1.
Below is a comment posted to the online article:
Robocop Takes on Philosophy of Mind by Matthew E. Johnson (June 03, 2014)
Your analysis of Robocop is of great interest. I would suggest Dooyeweed's thought has a bearing in at least three main ways. The first two are, I imagine, fairly safe and self-evident. The last may find less consensus.
Firstly, movies such as Robocop, Space Odyssey 2001, Bladerunner, Terminator, Matrix etc surely confirm Dooyeweerd's insight regarding a humanistic dichotomy between mechanistic law and personal freedom. In this light, can we perhaps see the Robocop remake as a modest attempt to find a point of equilibrium between these polarities and so heal the rift?
Secondly, in response to questions of artificial intelligence, do Christians perhaps not too readily identify "rationality" with "soul", inadvertantly espousing the Scholastic "nature/ grace" split in an attempt to resolve the humanistic "nature/ freedom" split? Dooyeweerd of course views "rationality" as no less temporal than "body".
Thirdly, if we subscribe to Dooyeweerd's summary of the Biblical ground-motive as "Creation, Fall, Redemption through Jesus Christ in Communion with the Holy Spirit", are we not thus identifying humanity as corporately fallen in Adam and corporately redeemed in Christ as "True Man" and as "New Root"? And are we not thereby recognizing that as "image of God" we are (in Christ) stewards of the very cosmos ("For all things are yours, the world, life, death..."), and also tacitly acknowledging that as "image of God" we are in our deepest selfhood (in our "heart", to use Dooyeweerd's rich but much misunderstood term) above time here and now. Thus even the most sophisticated "artificial intelligence" would remain but "an image of an image", a temporal reflection of the true human who, as supratemporal, is a reflection of God.
If I might add a pertinent quotation from the 'New Critique' -
'The inner restlessness of meaning, as the mode of being of created reality, reveals itself in the whole temporal world. To seek a fixed point in the latter is to seek it in a "fata morgana", a mirage, a supposed thing-reality, lacking meaning as the mode of being which ever points beyond and above itself. There is indeed nothing in temporal reality in which our heart can rest, because this reality does not rest in itself...The question: "Who is man?" is unanswerable from the immanence-standpoint. But at the same time it is a problem which will again and again urge itself on apostate thought with relentless insistence, as a symptom of the internal unrest of an uprooted existence which no longer understands itself.' (Vol III: 109, 784)
_____________________________________
2.
Leughar shìos freagairt dhan aiste air loidhne:
Fèin-aithne, daonnachd no cumhachd? le Tim Armstrong
(An t-Samhain 14, 2014)
(An t-Samhain 14, 2014)
A-thaobh ceist bun-chuspair “Bhladerunner”, tha thu ag ràdh gur annsa leatsa an cuideam a chur air “cumhachd” seach “fèin-aithne” (no: “dè tha e a’ ciallachadh a bhith daonna?”). Ach saoil nach ann caran coltach ri snaidhm Ceilteach a tha seo uile – air cho lìonmhor na lùban tha gach nì co-cheangailte gu bunaiteach, agus tillidh thu air a’ cheann thall dhan aon àite? :)
Ged a shònraicheas tu “cumhachd” (is e sin, gu bhith “fo smachd cuideigin eile”) mar chnag na cùise, siod thu sa bhad ag ainmeachadh contrarrachd an t-seòrsa “cumhachd” a tha seo, is e sin “saorsa”. Oir canaidh tu: “Chithear nach do rinn aon duine taghadh saor anns a’ fiolm”. Agus: “a bheil duine againn ga-rìribh saor anns an an t-saoghal nuadh?” Mar sin, nach eil e soilleir gum biodh e a’ cheart cho fìor a ràdh gur e do bheachdsa gur e prìomh chuspair “Bhladerunner” an spàirn (no daicòtoimi) eadar “cumhachd gar tràilleachadh” agus “saorsa”?
Aig 7:50 sa bhideo tha Nerdwriter cuideachd a-mach air bun-sgoltadh: “Is ann dà-thaobhach a tha beatha an là ‘n diugh”. Bruidhnidh e an-uairsin mu iomsgaradh a chìthear sa fiolm eadar “taobh ìochdarach dorch” a’ Bhaile Mhòir, agus (rud nas sona na bheachdsa) “sòisealtas cho neo-chrìochnach ri ailtireachd aibheiseach a’ bhaile seo”. Saoil a bheil sgaradh seo Nerdwriter (eadar geato dorch sòisealta agus fàire urbanach fhosgailte) na mhìneachadh eile air “tràilleachd” agus “saorsa”?
Co-dhiù no co-dheth, tha thu fhèin a’ faighneachd: “dè a’ bhuaidh aig teicneòlas air a’ chùis?”. Agus (mar snaidhm Ceilteach) tha e coltach gum bi buaidh a-choireigin aig freagairt na ceiste seo air a’ chiad cheist ud: “dè tha e a’ ciallachadh a bhith daonna?”.
Agus càit as mò a bhios ceist buaidh teicneòlais a’ togail ceann ach nuair a bhios robotan/ androidean/ reipliceantan an làthair? Nach e tha inntinneach na h-uibhir de fhiolmaichean sài-fài a bhios a’ meòrachadh air seo, mar eisimpleir: Space Odyssey 2001, Matrix, Terminator, I Robot, Robocop, Battlestar Galactica – agus gun a bhith diochuimhneachadh Metropolis fhèin.
San dol seachad, rinn mi oidhirp (o chionn bhliadhnachan) òraid bheag Rutger Hauer eadar-theangachadh. Tha mi air an teacsa a chall a-nis (nì cuideigin eile nas fheàrr co-dhiù!), ach na blòighean a leanas:
“Chunnaic mi nithean… nithean nach creideadh troichean mar sib’ fhèin… Longan-ionnsaigh fànais nan teine bhàrr gualainn an t-Sealgair Mhòir… Cho deàrrsach ri maignèisiam…”PS: Mo nàire! Luaidh mi a’ chiad phàirt dhen t-seantans bhunaiteach seo agad ri leanas, ach rinn mi dearmad mì-chùramach air an leth mu dheireadh (bho “ach” air adhart) a tha fìor chudromach dhan bheachdachadh: “Chithear nach do rinn aon duine taghadh saor anns a’ fiolm, ach an Replicant, Roy Batty, aig an deireadh nuair nach do mhuirt e am Bladerunner, Rick Deckard.”
______________________________________
3.
The following Andrew Basden Youtube is also of related interest:
_________________________
