Love and Robots

[Elessar]

This is, at its heart, a scientific question - can an artificial life form obtain all of the observable mental faculties of a human being? The answer has been for all intents and purposes resoundingly stated by the computer science community in the last 20 years as YES, and we are close. But not quite there yet.

I think the biggest hangup in this question is the fact that the idea of replicating the spark of life treads into the territory of what many have often considered the responsibility of metaphysics and religions - this swirling amorphic mass of unquantifiables and qualitative concepts, where idea of 'the soul' in a not-specifically-religious but a more generally spiritual way, provides the explanation for why computers can crunch numbers but not create Art.

In my opinion, those higher brain functions like emotional maturity that's real and not pre-programmed, like love and hatred and wonder and despair, and the higher abilities like creativity and intelligence - are not categorically different from the things computers have been able to do for quite some time like logic and analysis - they're just more complex. Require more power, more interconnectedness.

At one time, 'genius' was defined as a level of interconnectedness among the areas of the brain that achieves a plateau of ability to connect disparate ideas and arguments on a level that others simply can't comprehend. Some believe that consciousness and self awareness come to pass as the result of similarly interconnected neuronal capacities to form a calculating machine with self awareness.

It treads on some areas that religion has previously held dominion, but I think that eventually, just as it became clear that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, the galaxy or even the solar system, it will become clear that we do not possess some kind of ethereal, unquantifiable idea that makes us alive. That we're not irreplacable. That sentience is creatable.

Sorry if I blaspheme.

[JadziaKathryn]

Well, suppose for a moment that sentience is, in fact, creatable. (This I highly doubt, but just for the sake of argument let's suppose.) Does having the capability to create sentient life mean that we should? What gives scientists in a lab the authority and the right to do such a thing? To create something new and unknown - something that could go terribly wrong? What if they are creating this thing and yet, by that very act, condemning it to a life of servitude? It's one thing to come up with a robot that vacuums, but one that can think and feel is another story altogether.

And would they be immortal? Do we dare get into that?

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

For the sake of argument, let's assume there are sentient artificial lifeforms (like the robots or holograms of Trek lore), and how that could be viewed from a theologian's point of view. While I'm not one, couldn't the argument be made that at the moment of said lifeforms conception, a soul would be bestowed upon him/her/it, even if it was a human that was directly responsible for it?

[Linda]

Hey great minds run in the same direction, KTR! Just as I was submitting my post, yours appeared with "at least one new post has been made to this topic. You may wish to review your post in light of this." Okay, but I only changed my post by adding this intro paragraph.

Well, I believe if a machine can become sentient, i.e., have self knowledge and perhaps develop emotions, then it can have a soul. It can evolve into a being with a soul which I feel would have to be in the divine plan if sentience actually occurred.

But there are robots (Gort) and androids (Data). I could definitely see possibilities with Data but not Gort. Well, heck, Gort had no chance standing next to his very attractive, tall, well spoken, traveling companion Klaatu, with that enigmatic smile.
And come to think of it, Data would have no chance with me if Klaatu was an option!

[Distracted]

Has anyone seen/read The Bicentennial Man? It's a great movie starring Robin Williams about this very subject, based on a novella by Isaac Asimov.

WARNING! SPOILERS! Don't click the link if you haven't read the book or seen the movie and you want to. There's a very detailed plot summary.

[Asso]

I have read the novella and seen the movie.
And they fortify my thought.
We can think a Robot (or something similar) is alive, only if it becomes "He" or "She".

[JadziaKathryn]

For the sake of argument, let's assume there are sentient artificial lifeforms (like the robots or holograms of Trek lore), and how that could be viewed from a theologian's point of view. While I'm not one, couldn't the argument be made that at the moment of said lifeforms conception, a soul would be bestowed upon him/her/it, even if it was a human that was directly responsible for it?

You can make any argument you want. I, however, disagree. Further, I have some biblical evidence to support my theory. There's the bit about the Tower of Babel. Humans were trying to create a tall tower and the key line in that story is the builders saying "Let us make a name for ourselves." What they were doing was an attempt to take glory for themselves that was rightfully God's. Aha! That's exactly what creating sentient robots would be doing, you see. So if God stopped the building of the Tower of Babel by introducing different languages, I don't think He's going to encourage building sentient robots or give them souls. Not in the least.

[evcake]

A relationship with a robot wouldn't neccessarily be a romantic one...what if one were your nanny, teacher, housekeeper, executive assistant, personal shopper, ect.

On the other hand:

The robot detective Daneel
Has oft been mistaken for real
A lass from Aurora
Who offered her flora
Learned all about case-harded steel

I forget where I ran across that...

[Elessar]

Well, suppose for a moment that sentience is, in fact, creatable. (This I highly doubt, but just for the sake of argument let's suppose.) Does having the capability to create sentient life mean that we should? What gives scientists in a lab the authority and the right to do such a thing? To create something new and unknown - something that could go terribly wrong? What if they are creating this thing and yet, by that very act, condemning it to a life of servitude? It's one thing to come up with a robot that vacuums, but one that can think and feel is another story altogether.

And would they be immortal? Do we dare get into that?

That is an entirely different question. But I wasn't implying that the fact that it's doable means it should be done with impunity. Nobody ever said that about any scientific achievement. At least no scientist with any ethics.

All of science is an exercise in barely controlled excursions into the unknown, that's its very definition. It's just like the reason they say they sent out a manned starship Enterprise and not a probe. They didn't go out there to collect data the safe way, they went out there to experience it, to push the envelope. It's the Vulcans' style to assemble a board of inquiry and debate it for 50 years... but not ours.

Divorcing all of these things from their religious controversy - it is a bit like the other big areas of exploration in science today -- in the human genome project, stem cell research, the LHC collider at CERN, etc. Some naysayers are saying that we have no business building the LHC because we "don't know what will happen", and taken out of context that sounds horrifying, but the truth is that physicists don't know exactly what will happen, but they know with 99.99999999999999% certainty that it won't destroy the Universe. But they don't know for sure. And that little bit of uncertainty is the inherent uncertainty in the search for knowledge. Another thing is that physicists say it will replicate conditions just quadrillionths of a second after the moment of Creation and that prompts the religious groups to say we have no business doing that. In 1994 the Pope told Steven Hawking that mankind had no business studying the origins of the Universe... and this idea of trying to learn and understand and master the origin of life is basically the same as trying to create it. But nobody fusses over that because it's a little less clear that it's the same thing, but it is.

The same was true about splitting the atom and it caused devastation but it also gave rise to nuclear power, cancer treatment, and microwave dinners. Every scientific Pandora's Box is going to have possible negative applications. The discovery of germs improved livespans worldwide by decades - but what if it wasn't our place to do that? We grew up as a species, surrounded by germs, by viruses, by bacteria. That was our natural habitat and it kept us in check - to a lifespan of about 35 years. Only by killing it off, by modifying our environment significantly, and by modifying the way babies are born significantly, have we begun living 70 and 80 years.

I think a person could ask the equally valid question based on the argument that it's not our place to create life, 'What right had we to extend our lives?'

[Elessar]

For the sake of argument, let's assume there are sentient artificial lifeforms (like the robots or holograms of Trek lore), and how that could be viewed from a theologian's point of view. While I'm not one, couldn't the argument be made that at the moment of said lifeforms conception, a soul would be bestowed upon him/her/it, even if it was a human that was directly responsible for it?

You can make any argument you want. I, however, disagree. Further, I have some biblical evidence to support my theory. There's the bit about the Tower of Babel. Humans were trying to create a tall tower and the key line in that story is the builders saying "Let us make a name for ourselves." What they were doing was an attempt to take glory for themselves that was rightfully God's. Aha! That's exactly what creating sentient robots would be doing, you see. So if God stopped the building of the Tower of Babel by introducing different languages, I don't think He's going to encourage building sentient robots or give them souls. Not in the least.

But that isn't evidence, because evidence has to be objective. I'm not suggesting that it is false, because I'd be telling you your religion is wrong, and I'm not doing that, not at all. But I am saying it's not objective. If I showed you a piece of parchment and I told you it was from 1200 AD, and it said that Ponce de Leon found the fountain of youth, it may ACTUALLY be from 1200 AD, but the fact that I told you so doesn't make it true. If I have 15 people look at it and some say it's from 1200 AD, some say it's a few days old, some say it's from 800 AD, etc. And that's the case with stories in the bible... their strict literal meaning and even chronological origin aren't unanimously agreed upon by religiously unbiased archeaologists and even by religions scholars.

The question of whether we should is one I don't know if we will actually end up answering before it just happens. Right now our scientific community is like a 16 yr old birthday party with 8 guys, 8 girls, some great mixed tapes, no parents, and a keg. It's the first time the 'rents have been away, there's inhibition-drowning cups to be had, and everybody's just about to cut loose. Before anyone can stop to think about whether they SHOULD have sex, it's gonna happen. Even if the music they're listening to is chock full of PSA announcements about abstinence and safe sex. The atmosphere is just gonna win over. And we're high on our accomplishments and abilities right now. Too high to think clearly, maybe.

In the end, knowledge will always be explored, in my opinion. Regardless of whether it should or should not be - it will be, like a law of Nature. The thought out decisions about whether it's right or wrong to pursue a given course will always happen primarily post facto and history will make its judgements. There just isn't any all-encompassing body of people to sit down and be like "Is this right?" such that everyone or even any appreciable fraction of people will agree with their decision. Thus far anyway, this is how it's always worked.

[JadziaKathryn]

Well, I used "biblical evidence" to mean, if you believe the Bible is true, there's evidence. I'm well aware that not everyone believes the Bible is true.

I've never been to a keg party, but suppose that keg party analogy is accurate (similar experience much, Elessar? ). There are some people who will always think it (whatever 'it' is) worth the risk in the name of knowledge or advancement or something. Then there are people like me who get horrified from time to time. But, even if you had a governing board that spanned the whole planet (not that I actually believe that's possible, but anyway), there would be people sneaking under the radar doing what they wanted anyway. If they can't find anywhere else, they'll bribe some third-world dictator to look the other way. And that, probably, is the worst case scenario of all: unrestrained mad scientists. *shudder*

[Asso]

Human pathway is unknown, with a great deal of branches.
Thinking one can stop Humanity from trying to explore these branches, it's mere illusion, even if the doing this exploration can appear a wrong thing.
Just my little thought.

[Linda]

I like what Elessar has said on this subject. It is the scientific view. Although I have strong spiritual leanings, I think the way to discover the truth about the universe is through science. And like John Cyrus, a Unitarian minister in the church I once belonged to, said: "May the truth which sets us free, make us glad also".

[Alelou]

I like the Jung quote: Bidden or unbidden, God is with us. It's a lazy way of thinking about God, but it makes me happy.

I don't see any conflict between science and faith even if they are at two opposite ends of the same continuum of how we make sense of the universe. We can have both methods at once. The problem comes when we believe we can only have one by destroying or ignoring the other.

[Asso]

True, but it's difficult to find the balance.