Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
it's just considerate to other people's thoughts and viewpoints, some people will disagree with you so don't blaitently tell them for a fact that they're wrong when you haven't the wildest idea wether or not they are. you have no more proof of the non-existence of souls than they have of their existancetellmeimaninja said:
I love it when one can see the true thoughtstyle at work of people, by simply looking at their wording.tellmeimaninja said:
In case you didn't get it: You just attempted to debunk something that is what you call "subjective", with another argument that is what you call "subjective". Or more precisely: Out of all things you argumented with MORALS! Is that how you view your worldview? As an ersatz-belief?
I think the better question is 'do Robots have Time Machines.' Now, I know you are going to go all 'but time machines don't exist' on me, but please, that's just an opinion and not answering the question at all.interspark said:
All you have here is a supremely hypothetical question. It'd be like asking "If you have a sandwhich tomorrow, will it have mayo?" Uh... depends on how you make the sandwich? I don't believe in Souls, but that isn't the point at this juncture. It would have whatever the scientist gave it. If he could infuse it with a soul, then there'd be a soul. and Mayo.
You really don't *get* science, do you?Lyx said:
You seem to equivocate the mind with the soul, while stating that because I think that neurological activity can explain behaviour that I'm insisting that we don't have souls, therefore minds. But that's not what I'm saying - I'm saying our brains are simply the mechanisms that allow our minds to exist - consciousness is an expression of our brain's state, rather than the ghost in the machine concept that a soul would offer. There is no evidence to suggest that this is not the case, there is evidence to suggest we can affect consciousness by tampering with the brain, and every prediction that a non-dualistic model makes has been verified. If there is a soul, it's effect on a human is so miniscule as to be undetectable, and hence we have no reason to assume it's existance. This is not simply rejecting it, it's being unable to include it in a working model of human psychology without making baseless assumptions, which would indeed be unscientific. Or is it unreasonable to require proof of a phenomona before we agree it exists?
I agree, that explanation is an oversimplification, but I'm not arguing that it's just our genes - of course a lot of our behaviour is from learned experience, but that's still a neurological phenomona, right? our brains remember and store experience which affects future behaviour. That's simply programming at runtime, much like when you make a choice in an RPG and change the story slightly. The capacity to tell your story was always there, but experience made it happen, in the same way your capacity to behave in complex ways always exists, but your experiences shape which behaviours you indulge in, if that makes sense.Flatfrog said:
Anyways, if a soul is merely a description of established phenomona then I have no argument against that. Actually I would agree completely.
Religion says 'no.'
I say 'I can't define or even prove presence of a soul, therefore I can't decide who does or does not possess one.'
I say 'I can't define or even prove presence of a soul, therefore I can't decide who does or does not possess one.'
@ original post:
No, and here's why.
First I must define what I would call a soul. To me, it is the individual creative sentience that a being has. In my view it has NOTHING to do with afterlife theories. It's what makes us an irreplaceable part of the universe, something that cannot truly be replaced after we're gone.
We humans have free will, we can ignore our biological impulses if we so choose (sentience). We also are unique, no matter what, one human will be different from another, in looks and in mind (individuality). And we also feel the need to express our individuality through creative acts, like writing, or drawing, or unusual and totally awesome strategies in Starcraft, etc (creativity).
So yes, I would say other animals might have souls, but since most animals are pretty much slaves to their instincts, they pretty much do nothing for them. They have no need for individualism and creativity, no need for something that makes them utterly unique and different. So...Maybe they do have souls, maybe they don't. But if they do, it's probably not as evolved as ours.
Which bring me to robots. Robots are machines programmed to perform a certain task by humans. The robot has no free will (no sentience). It is also incapable of thinking of anything beyond the scope that it was programmed to think in (no creativity). Lastly, it has no desire to be individual, it will only do the task it was assigned. A robot is a tool, like a hammer or a wrench. A more sophisticated tool, but a tool nonetheless.
Now, MAYBE in the distant future, we might have an AI sophisticated enough to have these things. THEN, maybe I would say it has a soul. (Like...The AIs of Deus Ex for example. At least that last one you meet, anyway.)
No, and here's why.
First I must define what I would call a soul. To me, it is the individual creative sentience that a being has. In my view it has NOTHING to do with afterlife theories. It's what makes us an irreplaceable part of the universe, something that cannot truly be replaced after we're gone.
We humans have free will, we can ignore our biological impulses if we so choose (sentience). We also are unique, no matter what, one human will be different from another, in looks and in mind (individuality). And we also feel the need to express our individuality through creative acts, like writing, or drawing, or unusual and totally awesome strategies in Starcraft, etc (creativity).
So yes, I would say other animals might have souls, but since most animals are pretty much slaves to their instincts, they pretty much do nothing for them. They have no need for individualism and creativity, no need for something that makes them utterly unique and different. So...Maybe they do have souls, maybe they don't. But if they do, it's probably not as evolved as ours.
Which bring me to robots. Robots are machines programmed to perform a certain task by humans. The robot has no free will (no sentience). It is also incapable of thinking of anything beyond the scope that it was programmed to think in (no creativity). Lastly, it has no desire to be individual, it will only do the task it was assigned. A robot is a tool, like a hammer or a wrench. A more sophisticated tool, but a tool nonetheless.
Now, MAYBE in the distant future, we might have an AI sophisticated enough to have these things. THEN, maybe I would say it has a soul. (Like...The AIs of Deus Ex for example. At least that last one you meet, anyway.)
I don't believe in souls, so there'd be no more reason for a robot to have one than a human as far as I'm concerned.
HMMM....Tough one.Lexodus said:
Ok, I admit I don't know enough about the Geth...I Just finished Mass Effect 1 yesterday (got started on ME2 today, Love it!), but I never really felt like sifting through all the codex stuff....
Based on what I do know (And using my theory I posted two posts before yours)...I think they are a borderline case. They are probably capable of creativity (since they are at least able to question their own existence), And they DO have free will......Maybe so. But since they can only really "think" in groups, I'd say it's more like they have one soul, and all Geth share it.
Or something like that.
Wow like 90% of the responses to this thread are "There's no such thing as a soul."
Was this forum recommended by the national atheists alliance or something? How about just playing along and considering the logic of the question, "could man build something he should regard as his equal"? I know you guys don't think you have souls but how about showing you have some fucking imaginations? How about a little intellectual flexibility? That's what philosophy is all about.
While we're not there, and the line would be blurry for a while, I will go out on a limb and say that it's entirely possible.
Was this forum recommended by the national atheists alliance or something? How about just playing along and considering the logic of the question, "could man build something he should regard as his equal"? I know you guys don't think you have souls but how about showing you have some fucking imaginations? How about a little intellectual flexibility? That's what philosophy is all about.
While we're not there, and the line would be blurry for a while, I will go out on a limb and say that it's entirely possible.
The most epic thing about this thread is all the people that said "no robots can't think" Yeah the premise states self-aware, as a premise.
That said, no such thing aa a soul, so... no.
That said, no such thing aa a soul, so... no.