Since when did mankind have the ability to dole out souls or breathe life into something? Only God can breathe life into a person, and if man were to attempt to create a living being, it would NOT be created by God.
I’ve never heard that definition of “alive” before. But since we’re using the word “alive”, and not “human”, or “sentient”, I don’t think even that goes far enough to matter in terms of ethics. Animals adapt to their environments and show “a complex reaction to complex stimuli”, but do not do so at the same level as humans. Because of this, most people judge them to have less value than humans, and will kill them to further the goals of mankind.
Well, since we’re on a Catholic site, most of us are using the Catholic definition of “soul”. I think that’s the part of us that is made in the image and likeness of God, as discussed above. But I am aware of the fact that apes can participate in human conversations. That means that conversation isn’t a distinctly human trait, which is interesting to think about. I know people have discussed a lot of things that could seperate us from apes (other than our souls), but I’m not sure if any of them check out. One of them is the idea of “the triangle”, a relationship formed between two beings and an object as both discuss, notice, or learn about the object. Apparently, you can’t exactly teach apes like you can human children- you have to wait for them to learn on their own by copying. I’m not sure it’s relevant to the current conversation, but I think that’s also fascinating.
Cool! This isn’t an area I devote a lot of time to reading about, but I’m happy to hear that we can make programs that adapt by themselves. But from what you’re saying, it’s still on a pretty basic level, and we don’t need to worry about drawing the line between programming and “thought” yet.
We’re certainly not anywhere near a perfect of semi-perfect emulation of human behavior, so outside of science fiction, the point is still moot.
I’ll check them out, thanks!
Because any clone would start with human genetic material and grow the same way as a human. The only difference between it and normal IVF (as far as I know) is that the genetic material inside the fertilized egg would be replaced with genetic material from another source. Or something. The point is, human beings create life all the time through our own biological processes, and replacing genetic material strikes me as altering those processes, not simulating them. Such a being would certainly be alive, and I can’t imagine God not gifting him/her with a soul (especially since I think such a change would happen after conception). It’s immoral, from our perspective, but I don’t see it as preventing God from giving the child a soul (unless you believe that one’s soul is carried in one’s genetic material, which would be kind of confusing).
The Catholic faith is not as ambiguous as you would prefer concerning the Soul.
Oh Im sure that you could come up with hundreds of valid “points” to an artificial human if you tried :doh2:
It was a response to Lost_Sheep. I would prefer the word “sentient”. However, there is a neat program, Conway’s “Game of Life”. Its significance is that a few, very simple rules (only three of them) can create an incredibly complex behavior.
I know, but that is not relevant in this context.
As I said, there are at least three different definitions of “soul”. But since the concept is not important here, there is no reason to go deeper into it. I admit that I also used the example to substantiate that the higher apes are able to perform acts which were supposed to be the result of a “rational soul” – which was also supposed to be unique to humans. This was to show that the concept of soul is superfluous.
It is fun to “worry” about thought experiments, and useful to be prepared just in case the future rolls around sooner than expected. (See: Alvin Toffler’s “Future Shock”.)
Parts of human behavior are emulated very well. But the point is about the alleged dichotomy of “real” vs. “emulated”.
You are correct, but all that means is that most people are irrational. The original and the copy are equally beautiful, and there is no rational reason to value one over the other – when it comes to artistic beauty. If you are interested, here is another great book (and it is on-line) Kazohinia which talks about this question (among other things). It is a scathing satire, and it can be disturbing.
I do not understand the point of ignoring the defining characteristic that separates humans from the rest of creation when discussing the probability of creating machines that could emulate us.
Correction: “I do not understand the point of ignoring the alleged defining characteristic”…
The Catholic church disagrees.
I am aware of it. But the catholic church is only an authority for the catholics. If the church would declare that the Moon is made of cheese, it would be binding on all the catholics, but not on anyone else. (Of course I predict that some catholics would decline that “teaching”, just like they decline the teaching on extra-marital sex or artificial birth control or gay marriage. The church has much less power than you imagine.)
That is too simplistic. The machine could have a built in power source, which cannot be “cut”, and could protect itself against an aggressive attack. It is pretty sad (but also amusing) that your first consideration is a brutal attack, instead of considering a peaceful solution.
(Might makes right???) You only have one option: to argue with it, and to use logical arguments. As long as you are unable to discover that your conversation partner is a “machine”, you are supposed to treat it as an equal human being. I suggest you read the composition of short stories by Asimov: “I Robot”. Even though it is “only” science fiction, it is a great eye-opener of the hypothetical human-robot interactions.I think it’s relevant as long as the discussion includes souls. That’s why people here have a problem with sentient or intelligent computers. For them, intelligence = soul, soul = created in image of God, and “intelligent” computers = made in the image of humans. That’s why you’re getting the responses you are. Now, if our souls have nothing to do with intelligence, and we’re actually image-bearers in some other, more specific way, that changes things. (And since many Christians hold that humans are still image-bearers of God even before they obtain the ability to reason, I would say that the two things really can’t be the same.)
I don’t think you’ve shown it to be superfluous. You’ve shown that intelligence and having a rational soul are different things. (Not that I know what the difference is.)
I agree that this is entertaining, but for the OP, the fact that it is a somewhat distant worry is probably why the Church hierarchy hasn’t said anything about it.
But we’re not valuing the artistic beauty. We’re valuing that it’s the only one that was actually touched by Da Vinci. It’s the same reason an original artifact in a museum is more valuable than a near-perfect replica. It’s because it was really used by someone famous, and we think that’s cool.
I’ll check it out, when I have time. I kind of love this sort of thing.
You are arguing on a Catholic forum that we must ignore church teaching?
No, my first consideration is to pull the plug. There is nothing violent about that.That is too simplistic. The machine could have a built in power source, which cannot be “cut”, and could protect itself against an aggressive attack. It is pretty sad (but also amusing) that your first consideration is a brutal attack, instead of considering a peaceful solution.
Apologies, I have not been clear.
I think that makes sense, although the question of what our souls actually do (other than making us immortal) is an interesting one. I suppose I’m curious about which aspects of humanity can’t be duplicated by machines. We agree that intelligence isn’t one of those things.
Try turning off the Internet.
I understand all that. The point is that the “soul” is 1) not even defined in a rigorous manner, 2) whatever it might be is not proven to exist, 3) not even the church says when and how humans get it. (The church does not say anymore that the soul is “infused” at the time of conception.)
And your observation is very pertinent. According to the church even the people in a persistent vegetative state are “image-bearers”, even if they have no higher brain functions – at all!
Well, in that respect it is superfluous.
And you are not alone in not knowing the difference – especially since there is no rational definition of a “rational soul”.
The church hierarchy says nothing about many questions, even if they are pressing and pertinent today. But that would be a different discussion.
What use is a picture if not for its artistic beauty? If the Mona Lisa would be quietly substituted by a “perfect” replica, people would still admire it, unknowing that it is not the original. Two months ago we took a trip to Toscana, and admired many beautiful statues, knowing full well that they are “only” replicas, while the original is hidden in some safe place. And no one was shrugging them off, saying: “Bah, these are only replicas”.
Yes, but only if you wish to stay on rational ground.
I have no problem to discuss what the church teaches, as long as it is the logical corollary of a rational argument. But not as an a-priori assumption.
Actually she is very smart. There is no clear dividing line between plans and animals. Just like there is no clear dividing line between living and inanimate matter.
Yes, let’s hope so.
Dreaming is the temporary cessation of conscious thought, when the neurons will fire in a random fashion. Dreaming is necessary for the organic brain / mind to rest, just like the deep sleep is necessary for the body to rest. So, as long as the machines will be made of electronic material, which does not need refreshment, you are probably correct, and the computers will not “dream”. However, there was a novel with the title: “Do androids dream of electric sheep?”… so artificially grown beings may very well dream.
Since you read Asimov’s stories, I am sure you realize that mobile units will have a non-wired power supply. But regardless of that, I was referring to the act of “turning off” a sentient being, which is an act of hostility, and maybe the robot would resent that…
This kind of argument pops up quite frequently. I suggest you perform an experiment. Sire a child, and bring it up in total isolation. You can only care for its bodily needs, but nothing else. No speech, to teaching – no “programming”… and see what the result will be in a (say) 20 years. Humans need teaching or “programming”, too. The resulting “being” will have no goals, no intelligence, will not be able to communicate… it really will be an “it”. (In God’s image, of course…)
It is not surprising that the person who starts life in such a deprived way will not be able to communicate with speech. But as for the rest of it, that is pure speculation on your part. Even spiders who are given no parental teaching still grow up with the clear goal to build webs to catch flies. There is every reason to believe that a human brought up without parental guidance may still develop goals and exhibit inquisitiveness, even if those behaviors are somewhat warpped by his deprivation.
Spiders do not have a “brain” like humans have. They cannot “learn”, they are already born with all the knowledge they ever need. Humans have only a minimal “built-in” ability, the most important one is the affinity to learn languages. Without languages there can be no discursive thinking. If you doubt, just try it, and see the result.