Can a self aware robot enter heaven

[majoor]

I am an academic engineer who teaches robotics and Artifical Inteligence (AI) and who builds robots. I have found that robots are the dumbest things around and that I cannot see them ever becoming self aware. Sir Roger Penrose, a famous phyicist, has put together a proof that any algorthmic based computer (including possible quantum computers) cannot ever be intelligent and hence cannot be self aware. The only computational device we know of that is not algorthmic is the human mind.
I’m sorry, but Star Trek’s Data, as as self aware robotic entity, is not possible. (It hurts to say that as I really like science fiction.)
No self awareness, no heaven.
May when I am in heaven (please pray that I may get there) with my glorified body I will build my own robot so that there will be a robot in heaven. It still won’t be self aware, or have a soul though!

 

[Cadellin]

Hypothetically, the robot would not be a member of the human race and so would not have original sin;

Could anything made by sinful man be sinless, short of divine intervention as in the case of Our Lady?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Could anything made by sinful man be sinless, short of divine intervention as in the case of Our Lady?

All things made by man are in themselves sinless in as far as they do not possess self-awareness or choice of function. ‘Man made’ items can of course be used by humanity as an aid to their sinning, since they are self and indeed other aware and have a latitude of choice.

 

[Innoruk]

I have found that robots are the dumbest things around and that I cannot see them ever becoming self aware.

What is the definition of “dumb” as you use it? Watson was able to defeat the best human players in Jeopardy. Of course “Watson” is a huge gadget. Computer programs running on simple PC-s defeat the world’s chess champions. The hardware gets smaller and smaller, while the performance gets better and better. Is there a theoretical limit?

Sir Roger Penrose, a famous phyicist, has put together a proof that any algorthmic based computer (including possible quantum computers) cannot ever be intelligent and hence cannot be self aware.

What is the definition of “intelligent” and “self aware”, I wonder?

The only computational device we know of that is not algorthmic is the human mind.

You mean: “today”?

Since you are in the field of computers, I am sure you are aware of the Turing test. You must also be aware of the cellular automata proposed by Neumann and Codd. It is true that the cellular architecture cannot solve problems which are not solvable by a linear Turing machine, but we have not seen yet a mathematical proof about those computers, which constantly modify their own “transition functions” - as our brain develops new neural connections. Those computers will not be restricted by a “fixed” algorithm. So to make predictions about what computers will or will not be able to do - is quite premature.

The true question is the Turing test. If and when a “gadget” (on whatever kind of platform) will be able to go through the Turing test, then we shall have “emulated” intelligence and “emulated” self-awareness. Then will come the real 1 million dollar question: “what is the difference between a sufficiently good emulation and the real thing”? The only sensible answer is: “nothing”. If that entity behaves as if it had intelligence, and as if it were self-aware, then the only rational answer is “yes it is intelligent; and yes, it is self-aware”.

 

[Felasco]

Apologies if this has already been said above, but the first thing to pop in to my mind in regards to this quite interesting question is that the dividing line between man and machine is likely to become increasingly blurry. The same might be said for the dividing lines between individuals.

If we don’t blow ourselves up first, the future is likely to be so different from the past that ancient definitions such as these will most likely steadily unravel.

 

[Cadellin]

Since you are in the field of computers, I am sure you are aware of the Turing test. You must also be aware of the cellular automata proposed by Neumann and Codd. It is true that the cellular architecture cannot solve problems which are not solvable by a linear Turing machine, but we have not seen yet a mathematical proof about those computers, which constantly modify their own “transition functions” - as our brain develops new neural connections. Those computers will not be restricted by a “fixed” algorithm. So to make predictions about what computers will or will not be able to do - is quite premature.

The true question is the Turing test. If and when a “gadget” (on whatever kind of platform) will be able to go through the Turing test, then we shall have “emulated” intelligence and “emulated” self-awareness. Then will come the real 1 million dollar question: “what is the difference between a sufficiently good emulation and the real thing”? The only sensible answer is: “nothing”. If that entity behaves as if it had intelligence, and as if it were self-aware, then the only rational answer is “yes it is intelligent; and yes, it is self-aware”.

The Chinese room argument shows how a machine can produce such ‘a sufficiently good emulation’ without having any self-awareness. See plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

 

[terrig]

No machine could ever have a soul, because only human beings, conceived from the union of a human male and human female can ever have a soul. It is also written in Holy Scripture that only humans who die in a state of grace can achieve heaven.
You would do well the read less science fiction and more about your Catholic Faith.

I had to chuckle at the last sentence. I won’t say my thought when I saw the question on my email from CA. We’re supposed to be charitable here.

 

[Innoruk]

The Chinese room argument shows how a machine can produce such ‘a sufficiently good emulation’ without having any self-awareness. See plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

Yes, I am aware of it. The question is: “how do you know it?”. After all the “room” is simply a black box, and all you can do is observe its behavior. Besides, what is “self-awareness”? If you conduct a sufficiently long conversation with an “entity” and it uses the pronoun: “I” correctly in the proper places, then on what ground could anyone deny that the entity is “self-aware”? To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “self-aware is self-aware does”.

The same applies to other aspects of life. If you see an “entity” which exhibits all the symptoms we associate with “pain”, then we must assume that this entity actually feels pain - even though we know that a good actor can emulate pain without actually being in pain. Again, all we can do is observe the behavior and we must make a judgment call based upon that.

 

[davidv]

Yes, I am aware of it. The question is: “how do you know it?”. After all the “room” is simply a black box, and all you can do is observe its behavior. Besides, what is “self-awareness”? If you conduct a sufficiently long conversation with an “entity” and it uses the pronoun: “I” correctly in the proper places, then on what ground could anyone deny that the entity is “self-aware”? To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “self-aware is self-aware does”.

The same applies to other aspects of life. If you see an “entity” which exhibits all the symptoms we associate with “pain”, then we must assume that this entity actually feels pain - even though we know that a good actor can emulate pain without actually being in pain. Again, all we can do is observe the behavior and we must make a judgment call based upon that.

This demonstrates to me that self-awareness is not a adequate measure of a being that has been created in the image and likeness of God and is invited to live with it creator for etenity in heaven.

 

[Cadellin]

If you conduct a sufficiently long conversation with an “entity” and it uses the pronoun: “I” correctly in the proper places, then on what ground could anyone deny that the entity is “self-aware”?

On what grounds could anyone assume that the ‘entity’ was self-aware and not just an instance of the Chinese room?

I can see this discussion venturing into, what philosophers call, the Problem of Other Minds.

 

[djames99]

so even if it did sin, there is not a previous state of living with God (Eden) to which to return. Hence no reconciliation (in that word is implied returning to something one was previously with), so not “saved” in the way we understand being saved.

God would consider it, errr…broken.

 

[Innoruk]

On what grounds could anyone assume that the ‘entity’ was self-aware and not just an instance of the Chinese room?

I know that one is not supposed to answer a question with another question, so let me try to present my answer as a proposition: “the Chinese Room IS self aware”. The human sitting in the middle of the room does not understand Chinese, but the system does. How do we know it? By considering its responses.

Self-awareness cannot be pin-pointed to a specific neural configuration (if one is a materialist), or it cannot be “localized” into the “soul”, if one is a believer of that concept. The only method available to us is the observation of the behavior of the person. As long as the “person” behaves as if “he/she/it” were self-aware, we MUST accept that “he/she/it” IS self-aware.

A simple thought-experiment will underline this. Suppose that you are confronted with a bona-fide, true-blue human being, obviously self-aware. You start replacing each neuron with a silicon equivalent, while maintaining the functionality of this “hybrid” system. There is no reasonable limit which would say that “if you replace ‘N’ neurons, the self-awareness is still there”, but as soon as “you replace ‘N+1’ neurons, the self-awareness is gone”. What the entity is “made of” matters not one bit. Its performance is what counts.

I can see this discussion venturing into, what philosophers call, the Problem of Other Minds.

But it is not a “problem” at all. Some philosophers like to make things complicated (to carve out a justification for their useless existence), but a touch of reason can refute their claims.

I am afraid that we are overstepping the boundaries of this thread, after all not one word has been said about “heaven”. We can continue in a different one, if you are so inclined.

 

[Ismael]

I recently watched a Korean movie which features an abnormal robot who grow self-awareness and spiritual consciousness. He lives in a Buddhist monastery and eventually became a Buddha. I know the movie follows Buddhist spirituality, but it makes me wonder.

Well you could have watches ‘Short Circuit’ as well.

Hypothetically suppose humanity reaches to a level where they are capable of creating a robot who is self aware, who can understand God, could that robot become a believer and be saved?

In SPECULATION… yes… if a robot could have a Hard AI with real ‘human intelligence’ he might have a soul.

But Hard AI is unlikely.
(PS: Hard AI: AI can become like human intelligence or even more; Soft AI: AI imitates human intelligence, perhaps being almost indistinguishible from real human intelligence)

Search for ‘Searle’ and ‘chinese room argument’. Here Searle makes a very strong argument against the even theoretical existence of Hard AI, let alone the practical one.

some people have also discussed it above it seems.

there are other arguments against Hard AI or reductive materialism… I think Popper in some ways made some (he criticized materialism) and even Russell (who did not believe in souls)

Anyway sciencefiction can be fun… but not always realistic.

Think about Star Trek… some ST things are becoming a reality… SIRI from some mobile phones is like the talking computer in the Enterprise.

The Tricorder might also be possible (not as versatile as the ST version but still).

Yet things like warp drive and teleportation and others are unlikely if not flat out not possible.

Still it is fun and interesting to consider certain possibilities.

 

[Mark121359]

Having read this thread… all seven pages of it, and feeling as though I’ve gotten absolutely zilch from it, the response below from ronyodish about sums it up!

Can a self aware robot enter heaven

Hmmm… let me think about it for a second… ok… I’m done thinking, and my answer is: No! :whacky:

God bless,

Rony

:whacky: indeed!

Peace, Mark