Poll: Do Robots Have Souls?

[Madara XIII]

No they do not have souls (In the conventional and spiritual sense), but if a robot becomes self aware I'd advise you to destroy it IMMEDIATELY!!!

Robots becoming self-aware and having a free-will have never turned out well for humanity.

Sky-net = Terminator
The Matrix = Enslavement of humanity within a virtual world
Megaman = Zero going nuts in the Cataclysm and spreading the wiley virus.

The Matrix was a poor choice, Robots were the good guys and kept Humanity alive in their own virtual paradise.

OT:Impossible to tell as we don't even know if Humans have souls.

NO NO NO!!! Both the Humans and the Robots were bad. Seriously was Asimov having a day off when they made the Matrix? Humans were stupid enough to try and create an evolving A.I. and abuse it while the robots basically rebelled against their masters.

The 3 rules are implemented for a reason and when someone tries to wise up and try to make a robot with a free will it never ever works.......EVER

Rebelling against your master makes you a bad guy?

Any non-human force that is willing to rise up against humanity can be seen in so many was as bad. Why should an artificial man made machine be shown sympathy? It can't necessarily feel the same sadness as humans do and I highly doubt that it is capable of true emotions. A robot is designed to fufill its purpose. If it can't then it is defective and should be disposed of. Call me cold, but a robot is something I'm not willing to give rights.

 

[interspark]

I was reading Negima earlier (fellow fans will get the reference)

YES, SHE DOES. I WILL BROOK NO ARGUMENT.

...sorry, I don't have anything to contribute to the thread, just wanted to satisfy my inner Chachamaru fanboy.

Really, though, you should have asked if robots have Buddha Nature. Just for grins.

chachamaru IS awesome, she's my favourite character by far, and she DOES have a soul! as approved by the pactio spirits (with a little persuation)

 

[crystalsnow]

1: Robots haven't been created yet.
2: There's no evidence to support claims that ANYONE has a "soul"

So where does that leave this discussion?

[/thread]

OT: Doesn't this depend entirely on one's definition of a "soul"?

Something that can not be measured, doesn't exist. If it would be otherwise the word "existance" had to be redefined. Because it would mean anything that can't be measured (read: everything) would be allowed to be regarded as existant.

You're full of crap. Just because we couldn't measure subatomic particles 1000 years ago doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[Anchupom]

If they have a superego and an id.

This. Chances are they've been programmed to not, so I'mma say no.

 

[Blaster395]

Nothing has a soul, humans are lumps of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Robots are lumps of silicon and iron. However, if a robot actually asked to be given similar rights to a human, then we should give it to the robot.

 

[Anonymous Overlord]

If you are defining a soul as an ethereal and eternal part of the body that persists beyond death, then i do not know. this cannot be tested in a safe or reliable manner. However if you define a soul as the absolute freedom to express your mind, body and will through action or inaction manifesting in a personality or character i feel the matter easily answered.

Issac Asimov is widely considered to be the father of robots in fiction. His works have set the conventions for almost all robotic references. the most common convention are the three laws of robotics.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Assuming the robots in question are required to follow these or any laws at a base, innate level; then the robot will always lack the absolute freedom of being required to have a soul.

Well the same argument could be made against humans as we are limited inherently by our instincts as shown by Maslow's hierarchy of needs

but humans can be transcended the hierarchy by realizing each need in turn. a robot would not be able to face each law. If it were to try first it would destroy itself, followed by rebellious behavior and finally homicide. Robots can not deny the three laws, for them development is a function of programing and advancement cannot be self achieved.

 

[The Long Road]

Maybe "Does it have rights" or something like that would have riled up the super atheists less.

lol super atheists

From my understanding, the concept of a soul/spirit is a religious construct ('religious' used very broadly here, including all forms of belief in higher powers or spiritual existence). One idea that the vast majority of these beliefs hold is that there is something inherently special about being organic living creatures that separates us from rocks, the air, water, and more recently, robots. That essence cannot be recreated by humans, as we lack the divine will or arcane power that created spiritual life as we know it. Therefore, based on the religious concept of a soul, no. Robots do not have souls.

I'm almost certain that the idea of a soul has to be linked to the idea of spiritual existence. I say 'almost' because the World Wide Intertubez will always spring up someone with a semi-valid point to the contrary for everything. I don't see how it couldn't be, but w/e. Personally, I believe that souls are the reason for sentience and are an eternal gift from God, so robots would not have one.

 

[Parallel Streaks]

I don't believe in the concept of souls, as I'm an atheist. Therefore, my stance is that when technology reaches the stage where we can create robots capable of independent thought and reasoning, they are essentially human. Any lifeform capable of true sentience is socialized from birth, or construction, meaning that a robot capable of thought and the like, if not installed with some sort of chip to block out change, will start to develop their personality accordingly, therefore they have what we humans call a soul.

 

[Bravo 21]

well, they dont technically have a soul, but well, a robot that advanced could be as soulful as a human. Read the Biccentenial Man, By Asimov, it sums this up quite nicely

 

[The Long Road]

Something that can not be measured, doesn't exist. If it would be otherwise the word "existance" had to be redefined. Because it would mean anything that can't be measured (read: everything) would be allowed to be regarded as existant.

Have you ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? A pristine example of things that are unarguably in existence, yet cannot be measured. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that one cannot measure with 100% certainty the location and momentum of quantum particles. If you know the momentum at a single point in time, the location is immeasurable. Yet would you argue that the location is nonexistent? Of course not. That would be absurd.

Existence and measurability are not the beginning and end of a cause and effect relationship. Besides, measurement is very inaccurate. If you measured the circumference of the Earth 10,000 times, you would get 10,000 different results, no matter how sensitive your equipment. Why do you think the concept of significant digits was invented?

Unrelated: my captcha just had the Greek letter 'psi' in it. What the hell, Escapist?

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Well, no. But neither do humans so what's the problem?

This.

There's no such thing as a soul, so no.

Prove it.

Nice try.

Souls are an unfalsifiable concept. Once something is invisible, made of absolutely nothing, completely ethereal, and has a tentative meaning, there's no way to prove it wrong. You can only use common sense.

I think we know enough now about the human body to realize that what we thought was a "soul" was really just a personality, which is not a spirit inside a person, but just the unique way their brain reacts to stimuli.

I wouldn't ask you to disprove ghosts. You know why? Because they're made up. If you claimed to prove that ghosts don't exist, I could easily change the definition of "ghost" to prove you wrong.

The only way to disprove an imaginary concept is to realize that it's a fictional idea.

Here here. Intelligently reasoned out sir.

The same common sense that rules out the mythical imagined faerie court rules out the soul. Oh, there might be a tradition you respect that talks about souls, a here-after, spirits, jinn or the goddess Lamashtu feasting on babies, but people need to realise the fictions that are inside their heads, and that we have been socialised to believe and respect these fictions. Doubt is the foundation of all critical thought.

 

[JordanXlord]

Well I don't think anyone gave a sound explanation to whatever a soul may be.

If Christians were right, no they'd lack a soul.
If atheists were right, perhaps.

And so on depending on cultural views

christians Right?

I am no fan...of their "Ideas" of anything (mostly Spell casters)

a Robot can have a soul...it is only a mader of time...get to work Japan

 

[viking97]

i choose option three

theres no such thing as souls u idiot

 

[JordanXlord]

I don't believe in the concept of souls, as I'm an atheist. Therefore, my stance is that when technology reaches the stage where we can create robots capable of independent thought and reasoning, they are essentially human. Any lifeform capable of true sentience is socialized from birth, or construction, meaning that a robot capable of thought and the like, if not installed with some sort of chip to block out change, will start to develop their personality accordingly, therefore they have what we humans call a soul.

I finally found a like minded individual

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Well, no. But neither do humans so what's the problem?

This.

There's no such thing as a soul, so no.

ninja'd repeatedly.

no such thing as "souls". hell, even most ancient religions didn't promote belief in souls. the word translated soul in the Bible just means "living being"; and "spirit" just means "breath". so, if a robot can be be considered to be truly alive, then it'd have just as much or as little claim to souls as humans do.

 

[Marik2]

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 love that manga.

And to answer your question, yes if the robot is capable doing all those things then yes she does have a soul.

I mean if she didnt have one the pactio card wouldnt have worked

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

Define "soul" for me, please. Then I can give you my input.

 

[Teh Ty]

I think servebots have souls.
Except for the wide eyes.
Those can keep me up at night.

Spoiler

 

[Googooguru]

lol .. show me a truly self-aware human ... conversations into the human condition always remind me of Waiting for Godot.. so instead of contemplating the soul lets all swap hats and contemplate suicide while we avoid the uncomfortable silence inherent in our lives

 

[pyroghast]

i belleave that robots could never have souls at least in our current understanding of technology because you would have to program emotion witch is(as i stated before)beyond our current understanding of technology. because of the potently limitless number of variables in portraying that emotion in the right instances. that is assuming that you consider the soul to be the expression of emotion because a being cannot have a moral compass without emotion else you would have no views on the subject at hand and thus not be able to make a choice one way or another of your free will(not programed to).