I'v read Philip K. Dick, and I still don't feel I have a larger grasp of what a soul is.ClifJayShafer said:
Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah... I mean I'm technically an atheists so I don't believe in the whole 'soul concept' as well, but taking the word itself defined by some Buddhist teachings and using Kevin Warwick's thoughts on AI, it kinda fits -shrugs-Realitycrash said:
The Matrix was a poor choice, Robots were the good guys and kept Humanity alive in their own virtual paradise.Madara XIII said:
OT:Impossible to tell as we don't even know if Humans have souls.
NO NO NO!!! Both the Humans and the Robots were bad. Seriously was Asimov having a day off when they made the Matrix? Humans were stupid enough to try and create an evolving A.I. and abuse it while the robots basically rebelled against their masters.Normalgamer said:
The 3 rules are implemented for a reason and when someone tries to wise up and try to make a robot with a free will it never ever works.......EVER
Souls do not exist.
That is a fact. Something that can not be measured, doesn't exist.
If it would be otherwise the word "existance" had to be redefined. Because it would mean anything that can't be measured (read: everything) would be allowed to be regarded as existant.
There is only a word "soul" that can be defined.
For example there is the christian definition of a soul.
There are many other.
None of them is a fact, they are believes.
I am all for religious tollerance, but that'S different from wraping religious people into cotton, by pretenting they would do anything else than believe. You do not shape reality by faith. You shape the way you experience it. That does not mean that everybody else in the world has to be super duper nice to you, just because you feel uncomfortable being conftronted with science and facts.
For the sake of this thread it would be nice of you to offer a definition of "Soul"
That is a fact. Something that can not be measured, doesn't exist.
If it would be otherwise the word "existance" had to be redefined. Because it would mean anything that can't be measured (read: everything) would be allowed to be regarded as existant.
There is only a word "soul" that can be defined.
For example there is the christian definition of a soul.
There are many other.
None of them is a fact, they are believes.
I am all for religious tollerance, but that'S different from wraping religious people into cotton, by pretenting they would do anything else than believe. You do not shape reality by faith. You shape the way you experience it. That does not mean that everybody else in the world has to be super duper nice to you, just because you feel uncomfortable being conftronted with science and facts.
For the sake of this thread it would be nice of you to offer a definition of "Soul"
If you are defining a soul as an ethereal and eternal part of the body that persists beyond death, then i do not know. this cannot be tested in a safe or reliable manner. However if you define a soul as the absolute freedom to express your mind, body and will through action or inaction manifesting in a personality or character i feel the matter easily answered.
Issac Asimov is widely considered to be the father of robots in fiction. His works have set the conventions for almost all robotic references. the most common convention are the three laws of robotics.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Assuming the robots in question are required to follow these or any laws at a base, innate level; then the robot will aways lack the absolute freedom of being required to have a soul.
Issac Asimov is widely considered to be the father of robots in fiction. His works have set the conventions for almost all robotic references. the most common convention are the three laws of robotics.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Assuming the robots in question are required to follow these or any laws at a base, innate level; then the robot will aways lack the absolute freedom of being required to have a soul.
I think this is the whole damn point of the discussion, not if souls are realkrseyffert said:As an atheist, i don't believe in souls, however i still think you argument holds value. Perhaps not a soul, but if the robot is capable of sentient thought on par with humans, including emotions, reasoning, compassion, etc., i feel it deserves the same rights we all have, is free will not the defining characteristic of a sentient lifeform/robot? is a robot possessing free will any less deserving of life than a human, simply because it is a metal construct?
I don't know if this is off topic, but i think it ties in somehow
soul is to broad of a term if you mean a religious soul, than me along with most other people on here will say no due to we believe that the soul is a nonexistent thing
if you mean that if a computer attains what you are talking about, then should it have value placed on its life like humans do? then yes
if you mean that if a computer attains what you are talking about, then should it have value placed on its life like humans do? then yes
Do androids dream of electric sheep?? Interesting, a soul is classed as being the essense of a person. If an android experienced enough within it's life span to develop its own identity and way of thinking I can't see why not, logic has to be important though if a robot could decide between right and wrong and not base it's decisions on cold hard logic that would count as having a soul to me.
'I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....'
'I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....'
