Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: Robots have souls.
Well those rules are only written by people (criteria to be defined as living I mean, not physics). It's not an objective truth, it's a definition based on observation of existing organisms. You're citing the rules accurately, and I won't say that they don't make sense given the real world as is, but I'm arguing that the rules aren't necessarily perfect is all. It's what the whole sentient robot/AI theory crafting game is all about.
(Silly) Example scenario.
Distant distant future and super advanced androids exist. They are self aware, have emotions, have naturally occuring variation, can be powered by human food, and even reproduce with their own kind.
Android 1 has a discussion with Human Biologist 1. The human explains life sciences and how the Android is not technically alive. The Android pouts, and goes off with her academic android friends to release a paper on a new set of criteria for life, missing out the first part and adding a requirement for the organism to be comprised of nano technology. Comes back and declares the Human not alive.
You're allowed to call me silly at this point, but it's not an impossible scenario.
@Spider. Yeah, that was one of the things I did keep running into whilst writing that. Goes into more debates over definitions. The exact aim of the discussion does get blurred there on what's trying to be said. Whether it's that robots have souls, that robots could be living things, that non organic life is possible, whether artificial lifeforms are possible, or whether alternative life structures not using conventional cells are possible or allowed to be called living things. I uh... *shrug*
Well those rules are only written by people (criteria to be defined as living I mean, not physics). It's not an objective truth, it's a definition based on observation of existing organisms. You're citing the rules accurately, and I won't say that they don't make sense given the real world as is, but I'm arguing that the rules aren't necessarily perfect is all. It's what the whole sentient robot/AI theory crafting game is all about.
(Silly) Example scenario.
Distant distant future and super advanced androids exist. They are self aware, have emotions, have naturally occuring variation, can be powered by human food, and even reproduce with their own kind.
Android 1 has a discussion with Human Biologist 1. The human explains life sciences and how the Android is not technically alive. The Android pouts, and goes off with her academic android friends to release a paper on a new set of criteria for life, missing out the first part and adding a requirement for the organism to be comprised of nano technology. Comes back and declares the Human not alive.
You're allowed to call me silly at this point, but it's not an impossible scenario.
@Spider. Yeah, that was one of the things I did keep running into whilst writing that. Goes into more debates over definitions. The exact aim of the discussion does get blurred there on what's trying to be said. Whether it's that robots have souls, that robots could be living things, that non organic life is possible, whether artificial lifeforms are possible, or whether alternative life structures not using conventional cells are possible or allowed to be called living things. I uh... *shrug*
Last edited: