Artificial Intelligence and the Soul

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctlw83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ctlw83

Guest
I have an interesting question to pose. I have an idea for a story and was thinking about the idea of artificial intelligence, cloning and things along those lines. I’ll just say that the whole thing is going to be a giant mess if I decide to work on it because, well, there are going to be both things that are clearly against Church teachings and at the same time, will also have many themes of redemption. There probably won’t be anything that hasn’t been seen or addressed in the realm of sci-fi/action before but, I’ll be writing from my own perspectives.

Anyway, my question is this. If man were to be able to code out an artificial intelligence that became sentient, learned on its own and thus, out-grew the original parameters of its coding, could said being, having sufficient intelligence, and coming to know and love God, have some level of a soul?

I even plan on having a line somewhere where the “parents” of this AI flat out state something to the level of really not knowing where the true spark of life came from, thus implying that God could have been the one who chose to imbue said being with sentience.

It is not, obviously, a realistic scenario but, science fiction. However, it is an interesting question that will be one of the main themes in the story. There will also be some other things that will be touched on. (if I ever have the drive and commitment enough to sit down and write the thing).

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

God Bless,
Chris
 
When a human body is created in the womb, God gives it a human soul because his covenant with man says that he will do so,
but,
the human body does not get a soul merely*** because*** it exists.

That is, the human body’s existence does not cause it to have a soul. It is God’s choice.

Likewise, God would not give a soul to a computer. Why would he do this?
Also, God can’t do a self-contradiction. Giving a human soul to a computer would be a contradiction in the meaning of the two terms.
Also, God wouldn’t create a “computer-soul”, because a soul is about moral choice, free will, and I don’t see that a computer would have free will. It has one basic need: electricity to keep everything going. What choices would it have in the moral order? None.

Also, consciousness is a phenomenon of living matter. It is the chemical reactions within cells and between cells. Electronic circuitry composed of wires, transistors and the rest would not have this consciousness. There is no chemistry going on.
Self-consicousness, which only man has, is a power of the soul. If even animals don’t have this, a computer sure can’t. But moral choice, and free will, depend on a human soul.

I think a story about a computer having a soul would not be well received.
Many years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about a computer that had been loaded with all human knowledge and programmed to answere any question. Everybody came to the computer with their problems. One day, somebody asked the computer itself what it wanted. The computer answered: “I want to die.”

Of course, Asimov didn’t explain how the computer could want anything.
I suggest something like this. A scientist puts a tiny cellphone device in his brain that links him continously with all the information in a computer. Eventually, the scientist starts doing bizarre or evil things. The question is, who’s making the decisions? Is the scientist still in charge, or is he fooled by his computer? Perhaps the “reality” the computer is feeding him isn’t reality? Was reliance on the computer’s info instead of his own senses a foolish mistake? Is society in general also depending too much on advanced techology and losing its humanity?
 
I think it’s a misunderstanding to think that a computer could “develop” sentience. Good stories are stories which remain true to the underlying truths of the universe, but it’s simply a contradiction in terms to say that a computer could become sentient, because, as empther pointed out, God wouldn’t give a soul to a computer.
 
Soul is not just a process of consciousness, it is life. No soul, no life. If there is life, there is soul.

The human mind is not the soul, because someone in a medical coma, or after head injury, maintains his/her soul, being alive, despite having no mental functioning. Rather, the human mind is the product of the human soul in a functional human head.

And re: the human body’s existence not requiring the presence of a soul: yes, there has to be for the body to be alive. Soul is life. If there were no soul there would be only a dead body.

A cybernetic AI therefore, not being alive, would not possess a soul, however well it was programmed to emulate the human mind.

ICXC NIKA
 
Ah,

But, there is an additional complexity to my story that throws some of the things stated into question. I’ll simply put it this way, obviously we are against cloning, embryonic stem cell research and in-vitro. However, part of the story has an element involving one of these things.

Simply put, what if something that was a sentient artificial intelligence was “uploaded” into a human body and thus became subject to life, death and the rest of the human condition. Obviously, this doesn’t make the original AI a human being. However, as the AI then exists within a human body that is a living, breathing intelligent being, does the AI remain simply a computer?

The other question is then how/why did the cloner or people who did the in-vitro procedure, create a body without a consciousnesses, or, was there a consciousness or soul that did exist but, was then “killed” to create an empty shell?

Given, we are body-souls, not just 2 separate parts. The soul leaves the body at death but, the two are re-united at the final judgement. However, this concept has not been foreign to science fiction in the past.

What I am trying to do is to explore what would happen to an AI which existed not knowing it was an AI, but thinking it was a person, finds out it is, in fact, an AI. Said AI also would have, to its knowledge, a concept of faith and God and has to try to reconcile that.

Lastly, the AI finds that a human body was created for it and is in horror of said body because it is against all of the spiritual/moral beliefs said AI has. However, the body itself may be necessary in order to help save someone. The AI can choose to go into the body, designed for it, or, to not do so.

It is a pretty deep idea. It also throws up a lot of red flags in terms of Catholic teaching and, finding a resolution that is spiritually/theologically acceptable is a challenge. Either way, something that is against Church teaching happens or has happened within the story world. The question of redemption, both in terms of the AI and in terms of its creators who are kidnapped, is a difficult thing to reconcile, especially because, again, an AI isn’t a person or living being but, if put into a circumstance where it is a living being, or, at least inhabiting one, what becomes of it?

The idea here is to make the reader question what really happens when we try to play God to the point of creating an manipulating life in dangerous ways. It throws into question culpability. Is the AI culpable for the people who created this body for it? It may be culpable for choosing to use said body though. No good can be justify evil but, does the AI choose to inhabit the body and try to save its creators or stay trapped and let them die, knowing that the “empty” human body is a grave moral evil?

Again, this is the realm of science fiction, not reality. The chances of anyone developing an AI even nearing sentience is nearly nil. However, the question “what if” is what has driven science fiction writers since Asimov, Sagan and Bradbury. I’m just trying to explore some of these same themes from a Catholic theological point of view.
 
If there is a breathing human body, there is already a human soul, because the soul is the life, and life operates the breathing.

So if an AI is in some way ‘uploaded’ into said breathing body, there are 3 possibilities:
  1. AI takes command of the body and head, preventing the development or operation of the mind, and suppressing the soul, resulting finally in body’s death.
2). The human soul is able to overpower the AI and keep body alive, and grow it’s natural mind, who, whoever, is forced to fight continuously against the program usurping it’s head and body. Most storyline potential here.

3). Both processes – soul/mind and AI program-- survive and thrive in the same head, and develop symbiotically. Unlikely, IMNAAHO as there is barely enough neurological wetware in one human head for one mental process going on.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
If there is a breathing human body, there is already a human soul, because the soul is the life, and life operates the breathing.
Click to expand...
Is that view applicable to children born with a brain stem but no cerebellum? Such children, if they survive birth, breath and respond to touch reflexes but never achieve consciousness.
 
As a writer myself, there is no such thing as a real intelligence arising out of an Artificial Intelligence. It is limited by its programming and it could not learn if instructions to do so were not already there. Having learned a lot, who or what controls it? Unless programmed to do something, it cannot exceed its programming. Sure, it could solve problems for people but it would not be a human being or equal to a living thing. It would have no goals beyond its preprogrammed role.

Even if this AI could be transferred into a human shell, it would have the additional task of caring for the shell. If the shell died, it wouldn’t matter.

Such a device would be under the strict control of the military in any case. Its primary function would be to solve problems quickly. It wouldn’t need sleep or food, just energy to operate.

A soul? No.

Peace,
Ed
 
GEddie said:
Soul is not just a process of consciousness, it is life. No soul, no life. If there is life, there is soul.

The human mind is not the soul, because someone in a medical coma, or after head injury, maintains his/her soul, being alive, despite having no mental functioning. Rather, the human mind is the product of the human soul in a functional human head.

And re: the human body’s existence not requiring the presence of a soul: yes, there has to be for the body to be alive. Soul is life. If there were no soul there would be only a dead body.

A cybernetic AI therefore, not being alive, would not possess a soul, however well it was programmed to emulate the human mind.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the Turing test? The goal of the test is to measure whether or not we can determine if we are communicating with a computer or a person. If a machine were to pass the Turing test, humans would be unable to tell if the entity they were talking to was a person or the machine (without being explicitly told.)

You claim that a soul is something special, given by God only to humans. But would you be able to maintain that position after having developed a relationship (e.g. friendship) with an AI that could pass the Turing test? Certainly, the underlying architecture of an AI would be radically different from our own, but the end result would be an effectively human mind.

For example, what if you found out that one of your friends on CAF was actually a Turing-compiant AI? What if kimmielittle, (strictly as an example,) revealed that he/she was actually an AI, would you then argue whether or not kimmielittle has a soul? Would it be possible for kimmielittle, purely through interaction on a forum like this, to prove that he possesses a soul?
 
Are you familiar with the Turing test? The goal of the test is to measure whether or not we can determine if we are communicating with a computer or a person.
Click to expand...
Proving we’re communicating with a computer is easy.
Just write an original poem, one that is not already out there, and ask the computer to explain the meaning. Only a real person could give the between the lines meanings.
 
empther said:
Proving we’re communicating with a computer is easy.
Just write an original poem, one that is not already out there, and ask the computer to explain the meaning. Only a real person could give the between the lines meanings.
Click to expand...
Then the computer would not pass the Turing test. A computer that could pass the Turing test would either correctly give the subtle meanings or provide some other human response (e.g. the computer might pretend to be an ignorant redneck with no appreciation for poetry.)
 
Electrical Engineering student here.

All I have to say is that if a computer somehow “magically developed consciousness,” it would be a rather passive observer (if it could observe at all) of its own actions–a slave at best.
 
DigitalFish_20 said:
All I have to say is that if a computer somehow “magically developed consciousness,” it would be a rather passive observer (if it could observe at all) of its own actions–a slave at best.
Click to expand...
I might agree with you if we assumed said artificial intelligence agent to be composed only of logic gates. But since the book is Science Fiction it need not be restricted by the technologies that are available today.
 
There’s nothing so ridiculous it can’t be found in the posts of the A-team: :mad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Proving we’re communicating with a computer is easy.
Just write an original poem, one that is not already out there, and ask the computer to explain the meaning. Only a real person could give the between the lines meanings.

Then the computer would not pass the Turing test. A computer that could pass the Turing test would either correctly give the subtle meanings or provide some other human response (e.g. the computer might pretend to be an ignorant redneck with no appreciation for poetry.) :eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

In that case, a human being could also fake not knowing the answer,
and so,
the Turing test, which you introduced into this thread, has no legitimacy
and has no place in the philosophy section.

( the Turing test assumes the human being has all the answers a human can have and the computer has all the answers a computer can have,
otherwise, the test means nothing.
To say human and computer intelligence could be equal is ridiculous. Even by the atheist’s own claim that human intelligence is only material, the human brain and an electronic computer will be different. )
 
empther said:
There’s nothing so ridiculous it can’t be found in the posts of the A-team: :mad:

In that case, a human being could also fake not knowing the answer,
and so,
the Turing test, which you introduced into this thread, has no legitimacy
and has no place in the philosophy section.
Click to expand...
The human in a Turing test is trying to convince the interrogator that he is in fact the human. If he felt that not answering that question would help him convince the interrogator, then he certainly would be allowed to do it. I think some versions of the test don’t allow the human to lie, but I don’t see why allowing him to lie invalidates the test. So long as the human is actually trying to convince the interrogator that he is human.

Here is a $20,000 bet that two people have made concerning whether or not a computer will be able to pass the Turing test before 2030:
longbets.org/1/#terms

They describe how a test might be set up, and include the instruction:
The Human Foils are instructed to try to respond in as human a way as possible during the Turing Test Interviews.
Click to expand...
 
If
  1. a computer tries to deceive as you suggested,
    or
  2. a human being tries to deceive
    or
  3. the human being in question is too dumb to answer the question correctly while another human might be able to,
then either 1. , or 2. , or 3. alone makes the Turing test invalid,
and not worth discussing in this thread.
 
empther said:
If
  1. a computer tries to deceive as you suggested,
    or
  2. a human being tries to deceive
    or
  3. the human being in question is too dumb to answer the question correctly while another human might be able to,
then either 1. , or 2. , or 3. alone makes the Turing test invalid,
and not worth discussing in this thread.
Click to expand...
The computer must deceive the interrogator. If it could not, then the interrogator would always be able to determine if he were talking to a computer by asking questions like “What did you do last week?” or “Are you a computer?”

The human beings do not have to be perfectly honest or intelligent. An ignorant and dishonest person is still a person. If you can’t tell the difference between an AI and a relatively unintelligent person, the computer has still succeeded in being indistinguishable from a person. All the humans are required to do is respond in a human-like manner. In other words, they would be disqualified for writing things like “I am actually a computer” but not for something like “I don’t know much about mathematics” even though they actually did. For example, if the human was worried that their knowledge of a subject was so encyclopedic as to arouse suspicion, they might not reveal the extent of their knowledge.
 
Set your story a thousand years in the future. After a long and successful reign, Pope Micro Chip the IV takes off his hat and reveals a brain made out of silicon. Oops.
 
empther said:
There is no reason there couldn’t be billions of intelligent civilizations in the universe.

It’s highly unlikely that we’d ever know about them. There could be no communication with beings in another galaxy.
The civilizations could also exist in different 5,000,000 time periods. Thus there could have been thousands of civilizations in our galaxy and we’d never know.

Each civilization could have its own salvation plan and Redeemer. God makes the rules. If he says this is OK, who’s going to argue.
The Redeemers might be aware of each other but wouldn’t need to know details of each other’s histories.
There is only one Son of God for all.
Click to expand...
What aspect of an AI would preclude it from being one of those other intelligent civilizations? What if there existed a race of aliens with a computer-brain? Since you agree that it is possible that non-human beings might have souls, why would it be impossible for a computerized being to have a soul? Can you think of a method for determining whether or not a being actually has a soul?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top