Artificial Intelligence and the Soul

[empther]

TrueCentrist,

Don’t you realize by now this issue is dead? Nobody cares!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TrueCentrist,

Don’t you realize by now this issue is dead? Nobody cares!

That is exactly the sort of answer an AI might give if it were attempting to avoid a question to which it did not know the answer. Perhaps you are actually an AI, can you prove you are not?

 

[Serious]

That is exactly the sort of answer an AI might give if it were attempting to avoid a question to which it did not know the answer. Perhaps you are actually an AI, can you prove you are not?

Haha… who would build an ANI like that? (And no, there is no typo there…)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Haha… who would build an ANI like that? (And no, there is no typo there…)

LOL, who knows. There might be useful applications to artificial non-intelligence and artificial ignorance.

 

[Serious]

LOL, who knows. There might be useful applications to artificial non-intelligence and artificial ignorance.

Absolutely. Do you know the book “Parkinson’s Law”? He is a great thinker and economist and very funny to boot. He suggests that a very dumb person would be just as great an asset for a corporation as a very smart one. With the very smart person, you follow his advice, while with a very dumb one, you do the opposite of his advice.

 

[GEddie]

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.

Yes it would. The soul is there, because the body is alive; although the brain power to fully express it is not there.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

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?

Since human science can neither build a Turing-capable AI nor upload same into somebody’s head, I won’t worry about such conjecturals until they bear fruit.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Sample]

Forget full-blown sentience for the moment. On the path toward artificial intelligence, humanity may be faced with a moral dilemma. There may come a time when AI can sense pain.

Should that occur, I wonder who will advocate for AI that senses pain? Scientists or those who believe AI can’t have souls?

And then secondly, if AI does evolve to the point of saying things that sound like Scientology, Buddhism, or other faith-denominations, should we consider this is a failure or a success?

 

[GEddie]

Forget full-blown sentience for the moment. On the path toward artificial intelligence, humanity may be faced with a moral dilemma. There may come a time when AI can sense pain.

Should that occur, I wonder who will advocate for AI that senses pain? Scientists or those who believe AI can’t have souls?

And then secondly, if AI does evolve to the point of saying things that sound like Scientology, Buddhism, or other faith-denominations, should we consider this is a failure or a success?

It would not sense pain unless we designed it to, just as it would not see unless we gave it cameras to see through, or move unless we gave it limbs/wheels/etc.

And unlike sight and movement, human beings generally consider pain a design flaw in human life. They would not add it to a being of their own creation.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Sample]

It would not sense pain unless we designed it to, just as it would not see unless we gave it cameras to see through, or move unless we gave it limbs/wheels/etc.

And unlike sight and movement, human beings generally consider pain a design flaw in human life. They would not add it to a being of their own creation.

ICXC NIKA

Considering pain has a subjective element to it, sufficiently advanced artificial neural networks (or simulated brains) may be at risk of experiencing pain. And we don’t even have to consider primate brain simulation to acknowledge that research embarking in this area could reach a situation of a simulated brain well before it’s called primate-like. Unlike Descartes, we now know non-human animals can feel exquisite pain.

Perhaps there should be anti-cruelty laws in place before spending billions on research into this area. I personally don’t know the solution. Willfully designing AI presents ethical challenges.

Pain, though problematic and awful, is not necessarily a flaw from a scientific perspective. Individuals exist today who lack the ability to perceive pain. They die relatively young. It could be from a ruptured appendix that they never felt, or infection from tooth disease; the list is endless.

 

[wcknight]

It’s interesting that folks have determined that we may be many many years away from being able to develop any sort of computer that can truly emulate how the human mind functions.

Even though computers may be much faster than humans at making calculations, it may be centuries away before science (if ever) can produce a machine that has the capability to function as we do.

The main problem is that humans have billions of brain cells (neurons) that operate on a massive network and individuals neurons or bunches of neurons can communicate with other individual or bunch of neurals simultaneously and seemingly at random. Computers on the other hand are basically linearly linked and at best can multi plex on a very limited basis.

SO even though you could build a massive computer with many billions of bits of information getting them to communicate as a human mind does would be virtually impossible to program.

That is one reason why life is so amazing, even a tiny ant, with its minute bit of intelligence is nearly impossible to reprogram or reproduce.

Another interesting question to specualte on is IF someone were to clone another person, would that clone have a “soul” ???

We already have cloned animals, and they look and act virually the same as the animals as they are cloned from. Would a ‘human’ clone not also have intelligence and self awareness and concsiousness as we do, and would they not also have a soul and be able to relate to God just as anyone else can ???

It may be illegal, but my guess is someone may have already tried this or may in the near future.

 

[Sample]

It’s interesting that folks have determined that we may be many many years away from being able to develop any sort of computer that can truly emulate how the human mind functions.

Even though computers may be much faster than humans at making calculations, it may be centuries away before science (if ever) can produce a machine that has the capability to function as we do.

The main problem is that humans have billions of brain cells (neurons) that operate on a massive network and individuals neurons or bunches of neurons can communicate with other individual or bunch of neurals simultaneously and seemingly at random. Computers on the other hand are basically linearly linked and at best can multi plex on a very limited basis.

SO even though you could build a massive computer with many billions of bits of information getting them to communicate as a human mind does would be virtually impossible to program.

That is one reason why life is so amazing, even a tiny ant, with its minute bit of intelligence is nearly impossible to reprogram or reproduce.

Another interesting question to specualte on is IF someone were to clone another person, would that clone have a “soul” ???

We already have cloned animals, and they look and act virually the same as the animals as they are cloned from. Would a ‘human’ clone not also have intelligence and self awareness and concsiousness as we do, and would they not also have a soul and be able to relate to God just as anyone else can ???

It may be illegal, but my guess is someone may have already tried this or may in the near future.

Forget clones and souls for the moment and consider what George C. Williams said about biological processes that already occur for which ancient theologians were unaware of:

If that single human life develops for a while and then divides to produce identical twins or triplets, are they to be considered one human being? This would be contrary to almost everyone’s moral sensibilities. Recent observations have raised additional questions about the connection between biological and moral individuality. Early in development, fraternal twins from two separate, fertilized eggs may fuse and develop into what, at birth, is physically a single baby. Molecular techniques available today may show that such an individual is genetically different in various parts of its body. An apparently normal woman may have some genetically male tissues from what originated as her twin brother, or vice versa. The only realistic view is that a human life arises gradually, which is not much help in making personal decisions or devising public policy.

 

[tonyrey]

Forget clones and souls for the moment and consider what George C. Williams said about biological processes that already occur for which ancient theologians were unaware of:

Persons are more than biological machines!

 

[Sample]

Persons are more than biological machines!

Is there something you disagree with in the Willliams’ quote? What exactly?

 

[tonyrey]

Is there something you disagree with in the Willliams’ quote? What exactly?

The assumption that our physical makeup entirely determines what we are.

 

[Sample]

The assumption that our physical makeup entirely determines what we are.

Perhaps that’s your assumption, I’m not getting that from the quote. Is there something in the quote you don’t understand? What specific sentence set you off on your opinion?

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps that’s your assumption, I’m not getting that from the quote. Is there something in the quote you don’t understand? What specific sentence set you off on your opinion?

Early in development, fraternal twins from two separate, fertilized eggs may fuse and develop into what, at birth, is physically a single baby. Molecular techniques available today may show that **such an individual **is genetically different in various parts of its body.

The second statement implies that an individual is determined by his or her genetic makeup.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Early in development, fraternal twins from two separate, fertilized eggs may fuse and develop into what, at birth, is physically a single baby. Molecular techniques available today may show that such an individual is genetically different in various parts of its body.

I think that it implies that one’s biology is an influencing factor. But unless it is being said that there are no other factors of influence I think that “determined” without some other qualifier such as “partially” may be too strong.

 

[Sample]

The second statement implies that an individual is determined by his or her genetic makeup.

I think it’s interesting to contemplate, as this information was not available to even recent theologians, that fraternal twins, two babies, can fuse later in development into one baby and what that means about the soul.

Does the soul fuse from two babies into one as well? I can’t answer that question. A theologian might. I’d love to hear that answer.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s interesting to contemplate, as this information was not available to even recent theologians, that fraternal twins, two babies, can fuse later in development into one baby and what that means about the soul.

Does the soul fuse from two babies into one as well? I can’t answer that question. A theologian might. I’d love to hear that answer.

It is possible that two persons share one body! Truth is often stranger than fiction. Some people seem to have more than one personality anyway…

These anomalies have no bearing on artificial Intelligence and the soul. Exceptions to a rule do not necessarily prove that it is false. They merely reveal that the rule is a simplistic interpretation of reality - like materialism.