Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Arx]

I see no theological reason that it should be impossible to create true artificial intelligence, it seems to me to be a question for a person with more training in computer engineering. I don't think such AIs would have souls, no. I don't think there's any reason for biological components to be necessary. It's just a slightly damper, squishier type of machinery when you get right down to it.

I'm also pretty okay with the idea of artificial life. It seems to me that it would be a situation vaguely similar to the whole Aulë/Ilúvatar deal in the Silmarillion; not made in mockery, but in imitation of the works of the greater artist.

[Graknorke]

I don't think such AIs would have souls, no. I don't think there's any reason for biological components to be necessary.

So why don't you think they would have souls? There shouldn't be any problems with the process of thought, so would have to be something else.

[TD1]

Perhaps it just is that no one has a soul, and spiritual actions are actually "mental events interpreted in a spiritual way" (Gilbert Ryle. I think)

[Bohandas]

You misunderstand me. I believe that the level to which we have developed silicon based technology is far enough that we can classify true AI as a physical impossibility.

It shouldn't be too difficult to simply run a brute-force simulation of an entire human brain, which by all rights should achieve the desired result.

 More than a bit impractical yes, especially at our current level of developmemt, but almost definitely possible even now, provided you had a few spare billion laying around for to buy a  ver large number of supercomputers and to hire some scientists to spend a few years precisely mapping someone's connectome.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

It is called artificial for a reason though

it is the simulation of thought and not true thought

[Arx]

I don't think such AIs would have souls, no. I don't think there's any reason for biological components to be necessary.

So why don't you think they would have souls? There shouldn't be any problems with the process of thought, so would have to be something else.

It seems unlikely to me that we would be able to make a metaphysical (is that the right word?) concept. But hey, I follow a religion the holy text of which specifically states that all things are possible, so I guess we could.

Perhaps it just is that no one has a soul, and spiritual actions are actually "mental events interpreted in a spiritual way" (Gilbert Ryle. I think)

RE has practical applications, I see!

Edit: But Cryxis, if it's a perfectly accurate simulation of thought it is indistinguishable from thought and therefore presumably thought itself.

[TD1]

I love RE

I love this thread.

[Bohandas]

Logically (not that logic or reason matter in this field), one would think that extremely religious folks would be more inclined to accept the possibility of an artificial lifeform due to the fact that they posit that all life was artificially constructed.

[Graknorke]

It is called artificial for a reason though

it is the simulation of thought and not true thought

The thing with thought is that (in the context of AI anyway), simulating thought is true thought. In the same way as a calculator performing 8^2 or something is simulating calculating the value of that expression, but by simulating it is also actually calculating the value.

It seems unlikely to me that we would be able to make a metaphysical (is that the right word?) concept. But hey, I follow a religion the holy text of which specifically states that all things are possible, so I guess we could.

People manage it when they make sprogs, why not when making computers?

[Arx]

I'd mark a distinction between building and reproducing. There is no thought involved in fertilisation and pregnancy. You don't have to design the brain and the nervous system, let alone try to build it. That's all taken care of autonomously by systems totally beyond your control, and largely beyond most people's understanding.

[Telgin]

In theory the end result should be all that matters.  Whether a brain is grown or built should be irrelevant.  In theory.  Trouble is that you can't really define what a soul is in the first place, much less say for certain whether something has one.

It's all going to boil down to personal belief, and I guess in this case it comes down to what you believe a soul is.  Is it something that literally only humans have, is it something that comes from sapience, or is it something that comes from life?  Frustratingly, even with those narrow conditions it becomes easy to find a case that is blurry.  What is life?  What is sapience?  What about genetically engineered humans?  What about a human that's constructed from a template and raw materials?

[TD1]

Again, the problem is solved if you assume nothing has a soul, and that existence is based on personal merit rather than a bestowed psychological pattern.

[Graknorke]

Again, the problem is solved if you assume nothing has a soul, and that existence is based on personal merit rather than a bestowed psychological pattern.

Yes but this is the Christian Beliefs thread. The one where we talk about things specifically from the perspective of Christians.

[TD1]

Christian beliefs and discussion yes....

I don't see why my comment wouldn't fit.

[Arx]

The majority of Christians believe in the presence of a soul. Edit: dangit I'm sure that wasn't underlined before.