Robots have souls.

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

Doesn't that logic mean that immortals can't be alive too? And CPUs and memory units are plenty fragile. Seems killable to me.

[Edit]
I also like Iggy's logic here.

 

[Iggy]

Re: Robots have souls.

Seems killable to me.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Robots have souls.

Now I want to read Isaac Asimov. Really is trickier subject matter than it appears at first glance. Also something tackled in a lot of sci-fi, good and bad. Battlestar Galactica really pounced on this topic in their last few seasons, and even Mass Effect touches in on this, especially in the third game. Hell, even the Starship Troopers cartoon did in one episode.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

My general view on most of this kind of thing, is that if an entity can interact with it's enviroment, process thoughts in some manner and communicate in a human like way, then it's alive enough. And if it can be made to permanently cease these activities, then it's dead enough. It's the end result and actions of a "being" that matters, not the processes it uses to achieve them. Anything else then only seems like semantics and defunct labels.

If a hyper advanced and indistinguishable android is dead, and a 30 year coma victim is alive, then the phrases lose meaning anyway.


This view is of course greatly simplified by not actually believing in souls, which would still be a debatable thing I suppose. The general lack of objectivity in what a soul is, does, or how they form, makes it a rather impossible thing to really conclude.

 

[Iggy]

Re: Robots have souls.

I-I hope you guys are happy for proof that robots have emotions.... your negreps saying they don't, made this one cry....

Here's one test to prove whether or not you're a robot Lili:

This sentence isn't over.

 

[Ryka]

Re: Robots have souls.

..... No it's not. The sentence says it is not over, therefore it has no conclusion, observation.wav.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

This sentence isn't over.

That's a lie!

How'd I test?

 

[Iggy]

Re: Robots have souls.

..... No it's not. The sentence says it is not over, therefore it has no conclusion, observation.wav.

That's a lie!

How'd I test?

Seeing as both of you didn't malfunction and explode due to an overload on your logic circuits, I have come to two conclusions:

1. You are not robots.

-or-

2. You are Wheatley from Portal 2.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

So...

1. Not robots

-or-

2. A type of robot that can think in a certain way?

Hardly seems like a rock solid conclusion.

 

[Iggy]

Re: Robots have souls.

So...

1. Not robots

-or-

2. A type of robot that can think in a certain way?

Hardly seems like a rock solid conclusion.

1. Not robots

-or-

2. Stupidest robot ever

 

[Cappy]

Re: Robots have souls.

..... No it's not. The sentence says it is not over, therefore it has no conclusion, observation.wav.

Incorrect, punctuation dictates that the sentence is over. You would be right if say, he'd said it out loud, but due to the laws of the English language, the word trick doesn't really work when written or typed. There-fore, the sentence is a lie, a period marks the end of a sentence.

 

[Iggy]

Re: Robots have souls.

Incorrect, punctuation dictates that the sentence is over. You would be right if say, he'd said it out loud, but due to the laws of the English language, the word trick doesn't really work when written or typed. There-fore, the sentence is a lie, a period marks the end of a sentence.

Curses! Foiled again!

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: Robots have souls.

I gotta mention, like before i don't believe in souls. I also don't agree that a "robot" is alive in any capacity. For something to be alive it must:

1. Be made of Cells
2. Obtain and use energy
3. Grow and develop
4. Reproduce without outside help (This one is why Viruses are not living organisms)
5. Respond to their environment
6. Adapt to their environment (ie Evolution or like

You must be registered to see the links

where they changed colors after pollution darkened the bark of the trees they hang out on.)

A robot or a virus or a prion can have a semblance of life, but that's all it is.

And this concludes your daily dose of biology. -shrug- This is my attempt to add some more... viable discussion to a very silly topic xD

 

[super_slicer]

Re: Robots have souls.

But no matter how much a robot/any machine were to be damaged, it could always be repaired, the only deciding factor is cost/benifit or the repair.

As far as immortals go, if you meet one send them my way, we'll see if they can die or not. Usually they're just immune to death from age.

And props to Chibi for the concise defintion of life.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

For something to be alive it must:

1. Be made of Cells
2. Obtain and use energy
3. Grow and develop
4. Reproduce without outside help (This one is why Viruses are not living organisms)
5. Respond to their environment
6. Adapt to their environment (ie Evolution or like

You must be registered to see the links

where they changed colors after pollution darkened the bark of the trees they hang out on.)

Mhmm. That may be a proper and scientific definition of life, so props for that much, but it just doesn't mean much to me. An advanced robot could theoretically do all of those except number 1 just fine. And then it starts to seem similar to an Eskimo saying that a teepee isn't a house, because he's never seen a working house not made out of ice before. Does everything it should, but achieves it in an alien seeming way.

But no matter how much a robot/any machine were to be damaged, it could always be repaired, the only deciding factor is cost/benifit or the repair.

And that just isn't remotely true slicer.

Zap all the electronics with a taser and seer solder lines across all the circuitry, and you've now thoroughly destroyed the brain and erased it's memories and personality. If it's doesn't use conventional computing for a brain, then a chemical bath or whatever. There would be methods.

Next up put the entire thing through a car crusher and an incinerator, reducing the robot to ash stained slag. You can't repair that. You could build another, but it's not the same robot, its just a new one. Even if you somehow recycled the ash and molten crap, that's no more repairing it than saying sprinkling a humans ashes on a vegetable plot and having a new baby is repairing a person.

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: Robots have souls.

Mhmm. That may be a proper and scientific definition of life, so props for that much, but it just doesn't mean much to me. An advanced robot could theoretically do all of those except number 1 just fine. And then it starts to seem similar to an Eskimo saying that a teepee isn't a house, because he's never seen a working house not made out of ice before. Does everything it should, but achieves it in an alien seeming way.

I have to disagree with you. To be able to "grow" and develop one must first be made of cells. Evolution occurs the same way as does reproduction. There may be organisms out there whose basic foundation is silicon because it is very much like Carbon in the way it is structured, but Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen are the foundation blocks for what we call "Carbon-Based" life.

But life is Organic and without the Organic molecules (like Carbon or perhaps maybe Silicon) you can't have life. I never took Organic chemistry, but from what I've heard from my friends the building blocks of life are insanely complicated and unless you have the right combination there is no life.

Replacing carbon with Iron or steel or copper doesn't make something alive. Those things don't have the qualities that let them bind in the same way that Carbon does.

I very much like this

You must be registered to see the links

. It explains the unique properties of Carbon very well (better than I can, lol). The other article about the importance of water is also enlightening.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

too. Though the one about non-cellular life states that this encompasses viruses, it is currently theoretical and viruses still hover on the edges of "life" and are still not considered true living things.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

Everything you said there is relating to cells though, and the definition of life as requiring cells. Not incorrect, but seems to be missing my point about the other criteria.


2. Obtain and use energy
This one is easy. They could burn organic matter as fuel, or even to harness as chemical energy the same way conventional life does. They could also draw energy from environmental sources such as the tides, wind, or solar. Rare elements could also provide various energy sources given the right environment.

3. Grow and develop
Either a sophisticated modular design (with new matter or components constructed internally of course), or more likely, advanced nano technology could allow this.

4. Reproduce without outside help
The concept of self replicating nanites is well known and theoretically sound, even if we haven't achieved it yet, it's generally a given thing. The proposals for nanotechnology go as far as including artificial DNA of sorts to allow units to allow racial variation and adaptation to simple environments/stimuli (To mimic real DNA's adaptive capabilities it would require far more complex design than proposed thus far, but the basis is the same, and it could be done.) it would require . Also it's perfectly reasonable for a robot to have a womb analogous "factory" for it's offspring.

5. Respond to their environment
We have robots and AI that do this already. Better AI does it better by the day. (Except AI team mates in gaming... >_> )

6. Adapt to their environment
See #4 regarding artificial DNA, and also perfectly possible. Variables in the "blueprints" for new offspring would result in the ability to passively adapt and develop racially, along with all the imperfections natural evolution normally brings. If the race had the ability to reconfigure their bodies in a more active manner, they could arguably adapt that way too.



I'll also note here that nothing says a robot has to be built out of metals and use electricity as fuel. Carbon is one of the foremost materials in nano-robotics, as are many "organic" materials. Being organic is just a state of construction, not a distinct form of matter. Any robot that could achieve all of these criteria is almost certain to have a rather organic appearance in the end. Don't go imagining something that looks like Wall-e.

And one more. Earths natural environment should not be considered the only possible habitat to define living things. Life from Earth would not survive on Jupiter or other distant planets. A robotic life form that relied on the specific natural resources there (for food or reproduction) however might thrive.

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: Robots have souls.

But the rules that apply here for chemistry and for physics are the same elsewhere in the universe. Even life here has some amazing adaptations to survive in hostile environments. There are fish that live in sulfuric acid.

And again, if something doesn't follow all the rules required for life, ie maintaining homeostasis and being made of cells, and all the others listed including in the link I provided then it is not life. Just one rule out of wack and you are on the edges of life, but not actually life.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: Robots have souls.

@Chibi: What is it about cells that makes them a requirement for something to be life?

@Squid: If you create an artificial lifeform, can it truly be considered a "robot" any more?

 

[Mirchie]

Re: Robots have souls.

I think the big question we're all missing here is the original one. Would these new-fangled carbon-based artificial life forms have souls?

On a more serious note, I give my support to Squid's points. Because I like the sound of 'robots' or, I dunno, AI near-lifeforms being so advanced. Though I'm not educated enough to contribute anything else to this that hasn't already been stated.