Anne Foerst is a philosopher-theologian who worked as theological advisor on MIT's God and Computers project and has a passionate interest in artificial intelligence. Anne argues that robots are just as capable of emotion as humans - if we define emotion as simply being a programmed response.
She had a particular soft spot for one robot: Kismet, from MIT’s artificial intelligence lab. In The State We're In this week, she tells host Jonathan Groubert why she thinks robots may in fact have souls, and why it matters in the way we treat each other.
This story was taken from the latest edition of The State We're In - Who am I?
Click image for slideshow
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
The premise only applies when we expect robots to reflect our appearance, but they are only cleaver mechanisms prepared to do a specific predetermined set of rotations and translations, in order to complete the instruction it received. It is a waste of time, and adds nothing to their usefulness in trying to make them look like humans. The robot "relates" to us, not the other way around.
Evert Weidner
Stuur mij een e-mail at slowbowler@yahoo.com
Stuur mij je e-mail
Koos van Dijk Delft The Netherlands
Beste Evert,
Ik neem aan dat je weet wie ik ben.If not ,forget it'
Ik doe al een tijdje pogingen om je E-mail te vinden maar dat is nog niet gelukt.
Ik zou met je wat willen e-mailen als je daartoe bereid bent.
Groeten,Koos
How does the human brain work? Is it too not just predetermined set of instructions? So technically, there is no difference between humans and robots.
We relate to them, and they relate to us.
Do you think you're so special that your behaviors are determined by something outside the laws of physics? I think not...
... (continue)... The only difference between robots and humans (today) is that humans are much more complex (mentally) and robots, with their (current) simple brains, have to find other, more efficient ways to match what we can do, which to some, seems like 'cleaver mechanisms'.
The premise only applies when we expect robots to reflect our appearance, but they are only cleaver mechanisms prepared to do a specific predetermined set of rotations and translations, in order to complete the instruction it received. It is a waste of time, and adds nothing to their usefulness in trying to make them look like humans. The robot "relates" to us, not the other way around.
In the discussion about robots ever having personhood or rights, they could have mentioned that non-human animals do not have rights and yet animals clearly have interests, emotions and intelligence. The most insignificant human interest (e.g. desire for fur,make-up, or foie gras) overrides an animal's right to live and be free. I'd like to see a discussion of personhood and rights regarding animals because it impacts us directly now and not in the distant future. The show could get philosophers Tom Regan and Gary Francione on to discuss it.
Robyn, we had Gary on the show back in 2009, discussing very similar issues with Jan Narveson. Here's the link - from our old website: http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/thestatewerein/oth...
Very true, Robyn!We are more interested in artificial intelligence and bonding with robots while real life-whether in plants, animals or humans is extinguished due to our desires and callousness. Perhaps we are scared of real emotions...
First we should learn to treat humans having souls humanely, and then look for souls in robots..
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.