Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[emion]

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

O.- really, I though it was more like a POLL !!!
why making it a poll when you obviously have such strong opinions about robots having soul's... HAHA reminds me of that ginger video X'D

 

[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!

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

its not fooling! if a computer where to be able too talk like a human (Sarcasm, humor, ethics, seeing it from another point of view etc.)and making its own decisions dependant from its programing, doesnt that mean that the computer has a soul? so far humanity hasnt been able to create something like this.

 

[FalloutJack]

By my personal definition, a robot does not. An android (more complicated mechanism) is a different story.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between the two?

Now, this is just a personal opinion of mine, but my perception is that robots are best defined in Isaac Asimov's universe, where they have been advanced-but-limited in terms of development. Intelligent and capable, but will many times be hit with severely-compromising logic errors due to the complexities of the world versus their programming. Conflicts arisen within the Three Laws system Asimov developed proves that something as small as the wrong command can lead to numerous hazardous problems or at least brain-death for the robot. Only way to get around it was for robots to develop loop-holes (The Zeroeth Law, in the Asimov case). In other words, what can be a small development problem for a human being can sometimes be a daunting or horrific task to a robot.

Whereas, my definition of an android is that you develop a complex machine to emulate the most complex ways of thought and a physical status being as closely-functional to man as you can. The easiest example (and universally-accepted, I hope) would be Brent Spiner's role as Commander Data from Star Trek. He was incomplete in that a catastrophe interrupted the fullness of his development, but you could see that his intellect was largely an unhindered thing, except for where it hadn't been completed. An android is supposedly more open and capable of intuitive thought and reasoning. If you tell an android that an answer is wrong, it will not mechanically insist it is right, but rather question this thought and rethink its calculations.

This is how I would choose to reason it out in a manner that seems rational. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

The Cardinal Problem of Psychophysical Dualism (I.e "How can something purely Spiritual affect something purely of flesh") has some flaws, yes, but nothing says the soul has to be purely of spirit.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So.... You have a Data? Cause I thought he showed signs of having a soul in one episode.

anyway, Iw ould say anyhting sentient has a soul. To the degree that plants have souls.

 

[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

OT: Personally, I see this as a case of defining what a soul is in the first place. If we are talking of something supposedly supernatural then the question itself makes little sense. One might as well ask if a house, a dog or even a human has a soul.

If we are talking of soul as somehow the cause for sapience, then the answer might be yes - as long as we can give sapience to a robot. Because in that case something supernatural might not be required.

 

[Jonluw]

Nope, but neither do humans, so it's all good.

In my opinion, if a robot is created that functions completely identically to a human (it would probably be a bio-robot, I guess), i.e. it has just as complicated a brain, it will also develop self conciousness, and believe itself to have a soul. I also believe it then should be treated as equal to a human, like in Negima.

.>
[sub]Also, it'd be totally hot if they reacted that way to being wound up...[/sub]

In my opinion, the "individual" that we think of as seperate from our bodies is merely the sum of the calculations our brain is making while trying to interpret its surroundings at any given time.

 

[Realitycrash]

By my personal definition, a robot does not. An android (more complicated mechanism) is a different story.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between the two?

Now, this is just a personal opinion of mine, but my perception is that robots are best defined in Isaac Asimov's universe, where they have been advanced-but-limited in terms of development. Intelligent and capable, but will many times be hit with severely-compromising logic errors due to the complexities of the world versus their programming. Conflicts arisen within the Three Laws system Asimov developed proves that something as small as the wrong command can lead to numerous hazardous problems or at least brain-death for the robot. Only way to get around it was for robots to develop loop-holes (The Zeroeth Law, in the Asimov case). In other words, what can be a small development problem for a human being can sometimes be a daunting or horrific task to a robot.

Whereas, my definition of an android is that you develop a complex machine to emulate the most complex ways of thought and a physical status being as closely-functional to man as you can. The easiest example (and universally-accepted, I hope) would be Brent Spiner's role as Commander Data from Star Trek. He was incomplete in that a catastrophe interrupted the fullness of his development, but you could see that his intellect was largely an unhindered thing, except for where it hadn't been completed. An android is supposedly more open and capable of intuitive thought and reasoning. If you tell an android that an answer is wrong, it will not mechanically insist it is right, but rather question this thought and rethink its calculations.

This is how I would choose to reason it out in a manner that seems rational. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

Didn't we just admit in a different thread that an Android and a Robot can be synonym?
A robot is just "a machine that performs a task", more or less. An Android is "a human machine".

 

[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

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?"

you're right, i do believe a consiousness and soul to be the same thing, this is what i believe differs those with souls from those without, as for your second question, i believe that robots, like any other living things, become indapendant when they begin to make decisions that are seperate or even contradictory to those of the people who created them (or in the case of living things, those who "taught" them)

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Nah, I don't think anything has a soul, and if they do, then we can be certain to invent robot souls too!

If nothing but bugs in the code

 

[GiantRaven]

Now, this is just a personal opinion of mine, but my perception is that robots are best defined in Isaac Asimov's universe, where they have been advanced-but-limited in terms of development. Intelligent and capable, but will many times be hit with severely-compromising logic errors due to the complexities of the world versus their programming. Conflicts arisen within the Three Laws system Asimov developed proves that something as small as the wrong command can lead to numerous hazardous problems or at least brain-death for the robot. Only way to get around it was for robots to develop loop-holes (The Zeroeth Law, in the Asimov case). In other words, what can be a small development problem for a human being can sometimes be a daunting or horrific task to a robot.

Whereas, my definition of an android is that you develop a complex machine to emulate the most complex ways of thought and a physical status being as closely-functional to man as you can. The easiest example (and universally-accepted, I hope) would be Brent Spiner's role as Commander Data from Star Trek. He was incomplete in that a catastrophe interrupted the fullness of his development, but you could see that his intellect was largely an unhindered thing, except for where it hadn't been completed. An android is supposedly more open and capable of intuitive thought and reasoning. If you tell an android that an answer is wrong, it will not mechanically insist it is right, but rather question this thought and rethink its calculations.

This is how I would choose to reason it out in a manner that seems rational. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

Thank you, that was very interesting. =D

 

[AugustFall]

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.

Your post has no disclaimer that you don't know for a fact that a soul exists so why should mine?
I can respect your point of view but by those rules I would have to say that I only think I don't have a massless, transparent, invisible 3rd arm on my back. I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty much positive I don't.

However I didn't come to this thread to flame; so yes I believe that at that point a robot would have what you would equate to a soul.

 

[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?"

you're right, i do believe a consiousness and soul to be the same thing, this is what i believe differs those with souls from those without, as for your second question, i believe that robots, like any other living things, become indapendant when they begin to make decisions that are seperate or even contradictory to those of the people who created them (or in the case of living things, those who "taught" them)

Then you define a soul as consciousness. Fair enough. Pretty sure you wouldn't use that word in any other discussion when talking about a conscious being, but okey.

As for the "independent" Robot..Are you familiar with Fatalism and Determinism?

 

[FalloutJack]

By my personal definition, a robot does not. An android (more complicated mechanism) is a different story.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between the two?

Now, this is just a personal opinion of mine, but my perception is that robots are best defined in Isaac Asimov's universe, where they have been advanced-but-limited in terms of development. Intelligent and capable, but will many times be hit with severely-compromising logic errors due to the complexities of the world versus their programming. Conflicts arisen within the Three Laws system Asimov developed proves that something as small as the wrong command can lead to numerous hazardous problems or at least brain-death for the robot. Only way to get around it was for robots to develop loop-holes (The Zeroeth Law, in the Asimov case). In other words, what can be a small development problem for a human being can sometimes be a daunting or horrific task to a robot.

Whereas, my definition of an android is that you develop a complex machine to emulate the most complex ways of thought and a physical status being as closely-functional to man as you can. The easiest example (and universally-accepted, I hope) would be Brent Spiner's role as Commander Data from Star Trek. He was incomplete in that a catastrophe interrupted the fullness of his development, but you could see that his intellect was largely an unhindered thing, except for where it hadn't been completed. An android is supposedly more open and capable of intuitive thought and reasoning. If you tell an android that an answer is wrong, it will not mechanically insist it is right, but rather question this thought and rethink its calculations.

This is how I would choose to reason it out in a manner that seems rational. If I'm wrong, no biggie.

Didn't we just admit in a different thread that an Android and a Robot can be synonym?
A robot is just "a machine that performs a task", more or less. An Android is "a human machine".

I don't recall admitting that. I recall making a joke about science and not sweating the small stuff.

 

[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

O.- really, I though it was more like a POLL !!!
why making it a poll when you obviously have such strong opinions about robots having soul's... HAHA reminds me of that ginger video X'D

the poll is for people to state what they think, the reason we comment is so that we can argue our case

 

[zidine100]

well if were going on the assumption something like the soul exists (im going to assume were going on the christian sence of the soul) and im assuming were talking about true ai that has sentient thought), then yes, if such a thing as a 'god' exists he probably would impart a soul on sufficiently developed artificial intelligent robot. In fact this is the main counter arguments to the argument in ai that ai cant exist due to the fact any artificial intelligence created will have no soul.

 

[thephill]

did johnny 5 have soul?
it's all metaphorical in my eyes so maybe the robot the opening post does. but no robot has ever and probibly never will be advanced enough for me to consider it to have soul.

 

[_Cake_]

If there is anything I have learned from sci-fi and anime yes robots have souls, but only if they can have sex with you.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

Your post has no disclaimer that you don't know for a fact that a soul exists so why should mine?
I can respect your point of view but by those rules I would have to say that I only think I don't have a massless, transparent, invisible 3rd arm on my back. I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty much positive I don't.

However I didn't come to this thread to flame; so yes I believe that at that point a robot would have what you would equate to a soul.

This is a Philosophy thread. While we all respect eachothers beliefs, nothing and noone can be proven to exist, just be given a definition of plausibility.

To be clear: If you can't handle your beliefs being challenged, you better step out now. Goes for everyone.

 

[Dumori]

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?

This I know but I have one ~330 page text book on philosophy of the mind that also touches on the philosophy of Persons and another textbook with a dedicated 30 slot on just the basics on the philosophy of persons. None of these have a solid answer on what a "soul" is or where the term should even be used. if there was an easily known yes or no this would be like physics and maths.

If we go with a biblical soul then the idea an none human could have one is I'm quite sure it is out of the question. However soul has slowly come to mean consuness to us in this day and age. A shift that makes for an actual debate