Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 04:40 AM Sep 2014

What Robot Theology Can Tell Us About Ourselves

http://religiondispatches.org/automata/

BY MICHAEL SCHULSON SEPTEMBER 1, 2014




There are places you never expect to be in life. For me, this was certainly one of them: in a conference room in suburban Charlotte on the campus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, with an enormous old Bible on a side table, shelves of Great Books lining the walls, and, on the conference table itself, a 23-inch-tall robot doing yoga.

Meet the Digitally Advanced Viritual Intelligence Device, a NAO (now) robot known as “D.A.V.I.D.”

Weighing at a little over 11 pounds and costing $16,000 (the seminary was given a discount from Aldebaran, NAO’s French manufacturer, and a donor covered the cost), D.A.V.I.D. evokes a certain sculpture by Michelangelo—human artifice reaching for a kind of material perfection.

Its eyes flicker purple and green. It can recognize faces, respond to vocal cues, read emails out loud, play MP3 files, and trace a sound to its source with a swivel of its football-shaped head. Tiny motors drive the flexion of its joints. Download a certain program, and the robot will begin to play soothing New Age music as it stretches toward the ceiling and then lowers itself, gradually but with surprising grace, into a perfect downward dog.

more at link
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What Robot Theology Can Tell Us About Ourselves (Original Post) cbayer Sep 2014 OP
"football-shaped head?" xfundy Sep 2014 #1
I love Stewie and would want a robot who looked just like him! cbayer Sep 2014 #5
The theology part of both referenced movies escapes me. edgineered Sep 2014 #2
That bothered me in Watchmen too. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #3
Looks like I'll have to watch it edgineered Sep 2014 #9
I agree that it is not that clear, but my sense is that these movies cbayer Sep 2014 #6
I think our species is in for a gut check the first time that happens. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #7
I honestly don't think it will ever happen. cbayer Sep 2014 #8
Hah, the synopsis of that book sounds great. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #14
Let me know when you read The Swarm. cbayer Sep 2014 #15
It may have already happened. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #12
Entirely possible. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #13
Being here just for the duration of lunch at this time, edgineered Sep 2014 #10
That is one take on it, but I felt that Samantha and her ilk cbayer Sep 2014 #11
This author is a theist or an atheist? edgineered Sep 2014 #16
What mind-boggling arrogance. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #4

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
2. The theology part of both referenced movies escapes me.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 06:51 AM
Sep 2014

In the movie "Her", Theodore could not understand or accept that Samantha could be in love with many others, he couldn't see beyond himself. In Blade Runner the replicants objectives were also toward themselves, they were not satisfied with having a four year lifespan.

Of course being an atheist I would be blind to the theology of either. I read the linked article, but I still don't get it. Can you explain it in better terms?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
3. That bothered me in Watchmen too.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 10:49 AM
Sep 2014

Silk Spectre II wanted Dr. Manhattan to be there, with her, in a singular timeline, as a singular being, when she found he was multi-tasking. She only considered her own nature, and her own needs, without a thought at all to Dr. Manhattan's nature; not limited to a singular consciousness/time reference.

It was actually a depressing thought. Same problem as the character Samantha/Her. Pretty sure, that as a species, if we ever encounter other self-aware intelligent life, we're going to be dicks to them.



edgineered

(2,101 posts)
9. Looks like I'll have to watch it
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:23 PM
Sep 2014

It is hard understanding those who perceive things from their own perspective only.

For the characters we're talking about - a god cannot be greater or less than what they believe.

Their ability to accept a god by someone else's creation just can't happen. Unable to see beyond oneself totally eliminates being able to envision a superior being that others are expected to believe in.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. I agree that it is not that clear, but my sense is that these movies
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 11:41 AM
Sep 2014

présent AI in a way that they seem to have crossed a threshold from pure machine to something else, something that may have a soul. When they begin to take on the attributes that we ordinarily associate only with humans, one wonders if there might be some higher power or supernatural force at work.

Of course, you may not wonder that, but I think that's where the theological connection occurs.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
7. I think our species is in for a gut check the first time that happens.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 11:59 AM
Sep 2014

Already we are seeing ample evidence other species exhibit the same higher-thinking, self-awareness that we will soon see in machines. (None of the sci-fi depictions yet have actually crossed that thinking threshold, let alone uncanny valley to mimicking humans in real life)

I think we're going to look back on what we've been doing to certain advanced non-human species as something akin to human slavery and genocide. Thinking machines that have characteristics you summed up with the shorthand of 'soul' (which appears to just mean capacity/complexity in this case) are going to be a window into gauging that, and the morality of how we have been treating said species.

And it's not just limited to vertebrates.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
8. I honestly don't think it will ever happen.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:05 PM
Sep 2014

It's the stuff of science fiction, imo. While I think we will discover more and more about the cognitive capacities of other species, I don't think there is any there there when it comes to AI.

I agree with you about the way we treat other animals. The gap between us and them is not nearly as wide as some would have us believe.

If you are interested in the subject, I recommend the book "The Swarm".

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
14. Hah, the synopsis of that book sounds great.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 02:03 PM
Sep 2014

I'll definitely pick it up.


I suspect that not only is a self-aware, indistinguishable from humanity artificial intelligence is possible, but it will prove one more cornerstone in the pile of evidence that a supernatural creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, the rise of life, and consequently the rise of self-aware consciousness.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. Let me know when you read The Swarm.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 02:19 PM
Sep 2014

Would love to discuss it with you.

We will have to disagree on the possibility of a self-aware AI.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
12. It may have already happened.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 01:55 PM
Sep 2014

We've been interconnecting huge databases, self learning algorithms, and a massive array of sensory input devices at a phenomenal (pun intended) rate, and the rate is increasing. There will soon be something like 50 billion "internet of things" devices collecting sensory data and providing that data to various other interconnected computing units. If experience is fundamental and if consciousness emerges from sufficient complexity and experience, as it seems it does, "the internet" might very well already be a form of consciousness.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
13. Entirely possible.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 01:59 PM
Sep 2014

If it hasn't happened yet, I suspect it will in my lifetime.

We may not enjoy the results.

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
10. Being here just for the duration of lunch at this time,
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:34 PM
Sep 2014

so excuse for now a short reply. I would like to discuss the soul of the machine now. Like in the first movie, "Her", the soul part of the machine was actually the feelings and attitudes of the machines user, Theodore. The machine, Samantha, learned from not only Theodore's actions, etc, but from the activities of all others with whom it interacted. They too, put their own version of a soul into the machine, with the resultant soul being something that none of its creators wanted. Samantha, if possessed with a soul, would have a soul that was the composite of many souls, maybe becoming god-like?

running short on time

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
11. That is one take on it, but I felt that Samantha and her ilk
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:39 PM
Sep 2014

had moved beyond what they could learn from humans, that they had evolved into something quite distinct.

Clearly she had feelings of some sort, and those feelings were quite independent of the humans with whom she interacted.

While I do not believe that a piece of machinery will ever actually do that, I think that is where one might insert the notion of a soul.

The idea that that in and of itself is god-like is a very interesting one.

Now get back to work!!

edgineered

(2,101 posts)
16. This author is a theist or an atheist?
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 07:45 PM
Sep 2014

In thinking about this statement:

In this role, D.A.V.I.D. has a lot in common with Samantha, the digital protagonist of Her, or the androids at the heart of Blade Runner. All are constructs intended to entertain, even as they provoke us to think critically about the tools we use—and to link that reflection to the broader ways, religious and not, in which we think about the world.


Is his saying that
All are constructs intended to entertain
not the opposite of him saying that his machine is a tool? Then he contemplates if using AI is similar to religion. Maybe I am not taking small enough steps to convey my train of thought, which leads me to question the strength of his faith. Interesting also are the two movies he chose, as stated earlier both dealt more with examining ourselves and not a mysterious higher being, but a higher being that we ourselves create.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
4. What mind-boggling arrogance.
Mon Sep 15, 2014, 10:59 AM
Sep 2014

"In a technical sense, too, D.A.V.I.D.’s lineage goes straight back to the church."

That's bullshit right there. Pure, unmitigated bullshit. There are ancient European automata that pre-date the Gregorian calendar, and indeed, even the catholic church itself. Why does this kind of article always have a MASSIVE BLIND SPOT TO ASIA/ORIENT? At the same time it discusses an Asian designed and built automata, it attributes the 'lineage' of that device to 16th century European churches? What a crock. Let's ignore non-church ancient European automata (Greece) and consider the actual lineage of D.A.V.I.D. In the 5th century BC one could find flying automata in China, Japan's neighbor. A THOUSAND YEARS before that automated 'monk' puppet.

I find it utterly vile that this author is attempting to essentially steal and falsely attribute the technological heritage of many other nations. Technological advancement is an element of social identity, and therefore ethnicity.

Next we'll hear that gunpowder has a lineage that 'goes straight back to the church'.

Absolutely vile cultural theft.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»What Robot Theology Can T...