Could artificial intelligence be granted a soul?

[Spyder1jcd]

With cloning advancing at an almost alarming rate and the developement of sentient machines well in progress, the idea of something incredibly human-like but not truly human is not just science fiction any longer. Catholics understand that nothing can be defined as human unless it has a soul imbued in the being by God. The soul is what makes us created in God’s own image. But does Church teaching discredit the idea of God giving a soul to something not directly created by His hand? Catholics that hold belief in evolution (such as myself) theorize that at some point in the evolutionary process God granted us the soul. But this is not the same as cloned human beings or robots because the evolutionary process would’ve been started by God, whereas the construction of a clone or robot would not have been. In the words of fictional character Dr. Alfred Lanning:

“There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will. Creativity. And even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote… of a soul?” - (I, Robot)

Of course, the idea that a soul could manifest itself goes against Catholic teaching, but what if God decides that something created by the hands of man is human enough? And if not, couldn’t further development of sentient machines be just as bad as human cloning?

 

[Hitetlen]

Spyder1jcd:

Of course, the idea that a soul could manifest itself goes against Catholic teaching, but what if God decides that something created by the hands of man is human enough? And if not, couldn’t further development of sentient machines be just as bad as human cloning?

Excellent questions. The Turing test is fundamental in deciding if a “machine” is human or not.

For those who might not have heard of it, the test is a “long enough” conversation with this being, maybe via a telephone. If the answers are not distinguishable from those of a human, then the “being” on the other end of the telephone is human, no matter what material it is made of.

 

[Flopfoot]

Well, that is, if you agree with the Turing test, if you agree that that test is what defines something or what really matters.

I don’t agree with the Turing test. I reckon that what makes up the inside of something is important, and not just the (name removed by moderator)ut and output of it.

The thing to consider is that a child is given its soul at the moment it comes into existence - at the moment of conception. When a human sperm meets a human ovum. What is the ‘moment of conception’ for a machine?

 

[whosebob]

Hitetlen:

Excellent questions. The Turing test is fundamental in deciding if a “machine” is human or not …

JMJ + OBT​

While it would be difficult to re-work the idea into a test, it has occured to me that a tremendous proof of an AI’s having been granted an immortal soul would be its voluntary request – without any sort of prior suggestion from its creators, other than their granting it exposure to certain literature and/or audio-video material – to come into some sort of sensory-contact (e.g. visual receptors of some sort) and/or geographic proximity of a bread-wafer consectrated at a Catholic Mass. Then if the same AI began to offer prayer and adoration to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, doubt would be removed even further about its having a soul.

(Yes, I’m actually being serious.)

Perhaps an AI’s free and genuine inquiry into the Supernatural, even in a context apart from the Catholic Faith, would be proof enough that it had been granted a soul.

G.K. Chesterton thought that human creation of art – in the case of “cave men” it was drawings of animals on cave walls – is impeccible evidence that men have souls. So what if an AI began to spontaneously create art of some type? Perhaps that would be a kind of proof.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Hitetlen]

Flopfoot:

Well, that is, if you agree with the Turing test, if you agree that that test is what defines something or what really matters.

I don’t agree with the Turing test. I reckon that what makes up the inside of something is important, and not just the (name removed by moderator)ut and output of it.

We are also “black boxes”, with our I/O. All we can observe is the output, and from that we draw our conclusions. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Human is as human does”.

Flopfoot:

The thing to consider is that a child is given its soul at the moment it comes into existence - at the moment of conception. When a human sperm meets a human ovum. What is the ‘moment of conception’ for a machine?

There may be one: the moment it starts functioning (not that it has anything to do with a “soul”). If we are curious about someone’s mental state, happiness or sadness, we cannot directly examine the firings of the neurons in his brain. We are restricted to observing his behavior, and draw conclusions based upon our observations. If someone behaves as if he were “happy”, we conclude that he is happy. If someone behaves as if he were “sad”, we accept that he is sad.

 

[Hitetlen]

whosebob:

While it would be difficult to re-work the idea into a test, it has occured to me that a tremendous proof of an AI’s having been granted an immortal soul would be its voluntary request – without any sort of prior suggestion from its creators, other than their granting it exposure to certain literature and/or audio-video material – to come into some sort of sensory-contact (e.g. visual receptors of some sort) and/or geographic proximity of a bread-wafer consectrated at a Catholic Mass. Then if the same AI began to offer prayer and adoration to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, doubt would be removed even further about its having a soul.
(Yes, I’m actually being serious.)

That is an interesting idea. But you still make the “suggestion” implicitly by offering those materials.

whosebob:

Perhaps an AI’s free and genuine inquiry into the Supernatural, even in a context apart from the Catholic Faith, would be proof enough that it had been granted a soul.

Only if it arrived at it independently from human (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[batteddy]

Artificial intelligence would not be granted a soul, nor can we ever tell if anything else has one. Because all we can observe is the (name removed by moderator)ut and output. We never know if something is truly conscious of the material in between. Only ourselves, because we are, by definition, our self. Even other humans we take on faith.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

We are also “black boxes”, with our I/O. All we can observe is the output, and from that we draw our conclusions. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “Human is as human does”.

There may be one: the moment it starts functioning (not that it has anything to do with a “soul”). If we are curious about someone’s mental state, happiness or sadness, we cannot directly examine the firings of the neurons in his brain. We are restricted to observing his behavior, and draw conclusions based upon our observations. If someone behaves as if he were “happy”, we conclude that he is happy. If someone behaves as if he were “sad”, we accept that he is sad.

Yes, but, If scientists or what ever they are, are smart enough, they can program the “robot” to make it seem like “A.I” in order to cause a spiritual panic! I dont think somebody would do that now, but in a time where the Catholic church are the rulers of the world, somebody might be tempted to do such a thing, to cause disorder.

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

Yes, but, If scientists or what ever they are, are smart enough, they can program the “robot” to make it seem like “A.I” in order to cause a spiritual panic! I dont think somebody would do that now, but in a time where the Catholic church are the rulers of the world, somebody might be tempted to do such a thing, to cause disorder.

Not impossible at all, and that shows all the difficulties. What is the difference between a simulated “intelligence” and the “real” one? If a simulation is really good, it becomes the “real” thing. And that is where the Turing test comes in.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Not impossible at all, and that shows all the difficulties. What is the difference between a simulated “intelligence” and the “real” one? If a simulation is really good, it becomes the “real” thing. And that is where the Turing test comes in.

What is a Turing test?

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

What is a Turing test?

I described it in post #2. Alan Turing, one of the pioneers in computer science devised it, and it says that if a sufficiently long conversation can be conducted with and entity, and after this conversation the replies of this entity are indistinguishable from those of a human, then this entity can rightfully considered a “human”, regardless what material it is made of.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s look at this from a different approach …

We now have the ability to create artificial limbs, artificial heart, etc.

No one would argue that someone with an artificial leg wasn’t human and didn’t have a soul. What about two artificial legs? What about two artificial legs and two artificial arms? What about in addition to the artificial limbs, the person also has an artificial heart? Again, I don’t think that we would say that the person wasn’t human and lacked a soul.

Eventually, it will be possible to replace just about every part of a person’s body with an artificial part. Suppose we get to the point where the ENTIRE body is replaced with artificial parts. Does that entity still have a soul? Why or why not? And if “not”, then at what point does the person lose the soul?

 

[Hitetlen]

Sir Knight:

Let’s look at this from a different approach …

We now have the ability to create artificial limbs, artificial heart, etc.

No one would argue that someone with an artificial leg wasn’t human and didn’t have a soul. What about two artificial legs? What about two artificial legs and two artificial arms? What about in addition to the artificial limbs, the person also has an artificial heart? Again, I don’t think that we would say that the person wasn’t human and lacked a soul.

Eventually, it will be possible to replace just about every part of a person’s body with an artificial part. Suppose we get to the point where the ENTIRE body is replaced with artificial parts. Does that entity still have a soul? Why or why not? And if “not”, then at what point does the person lose the soul?

Good points. And we don’t even have to go into the future. Our bodies are composed of atoms (inanimate objects themselves), which are being continuously replaced during our life. According to some estimates, it takes about 7 years to replace all of them. And our “essence” is about the same, reagrdless of the underlying atomic structure.

 

[clmowry]

Then the AI machine could profess “I test, therefore I am.”

And that would settle thje metter.

Hitetlen:

Excellent questions. The Turing test is fundamental in deciding if a “machine” is human or not.

For those who might not have heard of it, the test is a “long enough” conversation with this being, maybe via a telephone. If the answers are not distinguishable from those of a human, then the “being” on the other end of the telephone is human, no matter what material it is made of.

 

[freesoulhope]

clmowry:

Then the AI machine could profess “I test, therefore I am.”

And that would settle thje metter.

Or it could say, " how dare you try and take the dust from my eyes, when you have a log! in you own!"

 

[Spyder1jcd]

Sir Knight:

Let’s look at this from a different approach …

We now have the ability to create artificial limbs, artificial heart, etc.

No one would argue that someone with an artificial leg wasn’t human and didn’t have a soul. What about two artificial legs? What about two artificial legs and two artificial arms? What about in addition to the artificial limbs, the person also has an artificial heart? Again, I don’t think that we would say that the person wasn’t human and lacked a soul.

Eventually, it will be possible to replace just about every part of a person’s body with an artificial part. Suppose we get to the point where the ENTIRE body is replaced with artificial parts. Does that entity still have a soul? Why or why not? And if “not”, then at what point does the person lose the soul?

This raises another question that ties into the one discussed here: is the soul tied to the human brain? There is still so much that we don’t know about the brain. By definition, a sentient machine could have a brain that can perform the functions of the human brain that we understand. For instance, thoughts and movements are basically electrical impulses. That can be simulated. But when does an electrical impluse become a tangible thought? When does a section of the cerebellum become love, hate, or fear? We can understand the foundations of these fundamental human things, but we haven’t gone much further from there. So, if we can’t understand it, how can we simulate it? Perhaps those things can only be explained by the presence of a soul. Therefore, if a sentient machine can produce a creative solution, if a sentient machine can start making impressions and conclusions about the personalities of humans, if it can start form its own personality, does it indicate the presence of a soul?

 

[freesoulhope]

Spyder1jcd:

This raises another question that ties into the one discussed here: is the soul tied to the human brain? There is still so much that we don’t know about the brain. By definition, a sentient machine could have a brain that can perform the functions of the human brain that we understand. For instance, thoughts and movements are basically electrical impulses. That can be simulated. But when does an electrical impluse become a tangible thought? When does a section of the cerebellum become love, hate, or fear? We can understand the foundations of these fundamental human things, but we haven’t gone much further from there. So, if we can’t understand it, how can we simulate it? Perhaps those things can only be explained by the presence of a soul. Therefore, if a sentient machine can produce a creative solution, if a sentient machine can start making impressions and conclusions about the personalities of humans, if it can start form its own personality, does it indicate the presence of a soul?

We need to consider what a soul is. I believe that, the brain simply is a material Object that acts as a foundation to support the mind, the soul.Are thoughts, are will, are desires, translate in to eletrical impulses within the brain in order that are souls can interface with the physical univerese.

When an eletrical impulse happens in the brain, an act is taking place with the physical reality, but you, your will, your being, Originates within a non physical dimension.

There is no logical reason why matter should produce anything, let alone a thinking brain. They only do so, because God wants us to live in a universe based on physical law, so that we are dependent on him. Matter, having different abilitys, having different taste or different workings, is an illusion Of the Physical world. Why should a D,N,A, or any genetic compound material work to produce anything in any shape? Materiels work arcording to the laws that are asigned to them. Materiels are not relient on there own manifestation of law, they do not make themselves exist and then decide to work in any particulor way they see fit.

A .I is impossible, unless we figure out way to create machine that can manifests “untangible foughts”. Not even biological mechanics (The technology of God) can produce a soul, it is God that produces it.

What do you think of what i have said?

 

[porthos11]

freesoulhope:

We need to consider what a soul is. I believe that, the brain simply is a material Object that acts as a foundation to support the mind, the soul.Are thoughts, are will, are desires, translate in to eletrical impulses within the brain in order that are souls can interface with the physical univerese.

When an eletrical impulse happens in the brain, an act is taking place with the physical reality, but you, your will, your being, Originates within a non physical dimension.

It has been noted somewhere (the source escapes me) that organ transplants are moral except for two: the brain and gonads, because these physical organs are inherent to this particular person, and belongs to no one else. Perhaps, this could point to some relationship between the brain and the soul. From what I understand, if someone transplants my brain into you, then the person that has your body will be me, even though I look like you.
This thread kinda reminds me of the second-season episode on Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Measure of a Man." Essentially, a Starfleet cybernetics expert wanted to recall Lt. Commander Data and dismantle him for study, but Data requested the JAG for a hearing, with Captain Picard defending him, and Commander Riker prosecuting (under protest). Picard argued that Data was self-aware and able to reason, and reminded the court that Starfleet's mission was to seek new life, one of which was sitting there. The judge ruled that the question was whether or not Data had a soul, which they cannot answer. The court granted him the right to seek it out for himself, therefore formally granting him self-determination.
Maybe when we have real-life androids serving in Starfleet, we will get to address these questions.

 

[Godfrey]

IF this IS Artificial Intelligence, the prospects look rather grim:

Revelation 13: 11 “Then I saw another beast that rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. 13It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; 14and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived; 15and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred and sixty-six.”

Spooky

 

[Sir_Knight]

porthos11:

It has been noted somewhere (the source escapes me) that organ transplants are moral except for two: the brain and gonads, because these physical organs are inherent to this particular person, and belongs to no one else.

Yeah, if you could recall the source, that would be good.