Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[manythings]

Your opinion on the concept of soul and its feasability isn't what can be classified as evidence. There are any number of things that could be called "imaginary" that people persist to believe and disbelieve, the myth of dark matter is a very good example of a scientific belief.

Flight was imaginary until it was real. The combustion engine, bacteria, even black swans were considered inventions of chronic liars. Your argument is why I hate both ends of any theological or existential debate, you all think what you choose to believe is proved by your belief.

Common sense is the root of superstition not a means of bypassing it.

The idea of dark matter came about when we realized that what we could see in the universe was not equal to the estimated weight.
And evidently flight was not imaginary, because we can do it now, can we not? You think we're as arrogant as the people who killed others because they said the Earth revolved around the Sun? No, we've changed.
And I finish with something else. Why do we need to prove something, when there is NO EVIDENCE in it's favor anyway? Answer me that.

Are you actually asking that question? Of course you have to prove things, that is how science works. Proof decides what is real and what isn't, when both sides have equal proof or no proof then there is no answer. You can't prove or dispove a soul, god, art, love, life. You can't even prove or disprove the colour Blue.

Flight was regarded as a fever dream until there was a plane. The idea of dark matter is born of arrogance. According to the equations the universe hasn't enough mass to account for the gravity it would take to keep it from firing off into eternity so instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with their hypothesis they invented an unverifiable X-factor to show that they were right all along. It's non-sense, they might aswell have blamed goblins for it. Dark Matter is just a new version of Phlogiston.

 

[Realitycrash]

Dark Matter is a myth now? Good to know. Now try to convince the world scientific paradigm to change.

But without dark matter, HOW WILL I SUMMON ODIN?!

Better question; Without Dark Matter, does Magus still have the strongest magic in Chrono Trigger?

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

If argued from a religious aspect, which is the origin of the idea of soul, then robots would not have souls because they were created rather than born. But in most (if not all) religious ideologies, mankind was also created at some point, so...

Also, I don't get why only humans could have souls (even discounting robots), animals have consciousness, self-awareness, life, why couldn't they have souls?

 

[Bakuryukun]

There isn't even any evidence of souls in humans, so i'm going to say no. I think the more realistic debate is how people are going to deal with sentient machines in the first place, we'd have to do the civil rights thing all over again most likely. It would change a lot of things.

 

[ModReap]

We have no true way to measure if one has a "soul" or what makes up this "soul" or how this "soul" behaves so how could we even possibly begin to question that which we have no way of testing?

 

[Realitycrash]

Flight was regarded as a fever dream until there was a plan. The idea of dark matter is born of arrogance. According to the equations the universe hasn't enough mass to account for the gravity it would take to keep it from firing off into eternity so instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with their hypothesis they invented an unverifiable X-factor to show that they were right all along. It's non-sense, they might aswell have blamed goblins for it. Dark Matter is just a new version of Phlogiston.

Actually, Einstein conceived Dark Matter in order to fix a problem he had with his Theory of Special Relativity. Then he regretted it and called it the greatest blunder of his career.
Annnnnd around fifty years later, when they pulled the equations and realized that SOMETHING had to fill the damn void, Dark Matter actually made sense.
It isn't proven, but it's a damn better hypothesis than Phlogiston (though Phlogiston is awesome).

 

[MikhailGH]

This completely depends on your definition of a soul (Which, yourself said in the edit nobody knows if it really exists). Now, personally I believe that something like you described can attain/have a soul.

 

[Sandytimeman]

I don't even believe I have a soul. I mean if we truly have souls, the how do you explain serial killers, rapists, and such. If priests truly believed in souls would they rape children in a church? Nope.

If you can't prove that human's have a soul, then the argument over a robot is ignorant at worst and arrogant at best. If something has full independent thought, is self aware, and can take care of itself then it deserves all the rights a human would have, but seeing as we don't even except other humans, I doubt that would happen either.

 

[Realitycrash]

Alrighty, so we move the question one step further down the line: When does a Robot become self-aware?
Is it when he can say "Eureka! Cogito Ergo Sum!"?

While "Cogito Ergo Sum" I'd say maybe not it takes a self aware enity a while to think that one. However questioning existence on a metaphysical level involving ones self is most cetianly the signs of self-awareness. Asking why one is here or what one's purpose is are the signs of a rational self-aware being. The hard part is finding out where self-awareness starts as I'm sure it starts before one has the time to ask "why one is here".

How about when one has the ability to distinguish one self from the rest of the world? That would mean that most animals are self-aware, but that they lack meta-cognition (the ability to question one-self ability to question, i.e "am I aware?").

 

[Dumori]

Your opinion on the concept of soul and its feasability isn't what can be classified as evidence. There are any number of things that could be called "imaginary" that people persist to believe and disbelieve, the myth of dark matter is a very good example of a scientific belief.

Flight was imaginary until it was real. The combustion engine, bacteria, even black swans were considered inventions of chronic liars. Your argument is why I hate both ends of any theological or existential debate, you all think what you choose to believe is proved by your belief.

Common sense is the root of superstition not a means of bypassing it.

The idea of dark matter came about when we realized that what we could see in the universe was not equal to the estimated weight.
And evidently flight was not imaginary, because we can do it now, can we not? You think we're as arrogant as the people who killed others because they said the Earth revolved around the Sun? No, we've changed.
And I finish with something else. Why do we need to prove something, when there is NO EVIDENCE in it's favor anyway? Answer me that.

Are you actually asking that question? Of course you have to prove things, that is how science works. Proof decides what is real and what isn't, when both sides have equal proof or no proof then there is no answer. You can't prove or dispove a soul, god, art, love, life. You can't even prove or disprove the colour Blue.

Flight was regarded as a fever dream until there was a plane. The idea of dark matter is born of arrogance. According to the equations the universe hasn't enough mass to account for the gravity it would take to keep it from firing off into eternity so instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with their hypothesis they invented an unverifiable X-factor to show that they were right all along. It's non-sense, they might aswell have blamed goblins for it. Dark Matter is just a new version of Phlogiston.

However creating a X-factor and testing it is ages old I'm sure Newton did it many a time. Sure right now we are on the fence about it but the point is its easy to test dark matter that make a totally new paridime then test that as our curent one might be wrong. I'd rather know it was wrong before setting on a years long task deliberately undoing possibly 100s of year worth of wrong data and theory. You might call it arrogant in all honestly is sounds like a good sound idea.

 

[Bakuryukun]

Flight was regarded as a fever dream until there was a plane. The idea of dark matter is born of arrogance. According to the equations the universe hasn't enough mass to account for the gravity it would take to keep it from firing off into eternity so instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with their hypothesis they invented an unverifiable X-factor to show that they were right all along. It's non-sense, they might aswell have blamed goblins for it. Dark Matter is just a new version of Phlogiston.

lol are you implying that scientists aren't trying to either disprove or find a better hypothesis than Dark Matter? Apparently you don't know how the scientific method works.

 

[loc978]

Dark Matter is a myth now? Good to know. Now try to convince the world scientific paradigm to change.

But without dark matter, HOW WILL I SUMMON ODIN?!

Better question; Without Dark Matter, does Magus still have the strongest magic in Chrono Trigger?

Define strength... is Flare stronger than Life2?

 

[katsumoto03]

No because there's no such thing as a soul.

Perhaps they are capable of being self-aware, but that's as close to having a "soul" as anything is going to get.

 

[Realitycrash]

Dark Matter is a myth now? Good to know. Now try to convince the world scientific paradigm to change.

But without dark matter, HOW WILL I SUMMON ODIN?!

Better question; Without Dark Matter, does Magus still have the strongest magic in Chrono Trigger?

Define strength... is Flare stronger than Life2?

Ofc, everyone knows healing-magic is gei compared to Flare.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Your opinion on the concept of soul and its feasability isn't what can be classified as evidence. There are any number of things that could be called "imaginary" that people persist to believe and disbelieve, the myth of dark matter is a very good example of a scientific belief.

Flight was imaginary until it was real. The combustion engine, bacteria, even black swans were considered inventions of chronic liars. Your argument is why I hate both ends of any theological or existential debate, you all think what you choose to believe is proved by your belief.

Common sense is the root of superstition not a means of bypassing it.

The idea of dark matter came about when we realized that what we could see in the universe was not equal to the estimated weight.
And evidently flight was not imaginary, because we can do it now, can we not? You think we're as arrogant as the people who killed others because they said the Earth revolved around the Sun? No, we've changed.
And I finish with something else. Why do we need to prove something, when there is NO EVIDENCE in it's favor anyway? Answer me that.

Are you actually asking that question? Of course you have to prove things, that is how science works. Proof decides what is real and what isn't, when both sides have equal proof or no proof then there is no answer. You can't prove or dispove a soul, god, art, love, life. You can't even prove or disprove the colour Blue.

Flight was regarded as a fever dream until there was a plan. The idea of dark matter is born of arrogance. According to the equations the universe hasn't enough mass to account for the gravity it would take to keep it from firing off into eternity so instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with their hypothesis they invented an unverifiable X-factor to show that they were right all along. It's non-sense, they might aswell have blamed goblins for it. Dark Matter is just a new version of Phlogiston.

You speak of the scientific method, but then you criticize physicists for "inventing" dark matter. The scientific process is all about providing a hypothesis to questions that have no definite answers (and even some that do), and testing those hypothese to see if the evidence supports them.
Dark matter was not "invented" so scientists could save face when there original hypothesis didn't fit the results. The very fact that they provided another variable to the equation is them creating a new hypothesis -which will also be discarded if it doesn't fit the observed results- as it says "ok, we were wrong about the about amount of mass of the universe, what could we have missed? Some new form of matter/energy we aren't aware of?" Surely, there were people who rejected the dark matter theory and did (as you say) check the math, but they likely haven't found the answer either, which is why you don't hear a competing theory.
It isn't born of arrogance, quite the opposite, it is born of the humble acceptance that there are things in the universe whose nature eludes our narrow scope.

 

[Dumori]

Alrighty, so we move the question one step further down the line: When does a Robot become self-aware?
Is it when he can say "Eureka! Cogito Ergo Sum!"?

While "Cogito Ergo Sum" I'd say maybe not it takes a self aware enity a while to think that one. However questioning existence on a metaphysical level involving ones self is most cetianly the signs of self-awareness. Asking why one is here or what one's purpose is are the signs of a rational self-aware being. The hard part is finding out where self-awareness starts as I'm sure it starts before one has the time to ask "why one is here".

How about when one has the ability to distinguish one self from the rest of the world? That would mean that most animals are self-aware, but that they lack meta-cognition (the ability to question one-self ability to question, i.e "am I aware?").

That exactly what I'm getting at while a being with a "soul" might be born imideately lacking such skills they are learnt (or at least the meant to express the self-awareness). This poses the question of dose the being suddenly gain self-awareness and all that entails or is there something a little deeper that we are missing.

 

[omicron1]

Given the Christian definition of a soul, robots have no souls. A soul is an extraphysical element of being, something that survives death and is unique to each person - and, furthermore, is a distinctly human possession. Animals and manmade objects, no matter how sophisticated, do not have souls.

 

[manythings]

Flight was regarded as a fever dream until there was a plan. The idea of dark matter is born of arrogance. According to the equations the universe hasn't enough mass to account for the gravity it would take to keep it from firing off into eternity so instead of trying to figure out what was wrong with their hypothesis they invented an unverifiable X-factor to show that they were right all along. It's non-sense, they might aswell have blamed goblins for it. Dark Matter is just a new version of Phlogiston.

Actually, Einstein conceived Dark Matter in order to fix a problem he had with his Theory of Special Relativity. Then he regretted it and called it the greatest blunder of his career.
Annnnnd around fifty years later, when they pulled the equations and realized that SOMETHING had to fill the damn void, Dark Matter actually made sense.
It isn't proven, but it's a damn better hypothesis than Phlogiston (though Phlogiston is awesome).

There's a solution to everything in the Universe. Neat, plausible and wrong.

Phlogiston fits in the exact same way dark matter does, it accounts for something perfectly. You can't see it, scan for it, no-one has made any articially or sampled any natural source but honest it's real. I also have an invisible, non-corporeal spaceship in my garden... but you can't come over and check.

 

[Realitycrash]

Alrighty, so we move the question one step further down the line: When does a Robot become self-aware?
Is it when he can say "Eureka! Cogito Ergo Sum!"?

While "Cogito Ergo Sum" I'd say maybe not it takes a self aware enity a while to think that one. However questioning existence on a metaphysical level involving ones self is most cetianly the signs of self-awareness. Asking why one is here or what one's purpose is are the signs of a rational self-aware being. The hard part is finding out where self-awareness starts as I'm sure it starts before one has the time to ask "why one is here".

How about when one has the ability to distinguish one self from the rest of the world? That would mean that most animals are self-aware, but that they lack meta-cognition (the ability to question one-self ability to question, i.e "am I aware?").

That exactly what I'm getting at while a being with a "soul" might be born imideately lacking such skills they are learnt (or at least the meant to express the self-awareness). This poses the question of dose the being suddenly gain self-awareness and all that entails or is there something a little deeper that we are missing.

Research that I have seen in the field seem to suggest that babies are self-aware right away, though their minds might not yet be grown enough to have developed meta-cognition.

 

[Cypher10110]

I was reading Negima earlier (fellow fans will get the reference) and it made me wonder something. Here's the scenario,

A scientific team creates a robot, the very latest tech, it has independant thought, can have detailed conversations with humans, sharing and exchanging new knowledge and even ethical views on subjects, it can make its own decisions on what is right and wrong and even decides how to spend its own time, and, and this is the real important factor, it even has the capacity to fall in love.

The question is, does this robot have a soul? Personally I would say yes, I don't think our origins should determine our right to be human beings, rather, our personalities and emotions should be. Doctor Who once said, "there's more to being human than flesh and blood"

EDIT: sorry, I don't mean to sound bossy, but a lot of people are openly saying "souls don't exist", so can we just respect other people's views and not state our own as if they are concrete. You don't KNOW that for a fact so could we please say "I think", thanks.

I believe that the word "soul" and the word "identity" are inter-changeable. And as an identity can be projected onto anything (as an identity is a man-made construction), anything can have a soul.

I feel that every mystic explanation is simply a poetic interpretation of the observable.

Saying "his soul will live on", is similar to saying "he has made an impression on all of us, and through us, he will live on". The concept of a soul does not have to be tied to a belief in life-after-death.

If a robot can make me feel, or change the way I feel, then I would say it has a soul. Just as a work of art, a piece of music, etc can have soul; a deeper meaning and connection that makes me feel alive.

If your question was based on the assumption that anything with a soul "goes on" to the afterlife. I'd say that a robot with a soul would be a perplexing question indeed. I don't know if there is an afterlife, and therefore do not claim how one could work.

TLDR; As far as my limited experience of reality goes, "soul" is just a word. A word with a long history filled with the poetry of human life, joy, and suffering. I enjoy reflecting on poetry, but I exist only in reality.