I wonder if it would be fruitful to connect this with older discussions of whether angels are in the image of God (I confess I don't know much about such conversations other than the fact they existed). But a lot of the argument, from the little I've seen, stems from defining the image of God in terms of rationality and then noting that angels possess that attribute.
Right. Angels as image is a VERY minority report due to there being pretty much zero biblical support. Yes, the logic of it is as you say. It just begs the question: IS rationality the image?
Yes, it definitely raises that question. And the Reformed confessions actually don't make rationality central, which is every interesting as well. I wonder if the majority rejection of angels as image could be a useful historical analogue for some of your points regarding AI and human uniqueness.
I think it is at least an important indicator that none of the things we have in common with angels are, in themselves, the “image.” Not our rationality, volition, capacity for worship, spiritual nature, etc.
Thank you, Brian. By the way, I was coaching in the Florida State League in 2013 where a phenomenal 19 year old outfielder played for Fort Myers. It was obvious then how talented he was as a baseball player. I understand your daughter's admiration for Bryon Buxton's abilities. It is sad that injuries have so impacted his career.
I haven't had much of a dog in this fight. I've mostly just been listening. Something you said in your last paragraph really spiked my interest, though.
"Meaning is not fundamentally dependent on the human mind...; the meaning of language is dependent on its relation to truth, the Divine Word.
AI can check "data" to see if it is consistent with all the other data it has access to - to what appears to be as much of reality as we can see. And it can do that far more efficiently, and more grandly than we can. But what you said here makes me think more appreciatively about the fact that only man can believe (in the sense of having faith). I think that is true because of the object of our belief?
We certainly have a unique relationship to the Word! We are imago, being re-created into the image of the incarnate Word. That is a status no machine can attain. Nevertheless, I believe any speaking or communicating creature is participating in a Logos-framed and Logos saturated world and is therefore intrinsically also related to the Word who “holds all things together.” Meaning and truth rests on this relation—uniquely for us, in that we have a special status as rulers and a *moral* relation. But non-human communication is no less meaningful, true, or “authentic.” Lots more on this to come, lest I write a book in my comment section. Glad I provoked some thought! Thanks!
I wonder if it would be fruitful to connect this with older discussions of whether angels are in the image of God (I confess I don't know much about such conversations other than the fact they existed). But a lot of the argument, from the little I've seen, stems from defining the image of God in terms of rationality and then noting that angels possess that attribute.
Right. Angels as image is a VERY minority report due to there being pretty much zero biblical support. Yes, the logic of it is as you say. It just begs the question: IS rationality the image?
Yes, it definitely raises that question. And the Reformed confessions actually don't make rationality central, which is every interesting as well. I wonder if the majority rejection of angels as image could be a useful historical analogue for some of your points regarding AI and human uniqueness.
I think it is at least an important indicator that none of the things we have in common with angels are, in themselves, the “image.” Not our rationality, volition, capacity for worship, spiritual nature, etc.
Thank you, Brian. By the way, I was coaching in the Florida State League in 2013 where a phenomenal 19 year old outfielder played for Fort Myers. It was obvious then how talented he was as a baseball player. I understand your daughter's admiration for Bryon Buxton's abilities. It is sad that injuries have so impacted his career.
I haven't had much of a dog in this fight. I've mostly just been listening. Something you said in your last paragraph really spiked my interest, though.
"Meaning is not fundamentally dependent on the human mind...; the meaning of language is dependent on its relation to truth, the Divine Word.
AI can check "data" to see if it is consistent with all the other data it has access to - to what appears to be as much of reality as we can see. And it can do that far more efficiently, and more grandly than we can. But what you said here makes me think more appreciatively about the fact that only man can believe (in the sense of having faith). I think that is true because of the object of our belief?
We certainly have a unique relationship to the Word! We are imago, being re-created into the image of the incarnate Word. That is a status no machine can attain. Nevertheless, I believe any speaking or communicating creature is participating in a Logos-framed and Logos saturated world and is therefore intrinsically also related to the Word who “holds all things together.” Meaning and truth rests on this relation—uniquely for us, in that we have a special status as rulers and a *moral* relation. But non-human communication is no less meaningful, true, or “authentic.” Lots more on this to come, lest I write a book in my comment section. Glad I provoked some thought! Thanks!