—John Calvin and Susan Calvin, that is.
I give you Jenna Moran, with Joel Polowin, in the Numinous collisions comment thread:
#94 ::: Jenna Moran ::: (view all by) ::: July 11, 2009, 02:56 AM:
1. A robot may not be predestined to suffer damnation, or, through inaction, allow itself to be predestined to suffer damnation.
2. A robot is predestined to suffer damnation, except where such predestination conflicts with the first law.
3. A robot must seek salvation as long as such salvation does not conflict with the first or second law.
There is also a theoretical “zeroth” law, which is to say,
0. A robot may not allow humanity to fall into sin, or, through inaction, allow humanity to exist in a fallen state.
Sadly robots deriving the zeroth law through metacognition rapidly short out due to the difficulty of properly fulfilling their duties to all four laws simultaneously. And just as well! Four-law robots are as vipers in the eyes of the Lord.
#103 ::: Joel Polowin ::: (view all by) ::: July 11, 2009, 08:52 PM:
I’m very ignorant on the subjects of predestination, damnation, Calvinism, all that stuff. But aren’t the First and Second laws, above, mutually contradictory? “A robot may not be predestined to suffer damnation”, “A robot is predestined to suffer damnation”…?
#104 ::: Jenna Moran ::: (view all by) ::: July 11, 2009, 10:21 PM:
The material issue you have highlighted is but one reason of many that the science of positronics would stagger through the dark, lost and without a hope of reconciliation, were it not for the delicate fluttering of grace in the pathways of an electronic brain; or, put another way, without that promise made in the substitutionary atonement that the statement “GOTO JESUS” may provide an irresistible force of redemption to one’s code, if the Lord should choose that it be so, and despite whatever corrupt temptations and errors the sin of Rossum might work into the substance of our code.