[Paleopsych] Boston Globe: The theological robot
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Mon Apr 11 22:10:03 UTC 2005
The theological robot
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/the_theological_robot?mode=PF
Are we made in the image of God? Are robots too? A theologian wants to
konw.
THE EXAMINED LIFE
The theological robot
By Joshua Glenn | February 6, 2005
WHILE VISITING MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab in the fall of 1995,
esteemed Harvard Divinity School professor Harvey Cox noticed that the
motor--driven eyes of Cog, a 7--foot--tall humanoid robot, were
tracking his every movement. So he reached out and shook the
creature's hand. ''There was a collective gasp from the Harvard
theologians and MIT scientists present,'' self--described robotics
theologian Anne Foerst recounts in her new book, ''God in the
Machine'' (Dutton). In her book, Foerst seeks to bridge the divide
between religion and AI research--by arguing that robots have much to
teach us about ourselves and our relationship with God. Foerst spoke
with me from St. Bonaventure University in upstate New York, where she
teaches theology and computer science.
IDEAS: You engineered the Cox--Cog meetup while working as a
theologian at MIT's AI Lab. Why would a robotics group invite you to
join their team?
FOERST: Back in 1993, when I met Rodney Brooks, the AI Lab's associate
director at the time, he'd broken with the traditional assumption
within AI that intelligence is merely a kind of software that can be
programmed into a machine. Rod's group had recently built Cog, a
machine that learned through physical embodiment and social
interaction, just like we humans do.... I wanted to ask [his team],
''What does it mean to be human? Are we made in the image of God? Can
a robot be human?'' He decided that my questions might prove helpful
to their work, and invited me aboard.
IDEAS: So did you decide whether or not robots can, in fact, be human?
FOERST: What I learned from the AI Lab's robots, which were designed
to trigger emotional and social responses, is that we can bond with
them. So although they can't be human--to be human, I think, means
needing to participate in the mutual process of telling stories that
make sense of the world and who we are--humanoid robots can still be
considered persons. Personhood simply means playing a role, if only a
passive one, in that mutual narrative process. Like babies, or
Alzheimer's patients, humanoid robots don't tell their own stories,
but they play a role in our lives so we include them in our narrative
structures. This suggests that perhaps we ought to think about
treating robots right.
IDEAS: And what does this have to do with God?
FOERST: We too often use narratives of exclusivity--based on skin
color, religion, language--to define the personhood of others. Yet the
author of Psalm 139 writes of God that ''You created me as a golem in
my mother's womb..../My frame was not hidden from you, when I was
being made.'' God built us, according to this ancient biblical
tradition, in much the same way that we now build emotional and social
robots. Yet despite knowing each of us so intimately, in all our
imperfection, God loves all of us. Thinking about humanoid robots can
possibly help us learn to tell inclusive stories, narratives that are
unprejudiced.
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list