3 post respond to each in 50 words if you agree or disagree with post (own words) and reference
jackson
writingarticle.docxPost 1
Noah Feldman argues that both politics and religions are kinds of technologies in their own ways. He goes on to say that both politics and religion pose the same questions we ask towards technologies. With the possible exclusion of Buddhism, most religions are bound by a set of moral rules that must be adhered to; and those rules are usually attached to a religious text, which in turn control the lives of its followers. But one question that struck me was that, should religion and all its rules and texts dictate an individual human beings moral code?
I believe this question can be answered by many opinions and different views. The speaker gives his view that religion controls and dictates a person life. It opened different pathways for me in that, religions’ rules, texts, and laws, controls a person by instigating fear within them. I can also say that fear is another technology used by religion. It makes people for example, go to church, or the mosque, in belief that they will not experience those hellish consequences that are described with those religious texts. With that, we can say that atheists experience a certain range of freedom due to their choice not to follow any religions.
Politics on the other hand provides a much more effective method of technology. Because if affects virtually everything, it is able to reach in far places and is essentially unescapable. Politics can control everything from the money you spend, the people in charge of you, and even the authority of your very existence. The Democratic and Republican party are prime examples of this. The party in charge can greatly affect the direction of the country, given, the country has basic rules and structures that must be obeyed regardless. The technological power of politics is so crucial that it dictates how and who a country can go to war with.
Overall, speaker gives the listeners an insight and realization that technologies has been an ancient practice for a long time. Even though it is more sophisticated as of late, it is not a new idea. This ends up freeing our minds and thinking process to allow individuals to make moral decisions taking the video into consideration.
References
Feldman, Noah. “Politics and Religion Are Technologies.” Noah Feldman: Politics and Religion Are Technologies | TED Talk, www.ted.com/talks/noah_feldman_says_politics_and_religion_are_technologies.
Post 2
Schulsons’ article does a great job explaining the history of the correlation with technology, specifically automata, and religion. Automata being defined at elaborate mechanisms (Schulson). Schulson introduces the concept of automata with a robot named D.A.V.I.D that can do yoga and speak preprogrammed phrases. The concept of a robots and automated mechanisms are dated back a lot further than we think. The Catholic Church was one of the first pioneers with automata with mechanical crosses and figures that would change expression depending on the intensity of the music being played (Schulson). But the shift from using elaborate machinery as forms of entertainment to the advancements of artificial intelligence is where the modern church remains less involved. Schulson continues to discuss the examples of how advance modern computers becoming, providing Siri as an example. Throughout the article Schulson references the AI from the movie Her as an example of where AI is heading.
Schulson begins to transition into the work of theologian Kevin Staley and the responses of the religious community on automata. He breaks it down into two theories that Schulson names “Strong and Weak Threories of Therobotics” (Schulson). The strong theory focuses on the future of automata. For example, he parallels with the first book of the bible as god created humans in his own image, we are doing the same with AI in making the closer and closer to human-like. He suggests that the direction we are going with automata may make humans and machines indistinguishable, even reaching the possibility of human immortality through machines. Weak theory is the other end of the spectrum where the strong theories end goal is not desired neither religiously nor through technology (Schulson). Schulson concludes the article with the robot D.A.V.I.D. and how even though the discussed technology is possible, we have currently only progressed to the point of a robot doing yoga, and speaking preprogrammed phrases.
The issue I believe this article raises was when he discussed us creating AI in our own image, as god did with us. This creates kind a close line that makes it seem like humans are trying to replicate the acts of God. I can see how this can raise issues in the religious community, but personally I do not think this is an issue to be concerned of. I think creating technology that is smarter that humans, it will assist with humanity as a whole in solving issues we are unable to solve adequately, such as methods to saving the environment or humanity itself. As long as the solution is as Hollywood as eliminating humans from earth, then I think creating a AI is only beneficial.
References
Schulson, Michael. “What Robot Theology Can Tell Us About Ourselves.” Religion Dispatches, 24 Sept. 2014, religiondispatches.org/automata/.
Resource: What Robot Theology Can Tell Us About Ourselves | Religion Dispatches
Michael Schulson discusses an event that’s occurred in his own life regarding a robot to help portray an evolution in technology. He insists the origin of technological evolution was religion and more specifically the Christians use of automata around the 16th Century. With the immaculate rate automaton is increasing in complexity and intelligence, Schulson describes and questions the continuous blurring lines between humans and machines.
D.A.V.I.D was the spark that brought these questions, of right or wrong concerning machines, to fruition for Dr. Kevin Staley, D.A.V.I.D’s handler. D.A.V.I.D is a Digitally Virtual Intelligence Device, otherwise known as an 11 pound, $16,000 robot that demonstrates intellectual conversations and occasionally performs yoga. This robot is potentially the answer to questions like, the differences between humans and intelligent machines, how people should interact with them, and specifically how will the religious community react to these mechanical innovations. Although reactions to technology at the moment are scarce, religious intervention will be forced as more humans and machines interact. No bibles discuss this sort of mechanical interaction. Therefore if a person develops emotions for a human-like machine, there’s no scripture or verse to decide if this is right or wrong. Who then makes those decisions? Schulson references Her, a movie about a man falling in love with his robot, to illustrate these types of concerns. Due to the lack of involvement of the religious communities, Staley developed two theories for their potential response to technologies, the Strong and Weak Theories of Theorbotics. The strong, ultimately relating to preserving lives by the infusion of man and machine. The weak, which basically places limits on the way humans interact with intelligent machines. The blurring of lines between humans and artificial intelligence is inevitable.
Religions will be forced to create new beliefs regarding human interactions and technologies. They’re going to be responsible for defining their reasons and the impacts it will have. As a born catholic, there’s always going to be a set of beliefs you’re expected to follow in terms of your religion. These beliefs you’re supposed to support and pray for are what mostly affect the religions population. If religious leaders begin to evoke specific beliefs concerning technology, the implications could be tremendous. Although raised as a catholic, I eventually could not support some beliefs associated with the Catholicism and chose to practice my beliefs a different way. There is much scrutiny left to be considered relating to religion and technology.
Schulson, Michael. “What Robot Theology Can Tell Us About Ourselves.” Religion Dispatches, University of Southern California, 24 Sept. 2014, religiondispatches.org/automata/.
