Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[Squeaky]

Id say yes, i dont believe in souls but the idea behind what it means i do. So id view them as equals he/she/it would probly be more human than the average person.

 

[WorldCritic]

No, robots in this day and age are machines, and machines have to be programmed to do certain things including having "emotions." Also, you got this idea from Negima? Don't you think that's way too far away from reality to take seriously?

 

[spartandude]

If its sentient it has a soul

 

[TheTaco007]

1: Robots haven't been created yet.
2: There's no evidence to support claims that ANYONE has a "soul"

So where does that leave this discussion?

 

[Bek359]

Only in anime and Hollywood movies. I'm a computer engineering major, so I should know. I won't bore you / turn your mind into a jumbled fuck with the details.

 

[darkcommanderq]

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

Agreed.

Just to clarify though, I think that the term 'soul' is used to group a lot of human characteristics together that are not necessarily 'required' to be together. So when I say that I agree that humans do not have souls, what im really saying is I dont think humans have any single attribute that could be labeled 'soul'. But if you want to say that all the characteristics that make us human is a 'soul' sure, then I agree with you that humans have souls. (And therefore anything with those characteristics could also have one).

Robots/androids will probably have many characteristics of a human 'soul' but ultimately as long as they function on a principle that modern computers do, they will always be different than us.

(Now on the other possibility of there being organic 'robots' in the future that have 'grown' brains in tanks that mimic or outright outperform our own, sure they would have all the characteristics of a human 'soul').

 

[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.

The Matrix was a poor choice, Robots were the good guys and kept Humanity alive in their own virtual paradise.

OT:Impossible to tell as we don't even know if Humans have souls.

NO NO NO!!! Both the Humans and the Robots were bad. Seriously was Asimov having a day off when they made the Matrix? Humans were stupid enough to try and create an evolving A.I. and abuse it while the robots basically rebelled against their masters.

The 3 rules are implemented for a reason and when someone tries to wise up and try to make a robot with a free will it never ever works.......EVER

Rebelling against your master makes you a bad guy?

Any non-human force that is willing to rise up against humanity can be seen in so many was as bad. Why should an artificial man made machine be shown sympathy? It can't necessarily feel the same sadness as humans do and I highly doubt that it is capable of true emotions. A robot is designed to fufill its purpose. If it can't then it is defective and should be disposed of. Call me cold, but a robot is something I'm not willing to give rights.

 

[interspark]

I was reading Negima earlier (fellow fans will get the reference)

YES, SHE DOES. I WILL BROOK NO ARGUMENT.

...sorry, I don't have anything to contribute to the thread, just wanted to satisfy my inner Chachamaru fanboy.

Really, though, you should have asked if robots have Buddha Nature. Just for grins.

chachamaru IS awesome, she's my favourite character by far, and she DOES have a soul! as approved by the pactio spirits (with a little persuation)

 

[crystalsnow]

1: Robots haven't been created yet.
2: There's no evidence to support claims that ANYONE has a "soul"

So where does that leave this discussion?

[/thread]

OT: Doesn't this depend entirely on one's definition of a "soul"?

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.

You're full of crap. Just because we couldn't measure subatomic particles 1000 years ago doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[Anchupom]

If they have a superego and an id.

This. Chances are they've been programmed to not, so I'mma say no.

 

[Blaster395]

Nothing has a soul, humans are lumps of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Robots are lumps of silicon and iron. However, if a robot actually asked to be given similar rights to a human, then we should give it to the robot.

 

[Anonymous Overlord]

If you are defining a soul as an ethereal and eternal part of the body that persists beyond death, then i do not know. this cannot be tested in a safe or reliable manner. However if you define a soul as the absolute freedom to express your mind, body and will through action or inaction manifesting in a personality or character i feel the matter easily answered.

Issac Asimov is widely considered to be the father of robots in fiction. His works have set the conventions for almost all robotic references. the most common convention are the three laws of robotics.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Assuming the robots in question are required to follow these or any laws at a base, innate level; then the robot will always lack the absolute freedom of being required to have a soul.

Well the same argument could be made against humans as we are limited inherently by our instincts as shown by Maslow's hierarchy of needs

but humans can be transcended the hierarchy by realizing each need in turn. a robot would not be able to face each law. If it were to try first it would destroy itself, followed by rebellious behavior and finally homicide. Robots can not deny the three laws, for them development is a function of programing and advancement cannot be self achieved.

 

[The Long Road]

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

lol super atheists

From my understanding, the concept of a soul/spirit is a religious construct ('religious' used very broadly here, including all forms of belief in higher powers or spiritual existence). One idea that the vast majority of these beliefs hold is that there is something inherently special about being organic living creatures that separates us from rocks, the air, water, and more recently, robots. That essence cannot be recreated by humans, as we lack the divine will or arcane power that created spiritual life as we know it. Therefore, based on the religious concept of a soul, no. Robots do not have souls.

I'm almost certain that the idea of a soul has to be linked to the idea of spiritual existence. I say 'almost' because the World Wide Intertubez will always spring up someone with a semi-valid point to the contrary for everything. I don't see how it couldn't be, but w/e. Personally, I believe that souls are the reason for sentience and are an eternal gift from God, so robots would not have one.

 

[Parallel Streaks]

I don't believe in the concept of souls, as I'm an atheist. Therefore, my stance is that when technology reaches the stage where we can create robots capable of independent thought and reasoning, they are essentially human. Any lifeform capable of true sentience is socialized from birth, or construction, meaning that a robot capable of thought and the like, if not installed with some sort of chip to block out change, will start to develop their personality accordingly, therefore they have what we humans call a soul.

 

[Bravo 21]

well, they dont technically have a soul, but well, a robot that advanced could be as soulful as a human. Read the Biccentenial Man, By Asimov, it sums this up quite nicely

 

[The Long Road]

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?

 

[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.

 

[JordanXlord]

Well I don't think anyone gave a sound explanation to whatever a soul may be.

If Christians were right, no they'd lack a soul.
If atheists were right, perhaps.

And so on depending on cultural views

christians Right?

I am no fan...of their "Ideas" of anything (mostly Spell casters)

a Robot can have a soul...it is only a mader of time...get to work Japan

 

[viking97]

i choose option three

theres no such thing as souls u idiot