Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[Canid117]

Maybe "Does it have rights" or something like that would have riled up the super atheists less.

 

[interspark]

Since I am a Philosophy major, and I deeply get my panties in a bundle over topics like this, I will first need to know: How do you define a soul?

Without knowing what it is, we can't apply it on either robots, or humans.

well, i'd have thought that that would be up to us as individuals to decide! i personally think a soul is an indirect term to refer to something someone has when they become entities in their own right and start making their own decisions, in that sence we could say that babies develop souls after a few days or even hours of being born, when they decide when they are hungry and want milk

 

[Madara XIII]

No, I do not believe robots do not have souls. Show me a truly self-aware robot or AI and we'll talk...

LOL Here we go

But anyways I really didn't expect the responses on this thread to go the way they did.

All I heard after one another is "No souls don't exist" eeeesh just throwing the subject off topic there .

 

[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.

 

[sylekage]

If you can define "soul" while proving that humans have one, and simultaneously proving robots cannot have one, then I'd say no.

But if the robot you are talking about can fall in love, then it has some semblance of real emotions, and therefore, to me, it would have a soul.

 

[interspark]

what really O.- Im pretty sure they don't cuz their a manmade object. made out of metal an stuff :3

yes, and we're made out of blood and stuff, that shouldn't define whether or not we have a soul though

eh... you asked about my opinion, you got it. so bugger off -.-

hi *offers hand* welcome to an ethics debate

 

[Realitycrash]

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"

While I doubt it has a soul I as doubt the very existence of the soul being a materialist. While I could write alot on reactions to inputs not requiring the same possesses and where differing possesses matter in determining human like capabilities and qualities and how much so. I can also say that love is no clincher in "souls" a huge chunk of love in one sense is hormonal/chemical reactions to encourage reproduction. However platonic loves are another matter. My love of logic and writing is no in the same field of love as what I feel for my girlfriend there is overlap but I'd be forced to say there both platonic and none platonic love there.

I feel the question would be better posed if the idea of soul was replaced with something more "real" such as rights.

Since I am a Philosophy major, and I deeply get my panties in a bundle over topics like this, I will first need to know: How do you define a soul?

Without knowing what it is, we can't apply it on either robots, or humans.

I'm in the exact same boat while I'm currently not studying philosophy I have done until recently.

I'm not going to vote as I feel I can't give a valid answer. I don't think anything exits beyond the physical world no soul in another "magical" dimension but there is no denying things can exist above the purely physical parts such as computer stored data and written text. With out going deeply into the different camps of monism and dualism; and all that entrails. I'm guessing you are presenting an idea like that of blockhead. If not the exact same question begin raised by this thought experiment then a very similar one.
Link for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockhead_(computer_system)

Edit: the block head persented there is one diffrent from what I mean to reffer to. However it still has a part to play in this debate. For the sake of making my point I'm in the proces of digging though my text books to find the right thought experiment and I'm quite sure Ned Block came up with it. There is also the possibility that wiki is wrong slash being rather broad on the issue.

I'm sorry, but since you can't give a valid answer, or even suggest one, I am unsure how to answer your original question. The blockhead-computer, being able to pass a Turing-test, is interesting without doubt, but doesn't answer "What is a soul"?
I sort of need you to define this, or atleast give an attempt. As for stored data not being physical..Eh, data is pretty much electrical currents within a computer system, and electricity is physical, and so is written text (it's ink), so I don't buy those.

Do you want to go with the generic "what the bible says" answer, just for sake of argument?

 

[Dfskelleton]

A soul is the immaterial part of a person containing what makes them them. A robot could technically have one, but it would only be as far as it's designers allowed. It's a non-living object. It can't tell right from wrong unless said to from their master.

 

[Denamic]

You'd have to define what a soul is to begin with.

 

[Madara XIII]

I would say yes. This way we can at least treat it as a human being then to treat it as a machine (I don't want the Matrix to happen because of the past mistake).

Then don't give a robot a freaking free will!!! Jesus Christ Isaac Asimov developed those 3 rules for a reason!!

Secondly I'm not worried all that much about the Matrix happening or Skynet....no what I'm worried about is..

THIS MUDDAFUCKA HERE!

Can anyone say THE CATACLYSM!?
Seriously humanity is only asking to die when it plays God with machines.

 

[Realitycrash]

Since I am a Philosophy major, and I deeply get my panties in a bundle over topics like this, I will first need to know: How do you define a soul?

Without knowing what it is, we can't apply it on either robots, or humans.

well, i'd have thought that that would be up to us as individuals to decide! i personally think a soul is an indirect term to refer to something someone has when they become entities in their own right and start making their own decisions, in that sence we could say that babies develop souls after a few days or even hours of being born, when they decide when they are hungry and want milk

I think you are confusing "soul" with "consciousness". Or perhaps your argument is that they are the same thing, that a soul is "born" when a subject become self-aware? If so, you have to describe distinctive attributes for what a soul is.
If not, and you agree that they are the same, then the question "Does Robots have souls?" become very easy to answer, but leads to a new question, "When are robots considered self-aware?"

 

[Wintermoot]

yes but only if it can pass a Turing Test (a test in wich a person has a conversation with something or somebody, if the speaker thinks its a human the computer/robot has passed the test), its further explored in stuff like Ghost In The Shelland Blade Runner and even Chobits!

 

[NathLines]

I can't really vote on the poll. OP HAS to define what a soul is. I don't believe anything has a soul.

 

[Ekit]

I don't believe in souls. So no, I don't think robots have souls.

 

[Madara XIII]

Megaman has a soul and he always will. because megaman is too awesome to not have one.

Uuuuuuum no. The original Megaman is an Asimov robot in which he must obey Dr. Light

Now if you're talking about Megaman X and Zero then that's a different story considering that they were programed with a free will.

 

[Realitycrash]

yes but only if it can pass a Turing Test (a test in wich a person has a conversation with something or somebody, if the speaker thinks its a human the computer/robot has passed the test), its further explored in stuff like Ghost In The Shelland Blade Runner and even Chobits!

Why would being able to fool a generic human that you are also a generic human entitle you with a soul?

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

Well mine do but most others do not. You see if they have souls they have imaginations and can help me think up ways to torture my foes.

 

[LittleChone]

Who's to say robots couldn't have souls? Who's to say humans even HAVE SOULS!?!
>( These questions must be answered...

 

[Dumori]

well, i'd have thought that that would be up to us as individuals to decide!

If a word's deffanition is purely subjective what is the point of the objective word? With out getting in to philosophy of language more than this. If soul meant what every "I/you" want then how can we talk about it and understand each other enough to have this argument?

Maybe "Does it have rights" or something like that would have riled up the super atheists less.

I wouldn't call a monist view of the world atheist let alone super atheist. The existence of a plane of existence purely for the mind/soul or mind/soul being a separate thing from energy/matter has serious flaws if you amuse that the soul/mind can effect the physical world. The only dualist theory that really hold wight right now(that I know of I'm not in the university scene atm) is epiphenomenalism the idea that the mind is use a byproduct of the physical world and has no effect on it what so ever. To use the classic analogy like the steam produced from a steam train it exists but has no effect on the trains working.

 

[Madara XIII]

No they do not have souls (In the conventional and spiritual sense), but if a robot becomes self aware I'd advise you to destroy it IMMEDIATELY!!!

Robots becoming self-aware and having a free-will have never turned out well for humanity.

Sky-net = Terminator
The Matrix = Enslavement of humanity within a virtual world
Megaman = Zero going nuts in the Cataclysm and spreading the wiley virus.