Mind Uploading and Embodied Cognition: A Theological Response

In this article, we argue two points in relation to the challenge to human distinctiveness emerging as artificial intelligence systems and humanlike robots simulate various human capabilities. First, that, in the context of theological anthropology, it is advisable to respond to this challenge by turning toward the human body. Second, following this point, we propose the responsive body hypothesis, suggesting that what makes us distinct from androids are capacities that rise from and depend on our responsive bodies.

Section: The Body In Theological Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsive Bodies: Robots, Ai, and the Question of Human Distinctiveness

Balle¹,

Nissen²

2023

“…(Bostrom 1999, similarly, 2.6;NBostrom 2005) The projected, virtual future-at least the only truly desirable futureis of minds "inhabiting" a reproduced physical landscape in simulacra of human embodied existence (contra Moravec 2013). And this is no surprise, given the fundamentally embodied and relational nature of human thought and the metaphors that shape it (Lakoff and Johnson 1999;Lorrimar 2019;Sanders 2016;Scheidt 2015;Johnson 2022). A projected future of one's (human) self as a fleshless mind, even a transhuman one, is virtually unimaginable, and almost universally undesirable (Scheidt 2015, 326).…”

Section: Disposable Bodies: Transhumanism and Hopementioning

confidence: 99%

Disposable Bodies, Disabled Minds, and Christian Hope: Resurrection in Light of Transhumanism and Intellectual Disability

Sloane¹

2022

This piece brings into critical conversation Christian resurrection hope, virtual versions of transhumanism, and intellectual disability and demonstrates that Christian resurrection provides a more cogent hope for people with severe intellectual disabilities than transhumanism. I argue that transhumanist virtual futures are theologically problematic, as bodily resurrection is neither required nor desirable. It is particularly problematic for people with severe intellectual disabilities given the way they would be excluded from these futures. Disability theology also raises issues with the traditional notions of “healing” in the resurrection and the implications for the value and identity of persons with intellectual disabilities. Starting with these problems, I explore the nature of Christian hope, noting the inadequacies of a virtual transhumanist future with respect to both resurrection faith and intellectual disability, and address how resurrection hope can account for issues raised in disability theology, and so properly include people with intellectual disabilities.

“…11For readers who may not be following this literature closely, a representative sample of articles (published just within the past five years) should provide some indication of the marked interest in these topics: Anderson (2019); Benders (2018); Cannon (2015); Cole‐Turner (2015; 2018); Cruz (2015); Dumsday (2017); Fullam (2018); Gaitán (2019); Gallaher (2019); Gocke (2017); Gouw (2018; 2019); Green (2015; 2016; 2018); Ham (2016); Herzfeld (2016); Jong (2018); Jung (2019); Kellogg (2015); Kostick, Fowler and Scott (2019); LaTorra (2015); Lorrimar (2019); Mercer (2015); Miletić (2015); Molhoek (2016; 2018); Peters (2015; 2018; 2019); Singler (2019); Tirosh‐Samuelson (2018); Walker (2018); Weissenbacher (2018); Willows (2017); and Woloschak (2018). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sergius Bulgakov's Critique of N. F. Fedorov's Technologized Resurrection (And Why It Still Matters for the Christian Dialogue With Transhumanism)

Dumsday¹

2020

Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944) was one of the centrally important Russian Orthodox theologians of the past century. His theological system (Sophiology) is among the most detailed and comprehensive attempts at a novel, Orthodox systematic theology developed in engagement with western philosophical and theological movements. His first major work of theology, Unfading Light (1917), incorporates an early Orthodox critique of the radical Christian transhumanism propounded by Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1829-1903). Fedorov had developed an account of humanity's prospects for a technologically facilitated eschatology. The goals of this article are: (1) to provide a concise summary Fedorov's ideas on technologized resurrection; (2) to provide an overview of Bulgakov's sympathetic critique of Fedorov's model; and (3) to discuss the ongoing relevance of that critique vis-à-vis current and future Christian dialogue with the transhumanist movement.