Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[PoliceBox63]

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

This.
End of thread.

OT: If a robot is self aware to the point of having it's own personality then it deserves respect and rights like the rest of us.

 

[hyperdrachen]

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.

"Could a man build something that can be regarded as his equal" would certainly be a more engaging question, but it's not the one that was asked. The question is, "If a manmade robot can perfectly emulate organic sentient life, does it have a soul" A goofy question since soul is not defined at all, and theres not really a scientific gold-standard definition for "soul". You'll forgive me for leaning to the scientific edge when we're talking super advanced robots.

However I find a common sentiment of the soul, is that it is the preserved entity of "me" my memories, emotions, and personality that exist independent of my body. Modern science has nothing to say about this, this is not a question we can address with any research or experiments. Souls are only adressed in religion or spirituality, so the question gets misdirected.

Put roughly the question becomes.

"If you built a robot that impressed god enough, would god put a soul in it"
If you accept that souls and gods and metaphysical rules exist outside the tangible, then it ends up having nothing to do with the robots capabilities. If Christianity's God wanted to put a soul in a toaster, he could do it right?

 

[Lazzi]

I was reading Negima earlier (fellow fans will get the reference) and it made me wonder something. Here's the scenario,

A scientific team creates a robot, the very latest tech, it has independant thought, can have detailed conversations with humans, sharing and exchanging new knowledge and even ethical views on subjects, it can make its own decisions on what is right and wrong and even decides how to spend its own time, and, and this is the real important factor, it even has the capacity to fall in love.

The question is, does this robot have a soul? Personally I would say yes, I don't think our origins should determine our right to be human beings, rather, our personalities and emotions should be. Doctor Who once said, "there's more to being human than flesh and blood"

EDIT: sorry, I don't mean to sound bossy, but a lot of people are openly saying "souls don't exist", so can we just respect other people's views and not state our own as if they are concrete. You don't KNOW that for a fact so could we please say "I think", thanks.

Is are you eqauting a soul to Sentience? If you are, then sure it has a soul.

 

[kannibus]

Wow, this is like that episode of TNG where Data gets ordered to undergo a dis-assembly procedure and Picard's like "Hell no! I'm taking this shit to court!"

Man that was nerdy even for me.

 

[DarthFennec]

I wouldn't expect so, no. Then again, I don't think people have souls, so I guess my opinion is neither here nor there :/

 

[hyperdrachen]

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.

You too have missed the point. Bravo.

What point did I miss? Alot of people seem to be answering a diffrent more relevant question about how we should treat sentient beings regardless of origin. But that question isn't exactly in the OP.

Question set up it's premise, asked if the robot has a soul. States the opinion that origin should not be the ends by which we judge living beings. I agree with the point of respect of sentient life, see no relevance to handing this new being the "soul" sticker. If soul is a placeholder for deserves the same treatement as a human then it is incredibly obtuse because the state of being alive and concience is not a noun, it's a verb so calling that "a soul" is going to lead to some clumsy imprecise language.

The soul doesn't exist in modern gold-standard physics, or biology. It remains in many religions, or spiritual(non-diety) beliefs. But not all these groups define the soul the same way so it's impossible to really answer this question with any fidelity.

 

[Ghengis John]

"If you built a robot that impressed god enough, would god put a soul in it"
If you accept that souls and gods and metaphysical rules exist outside the tangible, then it ends up having nothing to do with the robots capabilities. If Christianity's God wanted to put a soul in a toaster, he could do it right?

Your understanding of the question is marred by the dogmatic idea that only the christian god awards souls. You have been caught up in that.

The soul doesn't exist in modern gold-standard physics, or biology. It remains in many religions, or spiritual(non-diety) beliefs. But not all these groups define the soul the same way so it's impossible to really answer this question with any fidelity.

I'll give you that.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

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

This.

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

Prove it.

Nice try.

Souls are an unfalsifiable concept. Once something is invisible, made of absolutely nothing, completely ethereal, and has a tentative meaning, there's no way to prove it wrong. You can only use common sense.

I think we know enough now about the human body to realize that what we thought was a "soul" was really just a personality, which is not a spirit inside a person, but just the unique way their brain reacts to stimuli.

I wouldn't ask you to disprove ghosts. You know why? Because they're made up. If you claimed to prove that ghosts don't exist, I could easily change the definition of "ghost" to prove you wrong.

The only way to disprove an imaginary concept is to realize that it's a fictional idea.

Here here. Intelligently reasoned out sir.

The same common sense that rules out the mythical imagined faerie court rules out the soul. Oh, there might be a tradition you respect that talks about souls, a here-after, spirits, jinn or the goddess Lamashtu feasting on babies, but people need to realise the fictions that are inside their heads, and that we have been socialised to believe and respect these fictions. Doubt is the foundation of all critical thought.

Exactly, and even doubting the things I say can lead to learning experiences, as long as the presented argument consists of more than just "I think so."

It's like people who oppose evolution. Is it possible to refute evolution? Well, you can try, but it's pretty much fact at this point. One particularly ignorant denier of evolution, Ray Comfort, claimed that the banana was proof of God simply because it appears to be naturally ergonomic. He was then told that the modern banana is the result of hundreds of years of genetic engineering. Many people have presented the argument "if humans came from chimps, why are there still chimps?" To which Richard Dawkins presented an overly-simplified family tree in which it showed that both humans and chimps were descendants of the Great Apes, not of each other. Along with the chimp thing, many people refuse to accept that we are related to chimps. Once the chimpanzee karyotype was published, it showed that the reason we have one less pair of chromosomes was actually due to chromatid fusion, seen in our third chromosome (it has two centromeres, which are essentially just twist-ties for chromosomes) so we have the same basic genetic makeup as chimps, with one small mutated oversight, setting us apart from them.

This same idea comes into play with the soul. Somebody present a ridiculous idea without any evidential proof, scientific testing, or even ideas rooted in logic. All they have is faith, which accounts to absolutely nothing.

Faith is absolutely nothing in regards to actual rational substance, but sociologists do say "things defined as real become real in their consequences". The stance of faith has consequences in regards to what is held as truth by these people, their arguments seem real and believable to them. The consequences of faith are discussions that goes no-where because religion has already given the answers to all. Do humans have souls, religion says yes, the muppet of religion repeats yes without thinking.

 

[Faladorian]

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

This.

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

Prove it.

Nice try.

Souls are an unfalsifiable concept. Once something is invisible, made of absolutely nothing, completely ethereal, and has a tentative meaning, there's no way to prove it wrong. You can only use common sense.

I think we know enough now about the human body to realize that what we thought was a "soul" was really just a personality, which is not a spirit inside a person, but just the unique way their brain reacts to stimuli.

I wouldn't ask you to disprove ghosts. You know why? Because they're made up. If you claimed to prove that ghosts don't exist, I could easily change the definition of "ghost" to prove you wrong.

The only way to disprove an imaginary concept is to realize that it's a fictional idea.

Here here. Intelligently reasoned out sir.

The same common sense that rules out the mythical imagined faerie court rules out the soul. Oh, there might be a tradition you respect that talks about souls, a here-after, spirits, jinn or the goddess Lamashtu feasting on babies, but people need to realise the fictions that are inside their heads, and that we have been socialised to believe and respect these fictions. Doubt is the foundation of all critical thought.

Exactly, and even doubting the things I say can lead to learning experiences, as long as the presented argument consists of more than just "I think so."

It's like people who oppose evolution. Is it possible to refute evolution? Well, you can try, but it's pretty much fact at this point. One particularly ignorant denier of evolution, Ray Comfort, claimed that the banana was proof of God simply because it appears to be naturally ergonomic. He was then told that the modern banana is the result of hundreds of years of genetic engineering. Many people have presented the argument "if humans came from chimps, why are there still chimps?" To which Richard Dawkins presented an overly-simplified family tree in which it showed that both humans and chimps were descendants of the Great Apes, not of each other. Along with the chimp thing, many people refuse to accept that we are related to chimps. Once the chimpanzee karyotype was published, it showed that the reason we have one less pair of chromosomes was actually due to chromatid fusion, seen in our third chromosome (it has two centromeres, which are essentially just twist-ties for chromosomes) so we have the same basic genetic makeup as chimps, with one small mutated oversight, setting us apart from them.

This same idea comes into play with the soul. Somebody present a ridiculous idea without any evidential proof, scientific testing, or even ideas rooted in logic. All they have is faith, which accounts to absolutely nothing.

Faith is absolutely nothing in regards to actual rational substance, but sociologists do say "things defined as real become real in their consequences". The stance of faith has consequences in regards to what is held as truth by these people, their arguments seem real and believable to them. The consequences of faith are discussions that goes no-where because religion has already given the answers to all. Do humans have souls, religion says yes, the muppet of religion repeats yes without thinking.

Yes, and it's that very same tendency to act on irrational thought processes that is what makes religion so dangerous. Killing your neighbor for being Muslim is not freedom of religion, it's barbaric.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

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

This.

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

Prove it.

Nice try.

Souls are an unfalsifiable concept. Once something is invisible, made of absolutely nothing, completely ethereal, and has a tentative meaning, there's no way to prove it wrong. You can only use common sense.

I think we know enough now about the human body to realize that what we thought was a "soul" was really just a personality, which is not a spirit inside a person, but just the unique way their brain reacts to stimuli.

I wouldn't ask you to disprove ghosts. You know why? Because they're made up. If you claimed to prove that ghosts don't exist, I could easily change the definition of "ghost" to prove you wrong.

The only way to disprove an imaginary concept is to realize that it's a fictional idea.

Here here. Intelligently reasoned out sir.

The same common sense that rules out the mythical imagined faerie court rules out the soul. Oh, there might be a tradition you respect that talks about souls, a here-after, spirits, jinn or the goddess Lamashtu feasting on babies, but people need to realise the fictions that are inside their heads, and that we have been socialised to believe and respect these fictions. Doubt is the foundation of all critical thought.

Exactly, and even doubting the things I say can lead to learning experiences, as long as the presented argument consists of more than just "I think so."

It's like people who oppose evolution. Is it possible to refute evolution? Well, you can try, but it's pretty much fact at this point. One particularly ignorant denier of evolution, Ray Comfort, claimed that the banana was proof of God simply because it appears to be naturally ergonomic. He was then told that the modern banana is the result of hundreds of years of genetic engineering. Many people have presented the argument "if humans came from chimps, why are there still chimps?" To which Richard Dawkins presented an overly-simplified family tree in which it showed that both humans and chimps were descendants of the Great Apes, not of each other. Along with the chimp thing, many people refuse to accept that we are related to chimps. Once the chimpanzee karyotype was published, it showed that the reason we have one less pair of chromosomes was actually due to chromatid fusion, seen in our third chromosome (it has two centromeres, which are essentially just twist-ties for chromosomes) so we have the same basic genetic makeup as chimps, with one small mutated oversight, setting us apart from them.

This same idea comes into play with the soul. Somebody present a ridiculous idea without any evidential proof, scientific testing, or even ideas rooted in logic. All they have is faith, which accounts to absolutely nothing.

Faith is absolutely nothing in regards to actual rational substance, but sociologists do say "things defined as real become real in their consequences". The stance of faith has consequences in regards to what is held as truth by these people, their arguments seem real and believable to them. The consequences of faith are discussions that goes no-where because religion has already given the answers to all. Do humans have souls, religion says yes, the muppet of religion repeats yes without thinking.

Yes, and it's that very same tendency to act on irrational thought processes that is what makes religion so dangerous. Killing your neighbor for being Muslim is not freedom of religion, it's barbaric.

Welcome to the Balkans, we've got fun and games.

And on religion, the strength of belief, certainty and its pervasiveness makes me think it won't be declining anytime soon. The secular can really be on the back-foot in many places.

 

[Faladorian]

Welcome to the Balkans, we've got fun and games.

And on religion, the strength of belief, certainty and its pervasiveness makes me think it won't be declining anytime soon. The secular can really be on the back-foot in many places.

Ah, but it is. And you know what's most likely causing the decline of religion? The rise of information. Go figure.

 

[superbatranger]

I don't think something mechanical can have a soul.

 

[hyperdrachen]

"If you built a robot that impressed god enough, would god put a soul in it"
If you accept that souls and gods and metaphysical rules exist outside the tangible, then it ends up having nothing to do with the robots capabilities. If Christianity's God wanted to put a soul in a toaster, he could do it right?

Your understanding of the question is marred by the dogmatic idea that only the christian god awards souls. You have been caught up in that.

The soul doesn't exist in modern gold-standard physics, or biology. It remains in many religions, or spiritual(non-diety) beliefs. But not all these groups define the soul the same way so it's impossible to really answer this question with any fidelity.

I'll give you that.

I didn't mean to imply that the christian god was the only one handing out souls, but being a dominate religion in white-boy usa, it was the example I was most familiar with, and quickest to use. I have no assumptions of christian superiority or correctness, I have no faith at all.

 

[Withall]

Well... that'll get me jailed for murder, rather than wilful destruction of property once they start walking on the streets... Dumb AIs only, and no androids/cyborg in my mind.

 

[Kyuubi Fanatic]

Robots, no matter how sophisticated, are inherently incapable of possessing a soul. A "soul" is, by definition, the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life (Websters). Robots are animated and "given life" through electricity and human engineering.

Can you please prove to me that those two definitions are at mutually exclusive. As in, what if the animating principle or actuating cause in humans is electricity as well? I mean, considering our nervous system that doesn't seem all too far-fetched.

So please prove that a soul is not made of electricity

A soul is immaterial. Immaterial (adj) being 1. spiritual rather than physical 2. not consisting of matter 3. incorporeal

Unless I'm mistaken electricity is made of quantifiable matter (energy and electrons and such) so it does not fit the bill.

But yes one should solidify what a soul is defined by for this topic to be discussed with any amount of decorum.

 

[Zacharine]

Robots, no matter how sophisticated, are inherently incapable of possessing a soul. A "soul" is, by definition, the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life (Websters). Robots are animated and "given life" through electricity and human engineering.

Can you please prove to me that those two definitions are at mutually exclusive. As in, what if the animating principle or actuating cause in humans is electricity as well? I mean, considering our nervous system that doesn't seem all too far-fetched.

So please prove that a soul is not made of electricity

A soul is immaterial. Immaterial (adj) being 1. spiritual rather than physical 2. not consisting of matter 3. incorporeal

Unless I'm mistaken electricity is made of quantifiable matter (energy and electrons and such) so it does not fit the bill.

But yes one should solidify what a soul is defined by for this topic to be discussed with any amount of decorum.

Well, to be fair, electricity is simultaneously both a wave of energy and a stream of particles. Magnetism further complicates things.

Are those material? Immaterial? Well, that depends on how one defines material - does it mean quantifiable/natural, or tangibly physical?

But you get the point. We need to define if a soul is immaterial - or rather supernatural. Immaterial (~intangible) can be born of natural causes in certain circumstances. Supernatural cannot.

So if a soul is an animating force, then in a robot electricity by definition is its soul. And if soul is something supernatural, well... it's not like we could then test for it, or be able to say with certainty that humans have souls either.

 

[Boom129]

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.

You too have missed the point. Bravo.

What point did I miss? Alot of people seem to be answering a diffrent more relevant question about how we should treat sentient beings regardless of origin. But that question isn't exactly in the OP.

Question set up it's premise, asked if the robot has a soul. States the opinion that origin should not be the ends by which we judge living beings. I agree with the point of respect of sentient life, see no relevance to handing this new being the "soul" sticker. If soul is a placeholder for deserves the same treatement as a human then it is incredibly obtuse because the state of being alive and concience is not a noun, it's a verb so calling that "a soul" is going to lead to some clumsy imprecise language.

The soul doesn't exist in modern gold-standard physics, or biology. It remains in many religions, or spiritual(non-diety) beliefs. But not all these groups define the soul the same way so it's impossible to really answer this question with any fidelity.

to clarify
the point isn't "is there such a thing as a soul" it's more about robots having what a "soul" implies, namely, sapience.

 

[Boom129]

The scientists can only program the human-like responses, making the robot only appear to have a soul. Any sense of right and wrong is only programmed into the robot, so it never truly had the freedom of thought to truly be making its own decisions. Its decisions are based on its designer's morals.

It does not actually feel emotion and it can't really think for itself, so it doesn't have a soul. If a robot somehow fit your description and genuinely felt these emotions internally as well as externally, and formed its own ideas of right, wrong, love, etc, it would have a soul, but such a robot can only exist in fiction. We humans can never program what makes us human into a creation of our own.

edit: also, in the spiritual sense, I don't think any religion involves a deity blessing us with the ability to create souls by any means other than childbirth, so it also doesn't make sense in the simple way some people in this thread seem to be considering the word "soul," I guess as just a shiny ball of love, instead of the concept of the abstract internal features that make us human.

A fair point, however we must remember that functions like learning and emotion, while seemingly esoteric now, are not immaterial aspects of life. They could hypothetically be replicated by simply programming the robot's thought processes in a way that resembles the human mind. Hell, a year or two ago a robot was created that could figure out the most efficient way to grab a bottle simply through trail and error, this loop of stimuli and response is he learning process at its most basic level. And while human learning is more complex, it still functions on the same basic principle.

 

[Boom129]

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

prove that this is the actual shoggoth-ing point of the discussion!

 

[Boom129]

Forget Negima, what about the Geth?

ehhhh... hard to say.
they certainly are sapient, however the lack of emotion makes me hesitant to say for sure