{"id":34904,"date":"2024-01-15T15:58:04","date_gmt":"2024-01-15T23:58:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=34904"},"modified":"2024-01-15T18:05:00","modified_gmt":"2024-01-16T02:05:00","slug":"imago-dei-vs-imago-homo-sapien","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/imago-dei-vs-imago-homo-sapien\/","title":{"rendered":"Imago Dei vs. Imago Homo Sapien"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Ultimate Computer<\/em> was an episode of Star Trek[1]<\/a> that featured the character Dr. Richard Daystrom, a scientist tasked to upload his powerful \u201cM5 computer\u201d into the Starship Enterprise so it could control the ship for upcoming wargames. This efficient supercomputer quickly turned deadly, first killing a crew member (because it was in the way of a power source), and then turning on other federation ships, killing hundreds because it could not discern the difference between a true threat and a simulated wargame scenario.<\/p>\n

The show\u2019s twist was that the M5 was actually imprinted with Dr. Daystrom\u2019s \u201cengrams\u201d. This computer was programmed to be conscious and aware and to have the ability to make judgements… and<\/em> it had something of a human soul. The problem was that its soul had been copied from a very left brained, possibly psychopathic, scientist.<\/p>\n

The M5 was designed with the best intentions. It was intended to replace the dangerous work that people had to do in space, so that men and women would no longer need to be killed in the pursuit of exploration. However, it also had been programmed to \u201csurvive, so that man could be protected\u201d. That benevolent algorithm had apparently not been programmed using Asimov\u2019s laws of Robotics[2]<\/a>, which led the computer to kill hundreds of humans to survive, so that it could continue existing to serve the greater good of protecting humankind.<\/p>\n

To overcome and switch off the computer Captain Kirk had to rely on his own \u201cjunk code\u201d over his logic. While the M5 clearly had superior efficiency, only a human could discern the moral nuance of the situation and even make and learn from happy accidents<\/em> (thanks Bob Ross[3]<\/a>) that would end in saving lives.<\/p>\n

This Star Trek episode is a great example of mid-century science fiction media expressing caution against rouge Artificial Intelligence gone wrong[4]<\/a> and it makes a perfect companion to the book Robot Souls<\/em> by Eve Poole.<\/p>\n

In her short, dense, and fascinating book, Poole dives quickly into the deep end. Robot Souls<\/em> acts as a 30,000-foot flyover and basic primer on diverse A.I, topics including the history of computing, a philosophy of knowing, ethical questions regarding A.I. sentience (\u201can ability to sense, an ability to perceive, and feel things\u201d[5]<\/a>) and sapience (\u201cprocessing or having the ability to possess wisdom\u201d[6]<\/a>), legal implications of A.I. as persons, and more.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>But the books\u2019 primary argument seems to be that if A.I. is going to be conscious and make judgement decisions, that it must also be programmed to have a soul, because without a soul A.I. could easily act in a psychopathic manner, making decisions based on efficiency alone instead of the kind of things humans value And when a computer can make terrifyingly quick decisions with potentially global implications, that is a sobering argument.<\/p>\n

Poole makes the case that soul is more than feeling or thinking or judging; it includes human \u201cjunk code\u201d, those parts of us that could easily be streamlined and programmed out for efficiency, but that, she contends is precisely what makes us human. This \u201cjunk code shows up in several categories. The most famous is our very messy emotions, closely followed by our unshakeable ability to keep on making mistakes. We are also inclined to tell stories, are attuned to an uncanny Sixth Sense…, and we have an amazing capacity to cope with uncertainty. We also have a persistent sense of our own agency in the shape of free will, and a propensity to see meaning in the world around us.\u201d[7]<\/a> It\u2019s only when A.I. includes this \u201cinefficient\u201d junk code that qualities such as empathy and compassion can be hoped for, otherwise we may end up with only logical computers making only efficient decisions that don\u2019t consider the thriving of humanity (which some argue is simply a logical and acceptable next step in the evolutionary process).<\/p>\n

Up until now, I\u2019ve mostly relegated truly disastrous possibilities regarding A.I. to the realm of science fiction. But after reading this book I find myself asking all kinds of questions I hadn\u2019t asked before. Questions like: \u201cDo we really want computers with souls?\u201d Or \u201cWhat happens if we program the wrong soul into a computer?\u201d And \u201cBecause each human being is infinitely unique and we provide checks and balances to one another, what happens if all A.I. shares the same pathology and takes over the world?\u201d<\/p>\n

However, more important for me than philosophical, ontological, or even apocalyptical questions is a theological one. Christians believe humans are created perfect, in the image of a perfect God, but were broken because of sin against God. While our souls are marred, our telos (completion) focuses us back toward God, and wholeness. But what happens when broken humanity creates A.I. in its own image? Is it possible to have a good soul that\u2019s been created in the image of a broken soul? Does something important deteriorate when there is a damaged copy of a damaged copy?<\/p>\n

With a nod to my friend Dinka who asked a question in his post last week about “Imago Dei vs. Imago Identity”, I’m wondering this week about the Imago Dei vs. Imago Homo Sapien.<\/p>\n

At the end of The Ultimate Computer<\/em>, Spock declares that \u201ccomputers are more efficient<\/em> than human beings, not better<\/em>.\u201d \u00a0Eve Poole suggests we might make them as good, if not better, by giving them souls. I\u2019m not yet convinced that\u2019s a great idea.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Star Trek, episode 24, season 2, aired March 8, 1968<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Eve Poole. Robot Souls: Programming in Humanity. <\/em>Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 17.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=_Tq5vXk0wTk<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See also 2001 A Space Odyssey, a film released the same year as this Star Trek episode.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Robot Souls, 146.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Robot Souls, 74.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Ultimate Computer was an episode of Star Trek[1] that featured the character Dr. Richard Daystrom, a scientist tasked to upload his powerful \u201cM5 computer\u201d into the Starship Enterprise so it could control the ship for upcoming wargames. This efficient supercomputer quickly turned deadly, first killing a crew member (because it was in the way […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":169,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2489,2090],"class_list":["post-34904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-dlgp02","tag-poole","cohort-dlgp02"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34904","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/169"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34904"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34904\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34909,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34904\/revisions\/34909"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}