Does artificial intelligence have a soul?

[Penumbra]

I expect that if technology continues to progress, silicon-based lifeforms could conceivably be created to rival biological lifeforms in intellectual prowess. If a machine is created to be truly conscious, sentient, and sapient, then I would consider it, in a poetic sense, to have a "soul" just as a person does. Modern systems do not have those qualities.

But "what is a soul in the literal sense?" is a valid question to ask here. I don't believe in any sort of metaphysical soul, so my answer to the OP would be no.

-Lyn

 

[The Penitent Man]

Intellectual prowess =/= Having a Soul

We can build intelligent & eventually sentient machines, but we can't give them souls. A non-physical or metaphysical attribute is simply not available as hardware or software. It can't be transferred or copied or bolted onto a robot chasis.

 

[DeathMagus]

Intellectual prowess =/= Having a Soul

We can build intelligent & eventually sentient machines, but we can't give them souls. A non-physical or metaphysical attribute is simply not available as hardware or software. It can't be transferred or copied or bolted onto a robot chasis.

We still haven't defined what a "soul" is, how its presence (or absence) can be detected, etc.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

I guess you really can't rule out demons and tricks of the devil from playing a part, but a soul? No.

 

[david_x]

Okay, but it's impossible to prove that this isn't exactly how we work. Our entire system of intelligence may simply be responses to stimuli. Certainly in a lot of cases where we only focus on a single variable, or a small number of variables, such as reflexes, and mechanical memory, this is obviously so. As we add on more variables it seems like we really do work off of a stimus response system.

It is not particularly unlikely that all of our responses aren't simply a massive series of responses to a massive number of stimuli, and we can't really prove otherwise.

Of course our intelligence is a response to stimuli, but it is our response not a pre-programmed response (except in some cases but even those can be changed if we do not like them.)

 

[david_x]

That people are sinful and depraved.

Yeah, I forgot that slavery was openly practiced, that people often murder their neighbors on a whim, that the general population donates nothing to help those less fortunate, or that we have come to a point were we actually discuss ANIMAL rights and assume human rights.

 

[The Penitent Man]

We still haven't defined what a "soul" is, how its presence (or absence) can be detected, etc.

There is no laboratory test or "soul-smear" capable of detecting the human soul. This is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. It's metaphysics.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no laboratory test or "soul-smear" capable of detecting the human soul. This is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. It's metaphysics.

Then what is the basis for thinking there is one?

 

[DeathMagus]

Of course our intelligence is a response to stimuli, but it is our response not a pre-programmed response (except in some cases but even those can be changed if we do not like them.)

Not necessarily. Our "likes" and "dislikes" are the result of hormone changes and activation of pleasure receptors and the like. We pursue what we like and try to avoid what we dislike, based on our previous experiences with various strategies. All of these behaviors are reproducible in software - it's simply very processor intensive.

There is no laboratory test or "soul-smear" capable of detecting the human soul. This is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. It's metaphysics.

Tinker Grey's question.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Then what is the basis for thinking there is one?

It has to do with the name of this website.

 

[DeathMagus]

It has to do with the name of this website.

Sure - one can argue religiously that a "soul" exists. Without any way of determining its presence or characterizing it, however, we have no reason to say that a "soul" wouldn't naturally arise in a sufficiently sophisticated artificial intelligence. I'm pretty sure there's no scripture on that.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Sure - one can argue religiously that a "soul" exists. Without any way of determining its presence or characterizing it, however, we have no reason to say that a "soul" wouldn't naturally arise in a sufficiently sophisticated artificial intelligence. I'm pretty sure there's no scripture on that.

Oh, DeathMagus ...


If there were scripture on that, I don't think it would change your mind. It would be what you'd call "false proof."

 

[Tinker Grey]

So you believe in a soul because of the authority of scripture? Not because of evidence of such a thing?

 

[DeathMagus]

Oh, DeathMagus ...


If there were scripture on that, I don't think it would change your mind. It would be what you'd call "false proof."

Oh - it wouldn't change my mind. But even if I accept that souls exist, there's still no scriptural basis for stating that a sufficiently complex intelligence wouldn't have a soul.

 

[david_x]

Not necessarily. Our "likes" and "dislikes" are the result of hormone changes and activation of pleasure receptors and the like. We pursue what we like and try to avoid what we dislike, based on our previous experiences with various strategies. All of these behaviors are reproducible in software - it's simply very processor intensive.



Tinker Grey's question.

Liking and not liking have nothing to do with it.

 

[DeathMagus]

Liking and not liking have nothing to do with it.

They do. Humans already have all sorts of "pre-programmed responses" at the very basic level. Fire neurons x, y, and z - the arm bends. Experience something startling - adrenaline releases. Some of these responses are "programmable" - we can control them consciously. Others are automatic.

Everything we do to pursue our desires builds on our pre-programmed building blocks. We use our memory and experience to match patterns of similarity between new desires and previous desires, and generate potential algorithms that may accomplish the new desires. If we fail, we compare the nature of the failure to previous failures, and tweak our algorithm in the same way we tweaked the old one for success - and try again.

All of this can be programmed, to one extent or another.

There is currently (AFAIK) no task that humans can perform that programming cannot accomplish on a more limited scale.

 

[The Penitent Man]

So you believe in a soul because of the authority of scripture? Not because of evidence of such a thing?

Yes. It's what seperates me from you.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Oh - it wouldn't change my mind. But even if I accept that souls exist, there's still no scriptural basis for stating that a sufficiently complex intelligence wouldn't have a soul.

You don't accept Scripture to begin with, DM. You don't rely on the Scriptural basis of anything. You don't believe in God but you acknowledge His existence insomuch as He can blamed for everything. What a piece of work you are!

 

[MostRadicalManEver]

AI is just a bunch of "if then" executions. No soul.

I know what you mean though!

 

[The Penitent Man]

You can create a piano-playing robot and teach it how to play Fur Elise, but you cannot instill in that robot an appreciation for the beauty of Ludwig van Beethoven's music. You can even program the robot with an understanding of what "beauty" means to humans, examples of beautiful things and encyclopedic analysis of them. But in the end, the machine knows what beauty is only because it's been told by us what beauty is.