As part of my Doctor of Theology program at Forge Theological Seminary I am completing several preliminary foundational “seminars,” including writing several articles on various topics. In this article, I’ll be reviewing several dissertation presentations and defenses I’ve watched online in an effort to increase my familiarity with both the product and process.
So, let’s jump into the world of doctoral dissertations….
Theology & AI PhD defense presentation – Marius Dorobantu”
This defense was done by Marius Dorobantu on human level AI. I’m not certain why, but this was one of the few doctoral dissertations presentations or defenses I could find posted online. I’m not certain if recording these presentations are not typical in Seminaries, or if they just don’t post them, or maybe there are not as many PhD’s in biblical or theological subjects as I thought, but I really struggled to find any directly or even indirectly related to my research subject.
This particular dissertation presentation was poorly recorded and poorly staged. I can’t imagine doing a speech sitting at a desk behind a computer. Maybe this is normal in other countries besides the US.
Though I couldn’t find a copy of the Dorobantu’s dissertation online, I did find an article under the same name by him and another researcher. They discuss issues pertaining to the means by which coders will need to program into AI initially human-minded ethics that are unbreakable if/when the AI inevitably outgrows the intelligence of human beings. They also address the fluidity of human ethics as a fundamental problem, since what humans view as ethical tends to change and warp and morph over time.
Unfortunately, because of the poor quality of the presentation, I could not ascertain anything useful from the speech. I think it will be important to realize how a presentation affects its audience overall when I’m preparing for my own this summer.
Bernardo Kastrup’s PhD Dissertation Defense on Philosophy of Mind
This is a philosophical dissertation at Radbound University on the philosophy of the mind and ontology and it is in stark contrast from the first dissertation I reviewed above.
This dissertation presentation was conducted in the Netherlands and both the presenter and the committee members seem to have a deeply entrenched tradition and hold pomp and ceremony in high esteem.
I found it fascinating, after the brief presentation and the committee turned to posing questions, the candidate was not only familiar with the very first question but he had prepared ahead of time for the question. Now, who knows what actually went on behind the scenes before this presentation. Maybe the candidate’s advisor warned him ahead of time that he would be asking this question. Maybe he was just lucky. Maybe he knew, given the nature of his research and the position he took that there was a high likelihood that someone on the committee would ask this question. The important factor is, the student was prepared for it when it was asked. I think this speaks volumes to my intention to complete a Defense Preparation Questions assignment where I, after completing my dissertation and before turning it in, I go through and ask myself all the questions I can possibly think of as if I were on the committee myself. I watched an interview with William Lane Craig where he stated this is exactly how he prepares for an upcoming debate. I think it will be a very useful and productive exercise.
Interestingly, as he’s answering the question he states that he doesn’t mention Hegel very much because he never was really able to figure out what Hegel was trying to say on the subject. This fascinates me and lets me know that it’s okay to still be wrestling with concepts and philsophers and theologians, even at this level in academia.
Toward the end of the Q&A portion of the defense, the advisor made some remarks about the candidate (who had just minutes before been awarded the title of Doctor). Apparently, this doctorate program was based on a dissertation by publication or the TAD – three article dissertation (Foss, Destination, 61). This individual had already received a PhD in Computer Science and had gone on to publish several journal articles in the area of Philosophy, so by the time he approached the faculty at Radbound, he already had most of the dissertation written.
This is a fascinating idea, that faculty are very interested in this kind of dissertation (TAD), I would assume because there is little in the way of hand-holding to be done. I’ve read elsewhere (though I’ve forgotten the source) that many universities are moving to the Three Article Dissertation since it allows them to outsource the peer reviewed process to external journals, while still maintaining the tuition and research in house. Though this does appear, at least to me, to be rather shady, especially given the difficulty in getting published in a peer reviewed journal in the first place. But, at the same time, this opens up opportunity for me in the future to make inroads into the philosophical community.
Granted, the faculty were much in opposition of this candidate’s worldview and research (idealist), but allowed him to make his argument. I doubt my worldview would be given as much accommodation (Christian). We will have to wait and see. It might be that academia is not the field in which I’m called to labor in, for in Christ there are much greater things to be concerned with, especially given the state of the world we are living in.
Stephen Keating’s PhD Dissertation Defense at MIT on 3D Printing
This defense was from Stephen Keating on his dissertation on 3D printing across scales.
I have to admit, I had no idea what to expect from this presentation, though the preliminary concept is enticing. He talked about the differences between how humans manufacture, creature, build things and how nature builds things. Humans work on a linear progression, utilizing manufacturing to produce from materials a product. This not only limits the output that can be achieved but there is also tethered to it a very high fuel cost in getting the materials to the manufacturing location and then getting the product to its final destination.
Keating’s solution was to incorporate biological processes into human manufacturing to solve some of these challenges. He illustrated how biological manufacturing works much differently, where the product itself is the factory building, and the process of construction is completed on site rather than in a separte location.
This would reduce cost in both entry and return of materials and product, which was the motivation for his dissertation. In fact, he made mention of being able to print with different kinds of materials, including the ability to print living cells! How this is possible is simply beyond me. What are they using as the material going in? Then to take that base material and utilize the 3D printer as the manufacturer, when the finish product is living and can grow?
His ultimate goal would be to one day include living material in the structures we build so that those structures continue to grow into the future and change over time. So, think of a house that is build initially to be a two bedroom dwelling, only to find in five years the house has grown an additional bedroom, or has added on a back deck.
During the Q&A section, Keating answered questions from the audience about his research. He talked about varying structural design that mimics human bone density, where a structure can have walls of varying thickness depending on the structural support needs rather than on the availability of building material. He also talked about one day having solar panels that functioned much differently than the ones we have today, where future panels were producing electrical current through living processes.
One important factor I think I took from the presentation was the willingness to cover the failed ideas they had and the attempts that did not go according to plan. It is important to keep in mind during the research process that fluidity and flexibility are essential in staying the course. There are many dead ends in my own research, such as the failed idea that humans who are now born with inherited sin are infected with a fallen nature from Adam and, thus, are no longer in the image of God. The hypothesis stated that only Adam and Eve (and possibly just Adam) were ever created in the image of God and no human since has had the image of God (save Christ), but we only possess the likeness of God.
At first glance from Scripture it appears as if this were true. But, additional searching revealed several references to fallen humans as having the image of God or being born in the image of God. Ultimately, the hypothesis had to be abandoned altogether.
Toward the end of the Q&A, Keating answered the question about what he would be doing in the future. He makes mention that he has employment opportunities at Google or at Apple or even possibly launching a start-up, but he didn’t know for certain what he would be doing next, only that he would be going on vacation to see “monkeys.” That got me wondering what he was up to now, so I did a Google search for him and discovered….
Steven Keating was dead.
I found this article. Apparently, while pursuing his PhD at MIT, Keating discovered by accident that he had a brain tumor. He received treatment and went into remission. But by 2019, the cancer had returned and this time it was inoperable. He died shortly thereafter, at the age of 31.
This news reminds me of an acquaintance I had made several years back when working with several Churches and house groups when I was first married. This man had a wife, ten children, and worked as a logger on private timber land. He held his own house church meetings each week and also served as minister to the local homeless shelter, preaching and teaching. He also frequently did street ministry at the fairgrounds.
Because of the tension meetings placed on my relationship with my wife at the time, we stopped attending this gentleman’s house church. Years later, after my divorce, this man walked into my store and we caught up a little, having a nice conversation. A few months later, I found his obituary in the paper. He had died at the age of 50 of brain cancer.
We never know when our last day will be, when our life will be required of us (Luke 12:20). We must make every moment count, and be engaged in what makes us truly fulfilled and happy and satisfied. There is no redo. There is no second chance. “Man is appointed once to die, and then the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
May we all find our truest passion in this life.
Foss, Sonja and Waters, William. Destination Dissertation: A Traveler’s Guide to a Done Dissertation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007.
Keating, Steven. “From Bacteria to Buildings: Additive Manufacturing Outside of the Box – S. Keating – MIT PhD Defense.” 24 Oct. 2016. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBQv2TJFX4.
Keating, Steven. “Q&A Session following PhD Defense – Steven Keating – MIT.” 26 Jan. 2021. http://www.youtube.com/embed/XSZX6vH7r7Q.
Kastrup, Bernardo. “Bernardo’s defense of his second Ph.D.” Radbound University. 30 Apr. 2019, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcMOape0PY8&feature=emb_title.
Dorobantu, Marius. “Theology & AI PhD Defense Presentation.” Strasbourg (FR). 25 Sept. 2020, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQd0BZ5804E&feature=emb_title.
Steven S Veach 
Leave a comment