflict with other
scripture... and there isn't a scripture that talks about what takes
precedence. :-)  If one assumes that later revelation overcomes
earlier revelation, then that assumption itself seems outside of the
sola scriptura realm.

> If the sola scriptura concept is followed to its logical conclusion, there
> are no specific rules against the solitary vice, and actually none against
> premarital sex, so long as the couple are each other's concubines.  The
> bible doesn't exactly specify how that arrangement comes to be, but clearly
> it is in there and is specifically differentiated from and subordinate to
> marriage.  There is nothing, not one word, that says it is wrong, so
> apparently it is OK.

I can't get into the sola scriptura mind set. It is too foreign to me.
So sorry, I can't help much with this experiment. You are probably
right that sticking with the bible you can't make a strong argument
against masturbation.

> If you know of a young couple who are shacking up and they want to go to
> church, tell them they can go to the SDA.
>
>>...Self-control is almost certainly crucial to the success of ANY sentient
> being with power...
>
> Agreed, but:
>
>>... With great power comes great responsibility... (isn't that in
> Matthew??? ;-)  -Kelly
>
> No, sure isn't.  For a strict sola scriptura religion, what is not in the
> bible is as important as what is in there.  The comment about power and
> responsibility is from Voltaire, but the fact that it isn't in Matthew or
> anywhere else in scripture means that notion becomes part of the bathwater
> that gets thrown out along with the baby.

I know it is not in Matthew... sorry the sardonic emoticon didn't get
that across clearly...

Another example is "forgive and forget" which is not scriptural, but
may in fact be a pretty good idea.

In thinking about the idea of power and responsibility, I can't help
but think of the recent news involving Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Dominique Strauss Khan. As an atheist, I am somewhat ho hum about
extramarital sex being a terrifically huge deal, but the addition of
the son, his treatment and the coverup to continue his political
career, it is hard to paint Arnold with a completely white hat here.
With DSK, it is still a bit early to even say what happened, but men
of power have done stupid things before. Monica Lewinsky anyone? Is
there any hope that AGIs will be any more successful at avoiding the
power trip that seems to go along with the power? And if the entire
nation were atheistic, would these things be such a big deal? Or is
this just a side effect of Christianity being so central a theme to
our republic?

-Kelly