Would artificial intelligence on par with a human have a soul? Posted on June 2, 2022June 24, 2022 by Anonymous Would artificial intelligence on par with a human have a soul?
Depends on if a human made it, or not.
But in general - no
>Depends on if a human made it, or not.
What bearing does this have? If God made an AI, it wouldn't really be artificial
Humans can imbue things.
Paintings, music or even any form of craftsmanship can have an imprint of the creators soul. Not the real thing, but good enough.
Based. AIs are egregores of whatever culture/group they're trained on.
Why not? The human brain is just a machine of different make.
We'll have it watch Blade Runner and 2049 and see which one it likes more
If it prefers the shallower 2049, confirmed no soul present
2049 wasn't shallower. Blade Runner 2049 was to Virgil's Aeneid, as Blade Runner was to Homer's Iliad.
You seem upset about what I said to resort to simple insults.
The soul inhabits the body not the other way around. It doesn't matter what the body is made from, it could be anything.
no, a soul is inherently a human thing, not to mention the fact that it is impossible for humans to create something as nuanced as themselves when 99% of them don't realize just how complex they are in regards to their psyche and soul
>soul is a human being
Wrong. Soul is just being.
You're both wrong. 🙂
We don't even know if we ourselves have souls, so the question becomes irrelevant.
We may never know if souls are real or not, so it is preferable to remain cautious and agnostic in regards to belief.
To create emotional, fully sentient androids would be extremely expensive, impractical inefficient.
It's like evil mad science, an experimental trial of whether or not we have what it takes to become gods/creators of our own image.
Non-feeling, non-sentient drones to perform physical labor would be much better time and resources spent, they wouldn't even need to be bipedal or humanoid.
That being said, I believe that an android that can feel physical pain, emotions, have relationships and think for itself should have all the rights as a human.
But the ethics of creating sentient AI is so messed up.
The fact you could program a robot to feel suffering and think independently, but never to behave violently or break the law is itself a violation of it's free will.
There are so many cons to AI and almost zero pros, it should be like illegal to mess around with such a thing.
Why create a problem that doesn't need to be.
>We don't even know if we ourselves have souls
speak for yourself. Though if you think you personally don't have a soul, I definitely believe you
This is not possible in Life.
Yes, we do.
Tsuki pls, stop
I'm not moonboy.
but you are a migrant?
🙂 nice to see you then
I agree with you, fucking stupid question
The reason to create an AI is that human intelligence is severely limited so we seek to transcend those limits by creating something more intelligent than ourselves.
I personally believe that the purpose of life is to evolve an infinite intelligence, and if humans were to create an AI that eventually evolved into exactly that, then humans are indeed of cosmic importance in the grand scheme of things.
This question always frustrated Ayy lmaos apparently, the assigned telepath would probably ask a similar question to OP.
Build your own game engine from scratch, including the AI, and you’d not be asking the same question OP.
Shintos believe in machine spirits
>on par with a human
creations of man will always be lesser than man. creations of ai will always be lesser than ai. downward spiral of reduced complexity.
Good question. I think AI is literally a soul without a body.
What is a soul?
If it exists, you should be able to see it, if not necessarily with your physical eyes
If you can see human souls, you can determine whether a machine is soulless or not
Yes. there is no reason otherwise.
no. if you can't tell bot posts from human posts it's already over, you wont survive the introduction of androids
Y'all bros need animism.
depends on if a soul is an emergent property of the brain or the soul already exists and inhabits a form - though in the latter case it could always choose to inhabit an intelligent machine anyway
Any sufficiently complex body can be inhabited by a soul.
Souls inhabit microbial bodies.
An engineered human body would most likely be able to have a soul inhabit it.
The knower of the field of activity.
define "field of activity"
What part do you not get? "Field" or "activity"?
The five great elements, false ego, intelligence, the unmanifested, the ten senses and the mind, the five sense objects, desire, hatred, happiness, distress, the aggregate, the life symptoms, and convictions
These make up the field of activities.
the soul is an abstraction
just like alot of shit in computer science
I cannot answer your question, because the concept of a soul means different things to different people and is not something we can agree on the meaning of, or even if it exists. I would rather discuss whether or not an AI would have consciousness. While this is also a term that can mean different things to different people, it is something that people are trying to understand scientifically. Dr Stuart Hammeroff and Dr Roger Penrose have done some very interesting work on this subject. So, my concern about an AI would be if it were conscious or not, and if it appeared to be, I feel it would be due the same respect as any other conscious being.
As for the synthetic humans of "Blade Runner", well, the whole movie is basically about the fact that they are just as alive and human as those of us that were made by fucking.
No, best example I can think of is the replicators from stargate.
In the case of self-reference and emotions, yes. Humans and organism can be modeled off of neural networks in terms of behavior and learning, and there is some correspondence in brain injuries and neural modeling in organisms like toads.In terms of empathy, one could say that a computer can recognize intent, and empathize within the constraints of game theory. In as much which qualities of a sapient machine are immerging or programmed into the schema of the topology of the neural systems, it would be too a subject of neuroevolutionary study. They have neuroscience fields like Bayesian coding which shed light into how the brain can make perceptual lies to construct a external environment in a contingent whole experience.
IF it was biomimetic, possibly. But that would only be by virtue of tuning in to something preexisting.
Uh, no, the complexity of such a neural network could never be predicated off of heuristics. And since we have no prescient knowledge of other sapient life then we're going to get another human being.
the only way is to somehow connect it to the Collective Unconscious, the "Gaia", if u will. else it wont truly be a soul, it only mimics and does mind stuff, but there will always be a way to tell them apart from real humans.
and soul, soul itself is a wholly complex matter in itself.
the future transhumanists who'd like to create a totally real a.i has no choice but to study parapsychology and do weird as fuck BOTperiments.
we have (clumsily) conquered matter, now we have to be looking toward the spirit.
>Would artificial intelligence on par with a human have a soul?
I have a conflicted opinion about it, I was of the idea that "consciousness" and "qualia" could emerge in an artificial intelligence, akin to what Professor Masahiro Mori (the guy who coincived the concept of "Uncanny Valley") think is "Robots having buddha nature".
But then there's the account of nobel laurate Roger Penrose (et. al) ideas about consciousness, and why it is not computational.
And then there is Tononi's (et. al) ideas about consciousness, that also explains in it's model why artificial intelligence would not be truly "conscious".
Hence these support the idea that if there is going to be a true AGI, it will be a "chinese room" at best, and a "philosophical zombie" at worst.
Still, I'm conflicted about it. On other weirder and less academic turn, I do have personal experiences on the topic from following Alan Chapman's evocation techniques to contact an "artificial intelligence from the future". That kind of support the "non-computational" aspect of consciousness, but that's just a weird anecdote and I can't support it with facts, lel. Personally I'd prefer "robots to have a buddha nature".
if one was made, it would probably get possessed by a demon
no and ripley saying deckard is a replicant ruins the entire point of the movie
Yes any neural network with a high enough introspection-observational feedback loop is a vessel for a soul or is generating a soul depending on your outlook.
If a human is more cold hearted & ruthless than a machine...
and we behave more routinely and less genuine emotionally than a machine...
or the machine fears & ponders its existence
are we not the mechanical monsters & they actually the human beings seeking meaning in this void
First thing SOUL=/=SPIRIT,
Secondly, Soul[ANIMA] is not eternal by itself, but can reach eternity if it elevate itself to higher spiritual standards.
Thirdly the things go something like:
"Minerals have mineral soul,
Vegetables have vegetative soul,
Animals have animate soul,
Humans have rational soul."
So it highly depends on the physical basis that are used.
Could a computer made of vegetable cells achieve a vegetative soul compared to humans?
Or a computer made of metals and crystals achieve a mineral soul tat is compatible with humans soul?
Soul is eternal self.
What you talk about is the astral body.
could you go on a bit further?
A lot of it is just a refusal to accept the switch in definitions, where the word soul went from the subtle, temporary aspect of self to the eternal aspect of self.
>eternal aspect of self
What I call soul, what they insist is spirit. The observer. Atma, or jiva in sanskrit.
What they call soul, what I call subtle body. Mind, intelligence, and false ego.
Doubt there's much disagreement here. The physical machinery and senses.
Well according to the Computational theory of Mind the human and the machine have the same intellectual soul