I'm saying that the claim that electronic gizmos will NEVER be conscious is unjustified. To suggest that it will never happen is a statement of faith. The fact that the present generation of LLMs happily ace the Turing Test makes this clear; a previous generation would have regarded them as 'thinking machines'.
If you don't use AI - or at least make the appearance of doing so - 'questions will be asked' about why you are refusing to use the latest technology. Add in the need to be seen to be backing the massive bets that your lords and masters of the real elite have made on AI and it's inevitable that AI is being dragged into everything. Will it last or will there be a massive bubble burst? That's the many billion question...
'I don't believe that anything except biological beings can have consciousness.'
Given that we struggle to know what consciousness is, it seems foolish to assert this.
The article refers to the harassment of a sparkling wine producer. The champagne producers are twitchy that adverts say: '“Cheat on champagne” and: “Warning: This is not champagne”'. The strange thing is that on their own logic: '“Any use of the internationally renowned name ‘champagne’ other than in reference to the sparkling wines entitled to this appellation constitutes an unfair exploitation of its reputation', the insurgent has done nothing wrong; the references are indeed to the 'sparkling wines entitled to this appellation'.
It appears it's not well enough known in corporate circles. Proven Industries should not be selling any locks ever more...
The first is the widespread belief in the wider community that 'only stupid people are Christians'. That's a claim that won't stand up to examination, though is often offered by those unwilling to engage with Christianity's claims
The second is the truth or otherwise of resurrection of Jesus. Lee Strobel was an investigative journalist. He investigated the claims about the event with that background, and ended up convinced that it did happen. His book - 'The case for Christ' - shows what led him to that belief. Given that he was working in his own area of expertise - evidence gathering - the fact that he ended up changing his belief is significant.
Your third point about other religions is well made. There are a lot of crazy beliefs out there. The quality of much that is offered as apologetics for Christianity is very poor. Yet the long term impact of Christianity is amazing, as agnostic Tom Holland found when he researched it for his book 'Dominion'; a comparison of our civilisation's morals with those of Rome and Greece is instructive.
May I suggest your participation on an 'Alpha' course - or the equivalent. On a good day they provide generous hospitality and a chance for intellectual conversation on religion with real people. Think of it as a challenge - to convince the leaders that they've made a serious error! https://www.alpha.org/what-is-... (Some churches offer something similar but with a different theological bent...)
Some impressive figures - some 40-60 million in the 13th and 14th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Seldom remembered these days.
Here's a 'supersummary'
https://www.supersummary.com/t...
The existence of one scholar who comes to one conclusion - and your implicit reminder that there are a few who deny Jesus existed - doesn't make their position coherent.
The central challenge to those who want to deny what Jesus did is to explain how the church emerged and won over the Roman Empire if it wasn't as it was recorded in the New Testament.
Hope it helps
https://www.supersummary.com/t...
Part 1 focuses on why the sources are reliable
Part 2 looks at what Jesus claimed and demonstrated about himself
Part 3 looks at the Resurrection: the medical evidence, the missing body, the evidence of the appearances, supporting facts that point to the resurrection
Conclusion: pulling it all together
The fact that an investigative journalist was convinced to change his opinion on Christianity by the evidence that he discovered should be significant to you. Is it realistic to merely assume that he stopped applying his journalistic skills? Or is it more realistic to accept that he found something that was solid evidence that he couldn't argue with?
Given the vast number of highly intelligent Christians down the ages, your belief that we are all stupid is not justified by the facts; people far more intelligent than me or you have chosen to become Christians . A modern example is Lee Strobel who, as an investigative journalist with the Chicago Tribune looked at the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and ended up convinced. The resultant book, 'The Case for Christ' based on interviews with the leading scholars in the various fields, offers a solid argument.
Enjoy!
Unless you are going to include those murdered by the Communists in the 20th century, the numbers killed in 'religious wars' is relatively few compared with those killed in 'secular' wars. WWI, WWII, and the various invasions of Europe by tribes from Asia, along with all the wars of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa etc are all basically secular with rare exception.
There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen
