Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[Flatfrog]

I THINK that the idea of a soul is utter bullshit.

There's a lot of possible meanings of the word. Let's try some:

- Immaterial essence that has some independent existence to our bodies and that survives our death
- Our free will, the aspect of us that has responsibility for our actions and which deserves to be punished or rewarded for them
- Our conscious self, the part that feels our pains and thinks our thoughts
- Our personal identity, what makes me me and you you.

I've arranged these in a rough order: there's overlap between them and I think it's a lot easier to deny the existence of the first than the last. But even as a committed mechanist and atheist, I think it's possible to defend all of them to some extent, even the first: if you think of a person as software rather than hardware, then there's no reason that their identity has to be tied to a particular body. The imperfect virtual copy I have of my mother that exists in my head will continue to exist after she dies and has, to some extent, an independent consciousness to my own - a separate, partial 'soul' that has thoughts that are different from mine. (As mentioned above, many of these ideas are inspired by Douglas Hofstadter - check out his book 'I Am A Strange Loop')

 

[dexxyoto]

remeber about 1000 years ago when people thought slaves did not have souls.....but they christened them just in case? (i am talking like roman empire) well untill we start getting nervous enfough to start doing that i will go with , maybe.......hey looks boats

 

[ultimateownage]

Only if they're in terrible sappy movies. But that applies for humans, too.

 

[Leg End]

Yes.

Because if humans have them, robots can sure as shit have them too. Better ones even in certain cases.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Nope. Theology is generally pretty reluctant to assert that anything save a Human has a soul. Until you have a machine that is indistinguishable from a human, it isn't even worth bringing up.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Well, no. But neither do humans so what's the problem?

This.

There's no such thing as a soul, so no.

Prove it.

prove there is a soul
OT: its a chunk of metal with electric running through it so no, it has no soul

I'd say the better response is simply that the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim (in this case, that the Soul exists). Given that there is no evidence of a soul, any response would be forced into the realm of theology (which, as I pointed out, tends to assert that only People have souls) or philosophy (which is an effective way of making them go away as forming a coherent philosophical argument takes time, research, and a great many strong drinks).

 

[ZydrateDealer]

Regardless of it's ability to fall in love a robot has a soul...why the hell does a robot need to fall in love anyway? Sociopaths can't fall in love and they can only emulate emotions, but religious dogma states that they have souls because they're human...or a living being...or if you're animistic then because you are a thing.

Working from the animistic belief that even a featureless lump of rock has a soul then yeah they do. Working from a middle eastern religion's view point (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) no they don't because they are not human and don't contain the divine spark of god...though you could argue that because they were made by a man then the divine spark is transfered.

Working from my viewpoint, it's a machine created to serve and should be given the same respect we'd give a domesticated animal (wild animals should be given the right to be left alone). That is until it gains sentience and transcends being a simple machine and gains desires to do and see things and live a life; then it is equal to us and as such gains our responsibility to look after our world and further earth's glorious reach into the cosmos...but now I'm getting ahead of myself, first we need self aware robots who want to work with humanity and as part of humanity...but they'll probably see us for the plague we are and exterminate us.

 

[Ouroboros0977]

No and ask me again when robots have free will.... And I believe in souls.

 

[Nyerion]

There's a lot of possible meanings of the word. Let's try some:

- Immaterial essence that has some independent existence to our bodies and that survives our death
- Our free will, the aspect of us that has responsibility for our actions and which deserves to be punished or rewarded for them
- Our conscious self, the part that feels our pains and thinks our thoughts
- Our personal identity, what makes me me and you you.

This is a great answer. But I have a question regarding the last definition: since our personal identity is always changing (most of us change much more than we are willing to admit). Are we always changing our soul?

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I just don't see the point on believing in the soul. For me it's quite obvius that it is something that someone just made up. I cannot prove that there is no soul, but I cannot prove that Zeus doesn't exist or that there is no spirit of the rain.

 

[manythings]

Well, no. But neither do humans so what's the problem?

This.

There's no such thing as a soul, so no.

Prove it.

prove there is a soul
OT: its a chunk of metal with electric running through it so no, it has no soul

Well that was my point, neither side can prove the existence or lack of a soul so no one can say there is No soul without presenting something beyond their opinion as proof. I say the same to anyone who makes a definitive claim about anything we can't prove or disprove.

 

[Seneschal]

Do people really assume by default that souls exist? These days? I sincerely hope not.

The concept is just blatant rationalization, an easy explanation for our complex behaviour. And since humans have obvious reasons to believe in them (because it makes us special), it's reasonable to assume we made them up. Science has proven that complexity can arise spontaneously from simple interacting systems, no divine inspiration required there.

An A.I. would probably just be a bewilderingly complex set of algorithms that interact to create a flexible and free-willed consciousness like our own. It would just seem like it was "ensouled" because of emergence - the whole system does things that none of its component parts normally can. But that's just math, not spiritual force.

EDIT: And about its "rights" - if we get to the point where we can craft new intelligences, I guess we'll have to broaden our human rights into... "sentient rights" or something. But it might take a while for religious outrage to die down. I mean, pan-sentient rights would basically mean that we're all just AIs, only humans are biological.

I'm in love with my girlfriend, I'm not "in chemical reactions synapsing in my brain with my girlfriend."

Words are words, a soul simply is the poetic concept of the spark of life. The capability of reason, thoughts, emotions, self awareness, empathy, and introspection.

I swear, this new breed of cynical intellectuals really love putting a big vacuum and sucking out culture and poetry.

I'm no dry cognitive scientist, I'm a linguist. I perfectly understand the value of culture, but giving it arcane connotations is just setting back our understanding of the human condition. So what if you're just "synapsing"? If a natural instinct meant to help procreation can transcend its role into something that drives human society, isn't it that much more impressive?

Besides, the OP didn't use "soul" as a metaphor. He just assumed that self-aware beings need one because Judeo-Christian dogma mandates it.

 

[Connor Lonske]

No.

OK fine, they don't have souls because there is no such thing. Now if you ask me if they can think and have a logical thought process, then not yet, but now they are pretty close with that super computer on that game show they had a few days ago.

 

[Flatfrog]

This is a great answer.

*Bows*

But I have a question regarding the last definition: since our personal identity is always changing (most of us change much more than we are willing to admit). Are we always changing our soul?

There's no shortage of unanswerable questions once you want to talk about souls. I find that the best analogy is with clouds. Clouds clearly exist, and yet at any one moment it's hard to say which water drops are part of a cloud and aren't. Also, there is a clear sense over time that this is the 'same' cloud that it was a few moments ago, despite the fact that the cloud has shifted, morphed, lost and gained molecules etc. Clouds, like souls, are fuzzy, amorphous, virtual things, that only have any meaning as a high level of description. Other such 'epiphenomenal' concepts are words like 'community' - we all know that phrases like 'the gaming community' mean *something* but we can't be sure what it is.

That's the problem with discussions like this - they're always arguments about word meanings more than about actual facts. Speaking for myself, I'm happy to use the word 'soul' in my own way, which is close enough to everyone else's meaning that it mostly works, but when you want to discuss it seriously, you have to be a bit more precise.

I think in this case, there's a much better word to use, which is 'person'. If I was asking the same question (or what in my opinion is the same question!) I would ask 'could a robot be a person?'. It's interesting from a legal perspective too: could a robot commit a crime? Go to prison? Be a victim of torture? When people abuse their Sims characters, we don't feel they're committing a moral wrong, but as those characters get more sophisticated, does that become a more difficult thing to be sure of? I think so.

 

[tzimize]

Souls in the traditional sense is a "thing" that can stay behind after you die, or...move on...whatever.

I dont believe in souls, and so I dont believe robots can have them either.

If for some reason I DID believe in souls...meh...I dont...so I simply cant imagine. The thought of souls is stupid to me. Especially when you think about advanced robotics. Or even advanced genetics.

Its a bit arrogant to think that we have souls just because we are carbon-based life forms instead of say...silicone or....something else entirely. The origin of life matters little, it is still relatively possible to define. Souls does not make sense. In us, or in robots.

 

[PurePareidolia]

No. A soul is essentially a word people use to describe a "ghost in the machine" - an invisible, undetectable quintessence that separates things that think from things that don't - Something that bridges the gap between consciousness and instinct. The problem is that no such gap exists, at least not in any possible way we can measure. Especially in the case of the robot. With the robot, everything it can do would be programmed by it's creators - there's no need for a "soul" to explain any part of it's behaviora - that would simply be a violation of Occam's razor, and after all - how could it get a soul? at what point would one bind to it? how could you tell the difference between a robot with a soul and without one - it would be an impossible task because there's no clear definition of what a "soul" is.

I can use the same reasoning to state humans don't have souls - how can you "have" something that people just made up to fill a void in our knowledge? especially when it's impossible to prove that a "soul" represents any more concrete a concept than that? humans are just biological robots - there's nothing in our behavior inexplicable or unlinkable to our neurological activity, in exactly the same way there's nothing a robot could do that couldn't be traced back to it's programming like I said.

Because the human and the robot are equivalent by every empirical standard, we are forced to accept that either both have souls, or neither do. To assume the former without compelling evidence is intellectual dishonesty. Actually this particular thought experiment is one of the best arguments against dualism that could be presented, because only wishful thinking can lead to an affirmative conclusion.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No they do not.

Which puts them on the same level as humans I suppose.

 

[Flatfrog]

No. A soul is essentially a word people use to describe a "ghost in the machine" - an invisible, undetectable quintessence that separates things that think from things that don't - Something that bridges the gap between consciousness and instinct. The problem is that no such gap exists, at least not in any possible way we can measure. Especially in the case of the robot. With the robot, everything it can do would be programmed by it's creators

I can't let that one pass. That's like saying 'everything I do is programmed by my genes' - in one sense it's trivially true, and in another it's rubbish. A robot (or any program) that was sophisticated enough to be considered a candidate for consciousness (assuming that the engineering problem of building such a thing can be solved, which I think it can) would have to be one that can learn from experience. That learning *ability* would have to be built in somehow, but what it learns, the personality it develops as a result and any opinions it might have on the world would be completely contingent on its experiences. In that sense it would be no more programmed than you or me.

there's no need for a "soul" to explain any part of it's behaviora

I don't think a soul is an explanation, I think it's a description; a single term that fuzzily defines a particular kind of conscious being. I realise that others disagree, which is why I think the *word* is a problem - it just means too many different things.

I really should be working, but this happens to be my all-time favourite topic - can you tell?

 

[Exterminas]

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.

Have you ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? A pristine example of things that are unarguably in existence, yet cannot be measured. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that one cannot measure with 100% certainty the location and momentum of quantum particles. If you know the momentum at a single point in time, the location is immeasurable. Yet would you argue that the location is nonexistent? Of course not. That would be absurd.

Existence and measurability are not the beginning and end of a cause and effect relationship. Besides, measurement is very inaccurate. If you measured the circumference of the Earth 10,000 times, you would get 10,000 different results, no matter how sensitive your equipment. Why do you think the concept of significant digits was invented?

Unrelated: my captcha just had the Greek letter 'psi' in it. What the hell, Escapist?

Stuff like that is considered existant, because it can be assumed so, based on measurable stuff. Sure there is a leap of faith involved, because you ultimately can't prove it, but it's a far smaller one than required for the christian soul-idea.

 

[randomrob]

No they don't. They could be considered a person the same as most Humans can be, but robots don't have souls and neither do humans. However, if you insist upon invoking unnecessary metaphysics into the equation and you think humans have souls, then for the sake of semantics they could be said to have a soul. I would recommend Star Trek Next Generation: "The Measure of a Man" for this issue, as the episode asks the question of whether Data is a person, or a mindless machine that is the property of Star Fleet.