It has always been a matter of great astonishment to me that people should insist that the pursuit of science and that of religion are two different things, and one cannot be or rather should not be mistaken for the other. Science, for all those who believe it be the supreme source of life, is the art of the intellect, while religion, in common belief, is the fact of the senses.
To some, the intellect is any day more superior to the senses, for what are the senses in comparison to the mind? They feel, they see, they hear, but they do not think. And for some, the knack of thought is more important than the ability to emote, the skill of sensation, and the art of feeling. But to quote Ralph J. Cudworth, the 15th century theologian and philosopher, “Sense is like a line which is the flux of a point running out from itself, but intellect, like a circle, keeps within itself.” Can there be a more eloquent yet simple expression, a more subtle speech that should so demonstrate the superiority of the senses over the mind? But, in no way do I wish to state that religion is superior to science, for the twain are brothers of the same seed, and within brethren, there is no one superior to the other, for brethren are born equal, equal halves of the seed. The seed here is the human race, and from its mind, and its senses have arisen the sciences and religion. Whenever the mind dominated our understanding of our world, we termed it as science, and whenever the senses dominated, it became religion. Different names for different viewpoints, yet the view remains the same.
It is remarkable that despite the apparent differences in the two, they are so very similar. True science and true religion can both never be achieved so long as there exists rigidity in the rules governing that concerned. God and science alike reserve their attentions for those who go beyond the rules, who dare to seek new heights, who dare to challenge what they perceive to be wrong. Why is then that we should insist on the separation of the religious mind from the scientific mind? Why should scientific temper be so highly valued as opposed to religious piety? For are not they sides of the same coin, expressions of devotion to the supreme Knowledge, be it science or God? Were not the greatest scientists such as Galileo Galilee, Isaac Newton, Nicolas Copernicus, Edward Hubble, C.V. Raman and Albert Einstein devout theologists? In the earlier days, there was no difference between a scientist and a theologian. Monasteries and temples have for countless millennia been the seat of learning, be it spiritual or scientific. In the medieval ages perhaps, a few black sheep in religion persecuted those whose ideas went against their beliefs. Can we not to blame the mind here, for “the eye sees only that what the mind comprehends”? In response to this, science left the folds of religion, and since has never re-entered into it. We do have to realise that history is the story of the victor, and today, science assumes such a role. But what hath brought about the brethren, shall it cause them to drift apart so? That will remain the existential question as to whether man, who created the two, shall now cause them to go so apart that one cannot survive so long as the other exists. The death of either is tragic, and will reduce our race and our world to an insentient one for sure.
I have but few experiences with science, and very few with what one could call “pure science”, but in my experiences with computer programming, and they remain but a drop in the ocean, I have come to realise that whatever I have learnt so far has to some extent connotations of Hindu and sometimes even sociology. I jest for sure, you say? But no, for we all see these signs, yet like horses with blinkers, we choose to look only at what we set out to do, and not at the environs in which we must attain our goals.
Consider this. The Hindu faith emphasises on the collection of good karma in one’s life, for the life to be deemed successful. The procurement of even a single moment of bad karma, or experiences that go against the laws of society, propels man back down to rebirth. But a life filled with experiences compliant with the laws of society is but a gateway to enlightenment, to perpetual moksha. Now compare this with a C or C++ program. There exist laws of programming that define the rights and wrongs that may arise when writing a program.
Should we go against these laws, we encounter erroneous code when compiling and we are compelled to debug the program from start. But if we always maintain conformity with the laws, our program runs without a hitch, and to say the least, we need never even look at the program code again, a sort of programming moksha. Again, all religions insist on the duality of faith, the existence of good and evil in the same world. Compare this with the language of the conventional computer. The basis of all communication with the computer is the binary system, the dual system, where 0 stands for “inactive” or “false”, and 1 stands for “active” or “truth”. To see such similarities between programming and religious faith may seem naive, but as said before, the pursuit of knowledge is important, not the source of the knowledge.
Often, I would think that the human race is like a couple of adaptive machines. Adaptive machines, you ask what are these? Well, I am not sure whether such a term already exists, but in my mind, these machines are those who are not instructed as to what situations they may possibly encounter in their lifecycle, nor are they told what they may do when such situations arise. These machines are expected to experience, learn and adapt to these situations, and should they ever come across the same situation again, act according to what they have experienced before. It is clear to even the lay mind that the machines of our day, such as the computer, the telephone, etc. are very much non-adaptive machines, for they need to be told everything. In this very significant fact lies the reason why the human race is superior to machines. I wouldn’t say that we are superior to animals, because they too have the power to adapt, just their ability to retain these experiences may seem limited as compared to us.
In this context, whenever I read of someone researching in the field of AI (Artificial Intelligence to the uninitiated), I would be confused. Is man so noble a creature to bestow a power that makes him so unique, the power to learn of one’s own volition, upon insentient machines? For when such powers be resident in the metallic hearts of robots and machines, what would the uniqueness of the human race, and why would the earth feel the need to retain them? These questions troubled me, and still do, though not to such an extent. For the reduction of my doubts, I am eternally grateful to a most dear friend of mine, who explained to me that the uniqueness of man does not lie merely in the fact that he is able to learn of his own choice, rather it lies more importantly in the fact that he is able to discern between right and wrong, a power that no other being on this earth possesses to such a large extent.
So long as man confers mere learning powers onto machines, no harm is done, for still man makes the decision as to what the machine may learn and what it may not. But should the discretionary powers be bequeathed to machines, then what? Where shall the human race go from there? Such are the questions that the human race shall have to live with for all eternity.
To some, the intellect is any day more superior to the senses, for what are the senses in comparison to the mind? They feel, they see, they hear, but they do not think. And for some, the knack of thought is more important than the ability to emote, the skill of sensation, and the art of feeling. But to quote Ralph J. Cudworth, the 15th century theologian and philosopher, “Sense is like a line which is the flux of a point running out from itself, but intellect, like a circle, keeps within itself.” Can there be a more eloquent yet simple expression, a more subtle speech that should so demonstrate the superiority of the senses over the mind? But, in no way do I wish to state that religion is superior to science, for the twain are brothers of the same seed, and within brethren, there is no one superior to the other, for brethren are born equal, equal halves of the seed. The seed here is the human race, and from its mind, and its senses have arisen the sciences and religion. Whenever the mind dominated our understanding of our world, we termed it as science, and whenever the senses dominated, it became religion. Different names for different viewpoints, yet the view remains the same.
It is remarkable that despite the apparent differences in the two, they are so very similar. True science and true religion can both never be achieved so long as there exists rigidity in the rules governing that concerned. God and science alike reserve their attentions for those who go beyond the rules, who dare to seek new heights, who dare to challenge what they perceive to be wrong. Why is then that we should insist on the separation of the religious mind from the scientific mind? Why should scientific temper be so highly valued as opposed to religious piety? For are not they sides of the same coin, expressions of devotion to the supreme Knowledge, be it science or God? Were not the greatest scientists such as Galileo Galilee, Isaac Newton, Nicolas Copernicus, Edward Hubble, C.V. Raman and Albert Einstein devout theologists? In the earlier days, there was no difference between a scientist and a theologian. Monasteries and temples have for countless millennia been the seat of learning, be it spiritual or scientific. In the medieval ages perhaps, a few black sheep in religion persecuted those whose ideas went against their beliefs. Can we not to blame the mind here, for “the eye sees only that what the mind comprehends”? In response to this, science left the folds of religion, and since has never re-entered into it. We do have to realise that history is the story of the victor, and today, science assumes such a role. But what hath brought about the brethren, shall it cause them to drift apart so? That will remain the existential question as to whether man, who created the two, shall now cause them to go so apart that one cannot survive so long as the other exists. The death of either is tragic, and will reduce our race and our world to an insentient one for sure.
I have but few experiences with science, and very few with what one could call “pure science”, but in my experiences with computer programming, and they remain but a drop in the ocean, I have come to realise that whatever I have learnt so far has to some extent connotations of Hindu and sometimes even sociology. I jest for sure, you say? But no, for we all see these signs, yet like horses with blinkers, we choose to look only at what we set out to do, and not at the environs in which we must attain our goals.
Consider this. The Hindu faith emphasises on the collection of good karma in one’s life, for the life to be deemed successful. The procurement of even a single moment of bad karma, or experiences that go against the laws of society, propels man back down to rebirth. But a life filled with experiences compliant with the laws of society is but a gateway to enlightenment, to perpetual moksha. Now compare this with a C or C++ program. There exist laws of programming that define the rights and wrongs that may arise when writing a program.
Should we go against these laws, we encounter erroneous code when compiling and we are compelled to debug the program from start. But if we always maintain conformity with the laws, our program runs without a hitch, and to say the least, we need never even look at the program code again, a sort of programming moksha. Again, all religions insist on the duality of faith, the existence of good and evil in the same world. Compare this with the language of the conventional computer. The basis of all communication with the computer is the binary system, the dual system, where 0 stands for “inactive” or “false”, and 1 stands for “active” or “truth”. To see such similarities between programming and religious faith may seem naive, but as said before, the pursuit of knowledge is important, not the source of the knowledge.
Often, I would think that the human race is like a couple of adaptive machines. Adaptive machines, you ask what are these? Well, I am not sure whether such a term already exists, but in my mind, these machines are those who are not instructed as to what situations they may possibly encounter in their lifecycle, nor are they told what they may do when such situations arise. These machines are expected to experience, learn and adapt to these situations, and should they ever come across the same situation again, act according to what they have experienced before. It is clear to even the lay mind that the machines of our day, such as the computer, the telephone, etc. are very much non-adaptive machines, for they need to be told everything. In this very significant fact lies the reason why the human race is superior to machines. I wouldn’t say that we are superior to animals, because they too have the power to adapt, just their ability to retain these experiences may seem limited as compared to us.
In this context, whenever I read of someone researching in the field of AI (Artificial Intelligence to the uninitiated), I would be confused. Is man so noble a creature to bestow a power that makes him so unique, the power to learn of one’s own volition, upon insentient machines? For when such powers be resident in the metallic hearts of robots and machines, what would the uniqueness of the human race, and why would the earth feel the need to retain them? These questions troubled me, and still do, though not to such an extent. For the reduction of my doubts, I am eternally grateful to a most dear friend of mine, who explained to me that the uniqueness of man does not lie merely in the fact that he is able to learn of his own choice, rather it lies more importantly in the fact that he is able to discern between right and wrong, a power that no other being on this earth possesses to such a large extent.
So long as man confers mere learning powers onto machines, no harm is done, for still man makes the decision as to what the machine may learn and what it may not. But should the discretionary powers be bequeathed to machines, then what? Where shall the human race go from there? Such are the questions that the human race shall have to live with for all eternity.
No comments:
Post a Comment