Robots have souls.

[Unknown Squid]

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*

 

[Cappy]

Re: Robots have souls.

The theoretical discussion of souls even existing in the first place is unresolved, so to even progress this discussion that would have to be resolved. So we may as well re-label this thread: "Argue about Religion".

 

[Ryka]

Re: Robots have souls.

I don't mean it to be an argument about religion more than a point of view from the fictional robot character I have in my avatar.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

Eh, for the purpose of this discussion, it would be less about whether souls are a real thing or not, and more on how they work and what they do. We could simply assume they do exist and continue, but then you do run into requiring to studying every religion to figure out whether according to each individual religion whether you can have for example a Christian robot or perhaps a Buddhist robot. Perhaps Hinduism might be the only one that will allow Robots souls. Who knows.

Alternatively you're talking about non specific spiritualism, in which case things generally get hopelessly vague and can't really be debated beyond an individuals personal thoughts.

I suppose if I went by the personal policy of interpreting that 'a soul is a thing that someone who wants one, feels they have, with no more explanation necessary', then in that case I would conclude that robots can have souls. If they like.

So my current conclusion for now, purely under my own interpretation, is that Lila has proved ownership of a soul, but my toaster has not.

 

[Obsidious]

Re: Robots have souls.

Why is it so important that what may be true for you or me seemingly has to be justified by being true "objectively"?
As long as your set of beliefs work for you and do no harm to others I see no problem.

Whether or not this is now a discussion about fictional characters or actual robots having "souls" or being indistinguishable from human beings in the future, or a discussion about religion as a set of beliefs and ethics people have agreed on, doesn't seem to matter when it comes down to comparing things you see to formal definitions made by people that in turn can only judge by their share of things they have seen.

A hypothetical robot indistinguishable from humans - and by that I mean looks, function and INTENTION - will be seen as equal for as long the fact about it being a robot remains unknown. Regarding "intention": By that I mean what the robot wants to do. Let's just assume that it is capable of interacting with its environment in a way that would suggest to any observer that the robot is capable of "emotion". My point being: To the observer, or rather the people the robot interacts with, these emotions will seem genuine i.e. "natural and not programmed" - as long as they are unaware, the "truth" is of no importance to them since it doesn't affect them directly.

Should they however find out, they will begin to judge by the formal definitions I mentioned before. Important-sounding terms like "life", "natural", "artificial" and so on will be used in a way that hinders any rational discussion. Then the "definition of life" will probably be changed.

To me, this definition does not matter.
I've had my share of sickness and death in my family. And as you see your relative lying in bed decaying you may depending on the circumstances notice a change in their character. That is, a change in their bodily functions that causes them to perceive and/or interact with their environment in a different way than before. They may become virtually unrecognizable.

So what you may do is try to "remember them as they once were".
However you may also ask yourself: Did they cease to exist before their demise? When can you consider their character to be the "true" one? When is the time to say whether their personality is a good or a bad one. And so on.

The only answer you get however is this: If they DID have a "true" character/personality, you have probably never seen it.
After all, our bodies are at war - with microorganisms etc. that effect us in some way or another - 24/7 and by "definition" we are therefore sick all the time. There are cases of people changing psychologically in a dramatic way after a parasite or whatever was removed, for instance.

So my conclusion of this is that if you can't know what "really" goes on the heads of people/humanoid robots you interact with, it doesn't really matter for "your share of reality". As long as the robot is capable of behaving in the same way people do, it really only comes down to semantics.

 

[Nunu]

Re: Robots have souls.

So my current conclusion for now, purely under my own interpretation, is that Lila has proved ownership of a soul, but my toaster has not.

But squid... where would all the calculators go?

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: Robots have souls.

((Apologies if that last post came across wrong, or perhaps seemed mocking at all. Didn't mean it that way. Should have took Cappy's hint. Tried to keep it light but got too close.))

 

[Keylo]

Re: Robots have souls.

Well...

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Shrike7]

Re: Robots have souls.

Important little snippet I'm pretty sure was missed from Chib's discussion.

She states several times that Silicon is an acceptable replacement for Carbon in the construction of cells. From what I'm aware, the majority of a computer's internal working are made of silicon. they aren't cells in the traditional sense, but each component has a specific function and the whole would not function without all the parts working together. So already, a robot we make today would have a silicon-based, cell-like structure internally, and the outer casing we could consider like a shell on a snail. All the rest of the criteria can be produced rather easily, as squid explained.

As for the incoming argument that the cell-like structure is obviously not cells, One would assume that a silicon-based life form would have to be at least marginally different. It also isn't impossible to consider that a more proper cell system could be made, and we just can't do it yet, as with the comment about nano technology.