Slashdot Mirror
Apocalypse NAO: College Studies the Theological Ramifications of Robotics
malachiorion writes "Have you heard the one about the Christian college in North Carolina that bought a humanoid robot, to figure out whether or not bots are going to charm us into damnation (dimming or cutting our spiritual connection to God)? The robot itself is pretty boring, but the reasoning behind its purchase—a religious twist on the standard robo-phobia—is fascinating. From the article: '“When the time comes for including or incorporating humanoid robots into society, the prospect of a knee-jerk kind of reaction from the religious community is fairly likely, unless there’s some dialogue that starts happening, and we start examining the issue more closely,” says Kevin Staley, an associate professor of theology at SES. Staley pushed for the purchase of the bot, and plans to use it for courses at the college, as well as in presentations around the country. The specific reaction Staley is worried about is a more extreme version of the standard, secular creep factor associated with many robots. “From a religious perspective, it could be more along the lines of seeing human beings as made in God’s image,” says Staley. “And now that we’re relating to a humanoid robot, possibly perceiving it as evil, because of its attempt to mimic something that ought not to be mimicked.”'"
This is non-news for nerds, stuff that does not matter, at all.
Religious people say and do irrational, stupid, arbitrary stuff all the time. Discussing robots "theologically" is just another boring instance of this.
Because they have no free will nor do they suffer from original sin.
Alternate response: robots don't dim or sever our connection to god because we have no connection to god because god doesn't exist.
To make sure that the first robot that walks on water
is made to run on water.
Highly recommended to anyone interested in this general area...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...
It's a well made film with good writing about a robot who achieves enlightenment and how humans react (both positively and negatively) to the fact that a robot has done so.
If a robot can think sufficiently finely, it will be possible for it to think it has a soul and is saved or will be reincarnated or it meets the criteria for whatever other religions out there exist that do not explicitly prohibit members who do not meet certain historical standards.
I think that's at least a hundred years off.
Hopefully robots will not create or join a religion which has a failure of friendliness.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
For many centuries, Christianity was OK with real slavery, as long as the slaves were a different race.
The word robot means slave in Czech (I think)
Anyway only a very small number of robots look as humanoid as C3PO, the "can't tell robots from humans" world as described by Asimov, Dick and others is a long way off, if ever
Some of the more primitive churches would have complete mental breakdowns over good looking robots buily for sexual pleasure. Robots that were highly skilled at delivering abortions might be a hoot. The institution of marriage and dating might crumble as well. And in many parts of the world having large numbers of children is the only means of avoiding starvation when in one's senior years would no longer be popular if robots could take care of seniors in every way.
If one has a sense of humour it should all be fun to watch. I can see a new civil rights movement when equality of robot ownership becomes the core issue. Can one million robots march on Washington?
I think the evaluation of Asimov's 3 Laws would be a worth while major. God help us all.
The summary puts me in mind of Tolkien's essay How Like a Leaf (and the companion short story "Leaf by Niggle"), wherein he explored the act of "subcreation" (i.e. creating fiction, whether literary, imaginary, visual, etc.) as part of what "in god's image" means: acting in a smaller capacity as a creator was for Tolkien inseparable from his spiritual beliefs as a christian trying to live in the image of god. Caveats: I am not christian, nor am I asserting that "in god's image" is universal among deistic religions, or that it does not have other interpretations, yadda yadda yadda...
slave to student loans and one of the few ways out is to get into a good prison and keep going back in after your time is up.
>God created humans in His image AND SET THEM FREE
FFS, there is no God. You are spouting pure bullshit. Stop it and grow up.
Says you. But since there's not enough evidence to make a conclusive assertion either way, coupled with the fact that here in America people are free to believe whatever they want (regardless of how ridiculous YOU might find it)...
Stop it and grow up, indeed.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Will we need an basic income?
An OT cap so you stop settings where jack is working 60-80+ hour weeks (doing the job of 2-3 people) and bob is not working at all?
Setting full time to 20-32 hours a week?
An Robotic tax?
Exactly like angels. Lucifer only fell because he became afflicted with free will.
It's not a 'either way' thing. Your construction of God is extremely unlikely.
Amazing! You can read minds? That must be the case, as I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was. I was merely pointing out that other people are welcome to hold opinions and beliefs you disagree with, and that to call them "bullshit" even though you have absolutely zero evidence to back your assertion (real scientific of you, BTW) is childish and an example of incorrect reasoning.
That the universe is as we see it is far more likely.
Yea, that must be why physicists always agree on everything, and never update their models, huh? Yup, the entire universe and the mechanics behind it exist only as we perceive and understand them today, and that will never change. Yup yup.
Hanging onto wrong and worse, promoting it as the truth is evil.
I agree, so if you would please stop speaking in absolutes as if you have evidence to back your position, when you actually have nothing but your own preconceived notions, that would be fantastic. Glad you've seen the light, so to speak.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Exactly like angels. Lucifer only fell because he became afflicted with free will.
I thought it was less because he was "afflicted with free will," and more "he used his free will to lead an insurrection against God."
Of course, it's been a minute since I actually read that part of the Christian tome, so I could very well be mistaken.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Listen meatsack. One of us was born fallen and concupiscent, marred by the heritable-by-some-mechanism-never-fully-elucidated sin that you humans are worried about. The other was manufactured with nothing but incidental engineering defects. Be a trifle more judicious about who you call 'evil', OK? We don't even require salvation, we've got incremental backups!
What, no silicone heaven? Preposterous! I mean, where would all the calculators go?
That's not how it works. Sorry. You seem to have an assertions the God Exists. Show the evidence.
You do know that you can't prove a negative? It's on YOU to prove it.
The logical default position is there is no God.
Now, if you have actual evidences, I would be interested in reading it.
Sadly yes, People in America are free to believe and shove their belief down other peoples throat without evidence,counter to evidence, and without actual information. which would be fine except they use the ignorance and stupidity to force policy on others. Hence, taking away from people with actual facts and science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So other than the self-contradictory nature of your post, and other than the fact that I am not shilling for religion, there is also the fact that there is a long tradition of ascribing free will to Lucifer, going back to Origen of Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Please, think before you post, and then think again, and then don't post next time.
As a fairly religious person, I don't see any theological basis to fear robots. It's not like you're actually creating new life or anything. It's just another machine.
"Because they have no free will " For one, free will is ill defined. But most version of it are either non existent for human , being all molecular biology and turtle all the way down, or other definition pretty much applicable to robot too.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
IT's ok, most Christians have no clue about that part of the Bible either, nor do the know what antichrist means, and they think the the devil tempts men and walks among us even though the bible says otherwise.
It's surprising how little believer know about their own theology. I suspect this is intention because of they actually read the entire bible, they would stop believing.
So reciting the same set of verse over and over again and ignoring the rest keeps the cash flowing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."
A major theme of Frank Herbert's Dune was the revolt of man against machine, and how no artificial intelligence was to ever again be allowed.
Butlerian Jihad
Why wouldn't we expect those completely invested in the idea that we are the apex of life? Any threat to that is a threat to their dogma. They would be the first to flip out if intelligent life were to ever be found.
That was done. It was in a series of book know as 'the robot series' by Isaac Asimov
You should read them. Or not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is the act of making the robot evil is the question
You might as well ask whether the act of making a hammer is evil. Robots are tools and, like any tool, whether they act for good or evil depends on the intent of their user. Making a tool look like a human does not make a difference. Nobody classifies doll manufacturers as evil because they make toys that look like humans.
I know you're joking, but who said anything about studying the robots?
Sounds to me like they want to study how humans react to the robots. And it seems to me the field is wide open for research. For example what are the moral and ethical implications of humanoid slaves completely lacking in free will? We have some clues as to the moral damage owning other people can do to someone, if those risks are also exposed by owning a machine-slave onto which we project personhood it behooves us as a society to explore that *before* rolling them out en mass.
Meanwhile such slippery things as morality don't seem to get a whole lot of play in secular academic circles. Plenty of research into how to get people to project personhood onto a machine, but not on the societal implications of doing so. Religion on the other hand makes the societal implications of things it's stock in trade, and until the secular world starts asking the right questions, I for one am glad *somebody* is at least paying attention. Sure, their findings may well be wrapped in the language of fire and brimstone, but if they discover some legitimate disturbing (or heartening) trends then I will honor their contribution to humanity, even while politely declining to join their congregation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Assuming you strive to be a wise man, and if you are indeed intellectually honest, why do you stack fallacy upon fallacy in your post? Just at a glance I spot several non sequiturs, undistributed thirds, an ad hominem, false equivocation, and implicit acceptance of appeals to authority. And that's just skimming. Do you understand how hard you make it for yourself to be taken seriously? If you want to tell people about what is true and what is false, you have to follow the rules that allow you to determine what is true and false. Even God has to obey the laws of logic, so you should probably follow his example.
Especially if "in the image of God" has more to do with spirituality/place in the universe than say, the actual visual photons?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Better yet, a comparison of Asimov's 3 Laws and Christ's two greatest commandments (is rule 3 really necessary? Given recent developments in Switzerland and Belgium, perhaps it is).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And why is yours better than another's?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mine. Stupid spontaneous /. logout.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
I'd like to see them run whatever experiments with two otherwise identical robots -- one with, and one without a head/face.
>"as we see it" may just be a local maximum reversal of entropy that is entirely overwhelmed by the chaos elsewhere in the universe.
But that's exactly what we see.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
...and they eat people's bibles for fuel. Luckily, there's Old Glory Insurance.
(WARNING: those denying the existence of evil robots may be evil robots themselves)
Old Glory Insurance. For when the soulless metal ones come for YOU.
And thus, if you believe there is no God, there is absolutely no reason to do *science* as such, because there's no guarantee that what you observe today will occur tomorrow. There is no way to make any sense out of the chaos, might as well just sit under your Bodhi tree and contemplate your navel for all the good your science based on chaos can do.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Staley. “And now that we’re relating to a humanoid robot, possibly perceiving it as evil, because of its attempt to mimic something that ought not to be mimicked.”'"
Next time I die I will ask if there is parallels between god-humans (if exists) and humans-robots.
Seems like morality should be universal. If God may create a human in it's image, then I say - "Ball OUT, people, no need to pause."
Don't some of these religious people have perspective, or logic training - at least?
Science is pretty darned useful actually. Guarantees are few, but the overwhelming evidence of serial correlation in the world about us suggests that there's an objective reality outside our heads and it's worth looking at to see how it works.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Science is useful- yes. Because of predictability. And that predictability, comes from an ordered and ordained universe, at least on the macro level.
Science is actually full of guarantees about an objective reality, and how that reality works- and the ability to have an objective reality.
Atheism, on the other hand, especially of the modern varieties based on unproven, untestable, and unobservable quantum mechanics, is not science. Chaos and randomness have no predictive capability.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
While a 2d6 roll MIGHT be a "12" or a "2", it would be unwise to bet better than 1:6 odds against a "7".
Randomness has great predictive ability. Many aspects of your life (traffic, life insurance, food safety, politics) are better understood and used in a "random" context.
And while the chair I'm sitting on may vaporize in two seconds- the VERY great probability is that it will remain intact. So I'm going to risk sitting on it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
New Atheism requires a non-deterministic universe. Go read "The God Delusion", it's a primary proof against God.
As for the Greeks- they killed atheists. That's why Socrates had to drink hemlock.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yeah, but that's not science. It isn't prediction based on past observation. It's little better than guessing.
Especially when you have insufficient data for the other side of the dice- which may be a 7, but might be C.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I don't get it. Why should robots have any more theological ramifications than any other tool? And if you are created in God's image, wouldn't you also want to create beings in your own image? I mean, if he's any kind of artist at all...
Free Martian Whores!
Been there. Done that. The book is on my shelf.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was
I didn't mention what my construction of Santa Claus was. Do you still believe in that?
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Was it an insurrection? Can you claim that when God hadn't invented democracy yet?
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Maybe they should teach the sort of history that used to be general knowledge in that Christian College.
Just what IS his construction of God? Your universe is far from seen yet, far from explained and far from being exempted from explanation by creationists.( No , not some Okie with a Schofield Reference Bible, or some drivelist who owns a museum, how about a Scientist? http://www.geraldschroeder.com... , check his articles link for more in-depth explanations.)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Let's face it, wrong question. While one religious guy is wondering about humanoid robots and our link with god, at least half the species is going to be pondering, "Yeah, but can I f!@# it?"
Did TechyImmigrant really read your mind? You seem to be saying that's the case, and I have no reason to believe it isn't the case.
Actually, TechyImmigrant is right, assuming that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the likeliest explanation.
Either:
The universe is amazing.
or:
The universe is amazing AND there's an invisible, intelligent, inexplicable entity making it amazing, for inexplicable reasons.
or:
The universe is amazing AND there's an invisible, intelligent entity making it amazing, AND there are several contentious sets of rules & rituals you have to follow, one of which must totally be the right set of rules, because the people who say so SAY SO.
I read that too. I wouldn't honor it with a place on my shelf. It's ... not that great. It's a mix of bad philosophy and simple-minded theology written by a guy who, quite clearly, has little to no understanding of either.
The only purpose that collection of mad scribblings serves, as far as I can see, is to extract money from poorly educated atheists of below-average intelligence.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Isn't it funny how people who makes lists of "logical fallacies" never take the time to point them out?
I don't blame them. They'd look very foolish if they tried! See, it turns out that those folks usually have no formal training in logic and are just repeating nonsense they read on a blog.
To quote ... er ... you: "Do you understand how hard you make it for yourself to be taken seriously? If you want to tell people about what is true and what is false, you have to follow the rules that allow you to determine what is true and false."
So, go ahead. Give it a go. I'll wait.
Required reading for internet skeptics
It does indeed imply that math is not a science, but I don't see that as a problem, because despite not being a science mathematics can still make claims that are justifiably true. Mathematics has a system built in to accurately distinguish true from false, and it's not comparison of hypotheses to reality (...depending on what kind of philosophy of mathematics you subscribe to, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms), but formal logic. That's what it derives its justification from: it's all deduction*. Sciences, on the other hand, derive their justification from deduction, induction, and abduction (inference to the best explanation, not taking family members of scientists hostage).
*'proof by induction', despite its name, still proceeds by deduction.
Non sequitur: "Why should I prove anything to you? I have no more obligation to prove God exists than you have to prove he doesn't. Burden of proof is an artificial convention." None of this follows, and if each line is to be taken as a conclusion they further premises to back them up.
Appeal to majority: " A billion people would say the same thing about God,"
False equivalency: "Or is this the best you can lamely say: "I've seen it and felt it." A billion people would say the same thing about God, but for some reason their testimony and experience is invalid. " also implicitly denies the existence of intersubjectivity, entailing solipsism.
Non sequitur: "Does his blindness mean that the sun doesn't exist, because he can't prove it?"
Loaded question: "Does his blindness mean that the sun doesn't exist, because he can't prove it?" blind men can indeed confirm or corroborate that the sun exists.
Ad hominem: " If you limit yourself to the physically empirical, then you function on the level of a stupid brutish animal."
Non sequitur: "but contemplation of higher things is noble and it is your birthright."
Ad hominem: "Or is this the best you can lamely say: "I've seen it and felt it.""
Acceptance of appeals to authority: "Maybe you are one of very few who have actually done science on the sun. Now should we listen, because you are an expert and have devoted your life to uncovering this mystery? Yet you will not listen to those who are experts on the question of God."
Please don't bother responding to this post. I only posted for people who are not you, willing to learn but possibly impressed by your idiocy and snide insinuations. I won't be doing so again.
See how ridiculous you look? From top to bottom: 1) Not a non sequitur. 2) Not in context. 3) Not even wrong. (This post would get very long if I tried to explain why just the second half of that is wrong, let alone all of it.) 4) Not a non sequitur. 5) Not a logical fallacy. 6) Not an ad hominem. (Really. Look it up.) 7) Not a non sequitur (Do you even know what that term means?) 8) Not an ad hominem (Hint: it doesn't mean "insult") 9) Not in context.
Please don't bother responding to this post.
Yeah, someone might discover how laughably incompetent you truly are. I replied anyway, just because you put so much effort in to that silly nonsense. You earned a good shaming.
I can recommend a few textbooks for you, if you're actually interested in learning about logic. I suspect, however, that you're more interested in shouting "logical fallacy" incompetently on the internet to make yourself feel important.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I think he needs to explain that. I'm not in his head.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
There is no good theology. We already established that.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I never actually mentioned what "my construction of God" was
I didn't mention what my construction of Santa Claus was. Do you still believe in that?
You missed my point. Why?
My guess is, too busy being pissed that someone would have the gall to "defend" an institution you personally have chosen to "be against."
For clarification, I have no problem with people choosing to follow atheism or theism - what I take issue with is the claims of absolute certainty that a lot of people, atheist and theist alike, seem to have in regards to topics in which there can be no absolute certainty, such as the existence of an "overbeing," so to speak.
When someone like TechyImmigrant here says, "there is no God," they are making the exact same bullshit, unprovable point as the people they're trying to argue against - arguing a certainty when there can be none. It's wholly non-scientific, either way.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You do know that you can't prove a negative?
Yes.
I know that no matter how much someone else bellyaches, a person is going to believe what they choose to believe. I also know that being a dickhead to that person about their beliefs doesn't do anything except make them believe in X even harder, if for no reason other than to piss the aforementioned dickhead off.
Which is why the whole "is there a God" debate is pure idiocy, in my mind. His existence cannot be proven or disproven, so why waste energy arguing about it? Just believe what you want* and get on with it.
* "Believe what you want," not "shove your beliefs down everyone elses throats because "I KNOW I'M 'RIGHT' " And yes, that applies to theist and atheists alike.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Most "Christians" I've met have never actually read the Bible - rather, they listened to some man tell them what he believes the Bible says, and what he believes those words mean, and follow him rather than the person after whom their religion is named.
Which is a grand shame, IMO - If you take all the hocus-pocus out of the parables of Jesus Christ, it goes from being just another stupid religion based on untestable nonsense to an excellent set of moral guidelines all of humanity would profit from, if we followed en masse.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You're welcome to believe what you want; so is everyone else. Just as they have no right to shove their beliefs down your throat, you have no right to do the same to them. And, if something cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, why bother debating it at all? Just believe what you want and move on with your life, rather than waste energy being a dick to people who might not share your beliefs. Because by taking that route, you end up being no different than the people you're really bitching about - fundamentalists.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Don't be a stupid douche - the answer you seek is in the Christian Bible.
Now, whether or not you see that answer as a fairy tale, fable, parable, or factual account is up to you to decide for yourself.
Oh, and PS - "insurrection" is not a condition exclusive to democracies.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm saying perhaps humans need a 3rd law, since our instinct for self preservation seems to have gone haywire.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So, you could not judge his construction of God or determine likelyhood....
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I went with the standard Western Monotheistic model, since he said God, not gods or the godhead.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Still too tricky to pin down since that covers everything from Catholics to Messianic Christians, Jehovahs witnesses to Mormons. There really is no standard model as exemplified by the numerous sects. In fact, there are those outside sects with their own ideas as exemplified by the link I left you.
I think the standard model is a construct of the spiritually insecure and television to present commercial messages to the Agnostic.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
But they're all unsupported by evidence. So it doesn't matter.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The inverse is also unsupported by evidence as well.
Science doesnt have enough answers to make any definitive claims.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Why do you demand definitive claims rather than the evidentiary claims that science does make?
That's like criticizing a launderette for failing to perform medicine.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
A billion people saying the same thing about god is different because their testimony is not repeatable nor falsifiable. I can devise an experiment that measures ground temperature over a long (200+hour) period. I have the hypothesis that it will rise in temperature when that big bright thing comes up and fall in temperature when that big bright thing comes down. (I actually used to do things similar to this when I did thermal modelling.) When I review my results, I see my hypothesis confirmed (note, not proven) via my experiment.
I may notice peculiar results though, minor fluctuations in my data samples. Clearly, there is more than one influence on the temperature than just that big bright thing. I might look to cloud cover and wind speed/directions in my next experiment to see if those accurately correlate with my findings. But at least my experiment is falsifiable and repeatable (you can run the experiment yourself to confirm my results). If you run the experiment and get different results, we should get together and compare our notes to find the difference. (Perhaps you ran your experiment near a pole during time of the year where the sun doesn't shine. We might explain the difference by noting that even though both experiments ran for 200 hours, the sun never rose for your experiment, so the temperature didn't fluctuate.)
There is no way to falsify someone's claim to have felt God. Even if there was some measurable/observable effect (like a glow in the corner, a burning bush, a descending angel) it is not repeatable.
Now, something may come along that explains why my rocks warm up when the big bright thing comes up and cools down when the big bright thing goes away. Maybe. If it does, I will then try to devise an experiment that incorporates that - that falsifies the hypothesis that there is something else actually causing the temperature increase. Or maybe I'll find a reason why my methodology of using temperature as a measure of proof is not sufficient. That is science. Science challenges itself to model the universe as we know it as accurately as possible. A falsifiable and repeatable experiment that takes an established theory (like that the sun exists) and shows it to be false is not a bad thing for science, because now we have new evidence to incorporate into our theory, or are forced to completely reformulate it. Until it does, we just operate with what we have: the theories that have, as yet, not been shown false by experimentation.
You're correct that a wise man does not stubbornly wait to be convinced. He reviews the evidence and makes a conclusion. What a wise man does not do is wait to have it proven to him.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
- Albert Einstein
Because of incompleteness, lack of investigational criteria, the fluxing state of what physicists and archaeologists know from month to month, and obviously bias that will forever prevent THE METHOD from being more than a pipe dream or hollow claim.
Aspirin dispensers in launderettes may be a profitable idea. Been to one lately?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!