{"id":2466,"date":"2018-04-15T00:14:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-15T00:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/?p=2466"},"modified":"2025-01-27T21:21:51","modified_gmt":"2025-01-27T21:21:51","slug":"materialism-robots-and-attitudes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/materialism-robots-and-attitudes\/","title":{"rendered":"Materialism, Robots and Attitudes"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Robots are starting to look and act a lot like humans.<\/p>\n

Wondering if robots can be people, or if humans are merely biological robots, involves assumptions about reality. I’ll look at one of those assumptions in this post and why I believe there’s more to me than chemicals.<\/p>\n

Whether a robot could be a person is more of a philosophical question than a legal issue. So far. The question would be particularly interesting if a robot asked to be recognized as a person. Or disturbing, depending on how you look at it.<\/p>\n

<\/a>With today’s robotic tech and AI, my guess would be that a human had programmed the robot to sue for recognition.<\/p>\n

Or provided data and analytic processes which pretty much guaranteed that it would ask to be seen as a person.<\/p>\n

The question would still be interesting if humans demanded legal recognition of robotic “persons.” I haven’t heard of that happening yet, but think it’ll likely pop up in a few years.<\/p>\n

We’ve had folks making similar demands for non-human animals. I think many ‘animals are people too’ folks mean well. I don’t think they’re right about chimps being people, but agree that humans should treat other creatures humanely.<\/p>\n

That’s because I think Genesis 1:27<\/a> and Psalms 8:6<\/a> are right. We’re made “in the image of God” and “little less than a god” \u2014 with power and responsibilities to match.<\/p>\n

Western civilization’s upper crust abused that power in recent centuries. “Little less than a god” isn’t “God.” Not even close. (January 21, 2018<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Folks misunderstanding or misusing Christian beliefs don’t make Christianity wrong. Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy and EU Directive 2010\/63\/EU tacitly agree that we’re in charge here. (August 11, 2017<\/a>; November 18, 2016<\/a>; July 15, 2016<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Christians acting badly were a problem long before the Thirty Years War. It still is. We’re human. Nothing wrong with that, but we’re carrying some very old baggage.<\/p>\n

Humans didn’t start out being evil to the core, or ‘loathsome insects.’ We’re not like that now. We’re still good, basically: just wounded. (January 8, 2018<\/a>; November 6, 2016<\/a>)<\/p>\n

And that’s not what I was talking about. Not quite. Let me think.<\/p>\n

Robots. Humans. Assumptions. Animal rights. EU directives. Christians acting like humans. Right.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Programmable Tech: Ismail al-Jazari’s Automata, Pepper, and Looking Ahead<\/h4>\n

<\/a>
\n(From Wikipedia and Boston Dynamics, used w\/o permission.)<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a>About robots acting like humans, I’ve enjoyed Isaac Asimov’s ‘robot’ stories, and had some fun with the idea myself. Not that I’m in the Asimov league.<\/p>\n

Today’s chatbots and tomorrow’s robotic receptionists don’t and won’t fracture my faith. But it’s probably just a matter of time before someone denounces them as works of Satan.<\/p>\n

Or claims tax-exempt status for a robot-oriented church. “Church of the Holy Robot” has a nice ring to it. Weird, though.<\/p>\n

Making tech that acts like humans is an old idea. “Automaton<\/a>” comes to my language through Latin. Romans got it from a Greek word that means acting of one’s own will.<\/p>\n

Automata in stories, like Talos, were more ‘robotic’ than tech built by Hero of Alexandria and Ktesibios. Ismail al-Jazari described and built programmable automata, and that’s another topic. The point is that programmable tech acting like a critter isn’t new.<\/p>\n

<\/a>What’s different about today’s robots is more a matter of degree than of kind. Their programming is much more complex than post-Renaissance clockwork automata.<\/p>\n

We’re also learning more about how humans act and respond. That helps us design AI and robots.<\/p>\n

Today’s humanoid robots, robots shaped more or less like us, can do much more than walk, sit, and kneel. They’re still not quite as light on their feet.<\/p>\n

They can, however, dance and play soccer. Nao’s famous for doing both.<\/p>\n

The folks who developed Nao, a humanoid robot, worked for Aldebaran Robotics. SoftBank Group acquired Aldebaran in 2015, but I think “Aldebaran Robotics” sounds cooler, so that’s what I’ll call them.<\/p>\n

The Nao synchronized dance performance at the Shanghai Expo in 2010 made international headlines.<\/p>\n

With different programming, Nao robots played in the RoboCup.<\/p>\n

Although accomplished dancers and athletes, Nao robots weren’t much for conversation.<\/p>\n

They could be programmed to understand spoken words and speak. They could even detect emotional cues and emote with gestures and body language. But I gather that they weren’t very bright.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Which brings me to the robot in that photo, Pepper<\/a>. Aldebaran Robotics says Pepper is “kindly, endearing and surprising.”<\/p>\n

Among other things, Pepper is programmed to notice major human emotions, respond appropriately, learn how individuals act and change its behavior accordingly.<\/p>\n

The robot may be better at noticing and responding appropriately to human emotions than I am.<\/p>\n

Or maybe not. I’ve been developing the skill for decades. I’m pretty good at noticing and identifying emotions in others.<\/p>\n

<\/a>But I’ve been told that my affect display, verbal and non-verbal displays of emotion, is well off the norm. That’s not surprising.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Undiagnosed depression made dealing with also-undiagnosed PTSD, autism spectrum disorder and other quirks difficult.<\/p>\n

My psychiatric oddities got identified a little over 11 years back.<\/p>\n

I knew something was going wrong. So did my wife, who suggested I see a psychiatrist.<\/p>\n

Being ‘cured’ won’t happen. But knowing what I deal with makes the job easier. Less difficult, at any rate. (January 7, 2018<\/a>; December 17, 2017<\/a>; March 19, 2017<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Being offended that Pepper and other robots may be better at acting like humans than I am is an option. But not a reasonable one, I think.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Fear and Frustrated Technicians<\/h4>\n

<\/a>Neither is fearing rogue robots or homicidal homunculi. Although that sort of thing can make a rousing good tale.<\/p>\n

Concerns that a robot will take my job might make sense if I worked on an assembly line. (March 16, 2018<\/a>)<\/p>\n

I think truck drivers and cabbies may be better off if they start exploring other lines of work now. Driverless vehicles are here, with more in development.<\/p>\n

Recent high-profile accidents involving automated vehicles give developers a public relations problem.<\/p>\n

Three fatal accidents, each involving Tesla systems, aren’t making automated vehicles seem safer. How much of a threat autonomous cars<\/a> are, that I don’t know.<\/p>\n

I haven’t compared accident and fatality rates with automated and human-operated vehicles in equivalent circumstances. I strongly suspect that human owners aren’t quite ready for today’s technology. Or don’t understand it.<\/p>\n

My memory tells me that one crash happened because the operator\/driver wasn’t paying attention. I’d have to research that to be sure. My guess is that the automated vehicle was smart, but not smart and wise enough to be unsupervised.<\/p>\n

We may develop fully-automated, ‘set and forget’ automated vehicles. Adjusting to the new tech will take time. I think we’ll deal with change as well as we have since stone tools were new. Or as poorly.<\/p>\n

My guess is that someone saw cooking fires as a deadly technology. Which they can be. I think tech is as safe or unsafe as whoever’s using it.<\/p>\n

Robots have worked on assembly lines for years, and are very close to filling other jobs. I’d be surprised if robots didn’t start working at reception desks and in stock rooms.<\/p>\n

<\/a>But do I fear a robot apocalypse? No.<\/p>\n

Skynet is still more fiction than science.<\/p>\n

Economic, political or imperial ambitions strike me as more of a “human” thing.<\/p>\n

Frustrated technicians dealing with a glitchy robot may lack the dramatic appeal of rampaging robot revolutionaries. But with today’s technology, it’s by far the more likely scenario. We’re still a long way from dealing with something like the HAL 9000 in “2001: A Space Odyssey” (March 16, 2018<\/a>)<\/p>\n

<\/a>Mechanical Minions, Digital Despots and Being Human<\/h4>\n

<\/a>Nothing I’ve seen go from the ‘explore, hypothesize and clarify’ to the ‘design, develop and test’ stage looks promising as a robot overlord.<\/p>\n

I think “The Phantom Creeps,” where a human mastermind used<\/strong> a robot makes sense as a plausible threat. Plausible enough for a movie, that is.<\/p>\n

Another entertaining scenario could be the usual evil computer seeking world domination.<\/p>\n

With the fate of humanity hanging in the balance, when all seems lost, as Our Hero hangs helpless in the grip of its mechanical minions, the digital despot declares: “Fool! Nothing can withstand my FILE NOT FOUND<\/span><\/b>!” (January 28, 2018<\/a>)<\/p>\n

<\/a>I think robots will be increasingly good mimics of human behavior.<\/p>\n

I think they’ll replace human workers in many jobs.<\/p>\n

Replacing humans? That seems very unlikely at best.<\/p>\n

My attitude comes partly from my experience as a human. I’ve been a delivery guy, computer operator and sales clerk. But that wasn’t “what I was,” except in a grammatical or economic sense. Certainly not “who I was” and am.<\/p>\n

I see my jobs as what I’ve done, and “me” as the person who did the jobs. I see myself as a “who,” not a “what.”<\/p>\n

That probably seems irrational to some folks. I am, after all, a Christian: and a Catholic to boot. We’re seen as unreasonable at best in some communities.<\/p>\n

I’ll grant that some Christians, Catholics included, live up \u2014 or down \u2014 to the ‘ignorant and superstitious’ stereotype. It’s not, sadly, just the uneducated ones. (March 4, 2018<\/a>; November 5, 2017<\/a>)<\/p>\n

If their ilk was all I’d seen of Christianity. I might feel that faith and reason, science and religion, get along about as well as cobra and mongoose.1<\/a><\/sup> Folks taking spirit photographs and the like seriously don’t help. (April 11, 2018<\/a>)<\/p>\n

About robots, humans and being a “what” or a “who,” I’m quite certain that a robot couldn’t have a human soul. Robots aren’t, by most definitions, humans.<\/p>\n

Whether a robot or other AI could have a soul of some other sort is another question. And a reasonable one:<\/p>\n