to clarifyhyperdrachen said:What point did I miss? Alot of people seem to be answering a diffrent more relevant question about how we should treat sentient beings regardless of origin. But that question isn't exactly in the OP.Ghengis John said:You too have missed the point. Bravo.hyperdrachen said:The most epic thing about this thread is all the people that said "no robots can't think" Yeah the premise states self-aware, as a premise.
That said, no such thing aa a soul, so... no.
Question set up it's premise, asked if the robot has a soul. States the opinion that origin should not be the ends by which we judge living beings. I agree with the point of respect of sentient life, see no relevance to handing this new being the "soul" sticker. If soul is a placeholder for deserves the same treatement as a human then it is incredibly obtuse because the state of being alive and concience is not a noun, it's a verb so calling that "a soul" is going to lead to some clumsy imprecise language.
The soul doesn't exist in modern gold-standard physics, or biology. It remains in many religions, or spiritual(non-diety) beliefs. But not all these groups define the soul the same way so it's impossible to really answer this question with any fidelity.
the point isn't "is there such a thing as a soul" it's more about robots having what a "soul" implies, namely, sapience.