Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy and Robotics

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish! Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments. The theory of Evolution would then fully explain our consciousness and intelligence.

As technology advances exponentially we will eventually find out. As the video shows, one day these things will be possible. And when that day comes, humanity will see a new perspective on religion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a better thought experiment, I think from Steven Pinker.

Let's say that you get a degenerative brain disease. Over time, your neurons will all decay until you cannot function and die.

Luckily, there is a treatment. Scientists can create a metal-based imitation neuron which completely reproduces the dead neuron.

You get the treatment, and about 2% of your neurons get replaced with imitation neurons.

Still got an intact soul?

Well, what if the disease kept spreading slowly. Every few weeks, you go in to get a few more neurons replaced. It spreads to other organic material (skin cells, etc) which luckily can also be replaced by metallic subtitutes without damaging function.

Eventually, the imitation neurons will replace all organic neurons.

When that last organic neuron is replaced, do you lose the ability to have consciousness? Do you suddenly lose your soul?

What about when every last bit of organic material has been replaced with a metal substitute? Do you, a robot, no longer have a soul or conscious thought?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:04:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:57:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I have a better thought experiment, I think from Steven Pinker.

Let's say that you get a degenerative brain disease. Over time, your neurons will all decay until you cannot function and die.

Luckily, there is a treatment. Scientists can create a metal-based imitation neuron which completely reproduces the dead neuron.

You get the treatment, and about 2% of your neurons get replaced with imitation neurons.

Still got an intact soul?

Well, what if the disease kept spreading slowly. Every few weeks, you go in to get a few more neurons replaced. It spreads to other organic material (skin cells, etc) which luckily can also be replaced by metallic subtitutes without damaging function.

Eventually, the imitation neurons will replace all organic neurons.

When that last organic neuron is replaced, do you lose the ability to have consciousness? Do you suddenly lose your soul?

What about when every last bit of organic material has been replaced with a metal substitute? Do you, a robot, no longer have a soul or conscious thought?

I would imagine that a soul supporter could argue that a soul has nothing to do with the brain and was never deteriorating in the first place.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:19:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish! Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments. The theory of Evolution would then fully explain our consciousness and intelligence.

As technology advances exponentially we will eventually find out. As the video shows, one day these things will be possible. And when that day comes, humanity will see a new perspective on religion.

The Fool: indistinguishable means ignorance of differences. We can't create consciousness. because the actual consciousness is not something that can't be recognized within a physcal domain. Even in neuroscience we correlate and correpond the brain 'activity'(<-vague) with conscousness. We could only exprapolate our system of processing, but not the actual feelings. In artificial intellegence we use vector mathmatics to represent emotion. But we could never know or test if it is feeling so it is a always a robot by the fact that we made it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:21:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit
The Fool: Indistinguishable means ignorance of differences. We can't create consciousness, because the actual consciousness is not something that cant be recognized within a physcal domain. Even in neuroscience we correlate and correpond the brain 'activity'(<-vague) with conscousness. We could only exprapolate our system of processing, but not the actual feelings. In artificial intellegence we use vector mathmatics to represent emotion. But we could never know or test if it is feeling so it is a always a robot by the fact that we made it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish!

Not necessarily. In the Bible, for example, it's stated several times that unity among humans gives us capacities comparable to God. But, what's more important is that...

Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments. The theory of Evolution would then fully explain our consciousness and intelligence.

...you're clearly asserting that we don't even know what consciousness and intellect is, or how it comes about, so you're making a huge leap when you go from our current technological capacities to creating a conscious being. I think it's more likely that we'd do that biologically than technologically, to be honest. Biologists have gotten infinitely closer than robotic engineers.

As technology advances exponentially we will eventually find out.

That's just kind of an assumption, but I understand the train of thought.

As the video shows, one day these things will be possible.

With that, I outright disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:25:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:57:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I have a better thought experiment, I think from Steven Pinker.

Let's say that you get a degenerative brain disease. Over time, your neurons will all decay until you cannot function and die.

Luckily, there is a treatment. Scientists can create a metal-based imitation neuron which completely reproduces the dead neuron.

You get the treatment, and about 2% of your neurons get replaced with imitation neurons.

Still got an intact soul?

Well, what if the disease kept spreading slowly. Every few weeks, you go in to get a few more neurons replaced. It spreads to other organic material (skin cells, etc) which luckily can also be replaced by metallic subtitutes without damaging function.

Eventually, the imitation neurons will replace all organic neurons.

When that last organic neuron is replaced, do you lose the ability to have consciousness? Do you suddenly lose your soul?

What about when every last bit of organic material has been replaced with a metal substitute? Do you, a robot, no longer have a soul or conscious thought?

I have to be honest; that just sounds like one of those hyperbolic hypotheticals that propose impossibilities in an attempt to present evidence for weak arguments.

In words, if we could do that, we could literally build all of "creation" (all of life as we know it) from scratch, as we'd have the capacity to engineer organisms cell by cell. Out of metal.

If you really think about it, biologically speaking, that's an impossibility. We're carbon-based for a reason, and the only base element that we've found that could possibly replace carbon, to my knowledge, is silicone.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:28:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish!
Would it extend our own capabilities in creation or simply juxtapose them against God'?

Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments. The theory of Evolution would then fully explain our consciousness and intelligence.
Can the act of creation be reflected in an earthly scale, but not juxtaposed against???

As technology advances exponentially we will eventually find out. As the video shows, one day these things will be possible. And when that day comes, humanity will see a new perspective on religion.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:37:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish!

and

Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments.

Such a robot would only prove that we were capable of creating a facsimile of ourselves; it could prove nothing at all about our consciousness. If we could make an iron duplicate of a soul, that would not indicate anything about the materials of which our souls are made.

@ Wnope:

Your thought experiment assumes that the soul is a physical artifact. If the soul exists, it must be immaterial and non-physical in nature, as nothing physical can be immortal.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:40:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:37:06 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish!

and

Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments.

Such a robot would only prove that we were capable of creating a facsimile of ourselves; it could prove nothing at all about our consciousness. If we could make an iron duplicate of a soul, that would not indicate anything about the materials of which our souls are made.

Consciousness is not a thing,...it isn't made out of material. It's a state. And that state can be achieved synthetically. As for souls, that's a bare assertion. What evidence suggests that souls exist? I can give you evidence to the contrary. (ie. the fact that we can reanimate dead people with electricity).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
SECOND REPLY TO IKE:

Ike, while it would be interesting in regards to questions of our own consciousness, morality, and so forth, don't you think it is a bit odd to see a leap from the implied ability of man to create facsimiles of ourselves--preserving our emotions and so forth to the question of earthly or divine creation? Can the two not exist together, hand in hand, or as different sides along the same gradient, rather than as a mutually exclusive dichotomy?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:43:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And as usually, my posts get ignored by Ike in my attempt to start a discussion....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:43:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:43:13 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
And as usual, my posts get ignored by Ike in my attempt to start a discussion....
Fixed.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:40:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:37:06 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish!

and

Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments.

Such a robot would only prove that we were capable of creating a facsimile of ourselves; it could prove nothing at all about our consciousness. If we could make an iron duplicate of a soul, that would not indicate anything about the materials of which our souls are made.

Consciousness is not a thing,...it isn't made out of material.

That was my point. Consciousness does not seem to be a physical characteristic that we can duplicate.

It's a state. And that state can be achieved synthetically.

It has not been, and nothing close to it has been. Until it has been duplicated, this is speculation.

As for souls, that's a bare assertion. What evidence suggests that souls exist?

You are asking for physical evidence of a metaphysical concept? Do you realize how contradictory that is?

Using the estimated mass of the known universe, please calculate who I am in love with.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:51:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 6:25:26 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:57:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
I have a better thought experiment, I think from Steven Pinker.

Let's say that you get a degenerative brain disease. Over time, your neurons will all decay until you cannot function and die.

Luckily, there is a treatment. Scientists can create a metal-based imitation neuron which completely reproduces the dead neuron.

You get the treatment, and about 2% of your neurons get replaced with imitation neurons.

Still got an intact soul?

Well, what if the disease kept spreading slowly. Every few weeks, you go in to get a few more neurons replaced. It spreads to other organic material (skin cells, etc) which luckily can also be replaced by metallic subtitutes without damaging function.

Eventually, the imitation neurons will replace all organic neurons.

When that last organic neuron is replaced, do you lose the ability to have consciousness? Do you suddenly lose your soul?

What about when every last bit of organic material has been replaced with a metal substitute? Do you, a robot, no longer have a soul or conscious thought?

I have to be honest; that just sounds like one of those hyperbolic hypotheticals that propose impossibilities in an attempt to present evidence for weak arguments.

In words, if we could do that, we could literally build all of "creation" (all of life as we know it) from scratch, as we'd have the capacity to engineer organisms cell by cell. Out of metal.

If you really think about it, biologically speaking, that's an impossibility. We're carbon-based for a reason, and the only base element that we've found that could possibly replace carbon, to my knowledge, is silicone.

The only reason I think "metal" is useful instead of simply talking about some new derivative of carbon or the like was that the commonsense notion of a "robot" does not extend to organic robots.

If everyone would immediately agree with the idea that a robot can be made of organic material, I would use that. However, for many that would constitute and argument itself.

While it may not be metal, it is far from impossible to imagine artificial neurons and artificial organic derivatives.

And yes, the argument can be extended to all creation. However, I'm not familiar with any other lumps of mass that claim to possess souls.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:52:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:49:34 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

You are asking for physical evidence of a metaphysical concept? Do you realize how contradictory that is?

Using the estimated mass of the known universe, please calculate who I am in love with.

No. I didn't ask you for physical evidence. I asked you for evidence. Surely something made you aware that souls exists. What is that thing?

Or are you tacitly suggesting that your belief is a faith-based assertion?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 7:54:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:37:06 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:51:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
If we can create a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being in its actions - one that has feelings, intelligence, and consciousness..... that would damage the idea of a God wouldn't it? For here we are, mere ungodly mortals, and we produced a moral agent from start to finish!

and

Such a robot would also prove that consciousness and intellect are Earthly, not Godly endowments.

Such a robot would only prove that we were capable of creating a facsimile of ourselves; it could prove nothing at all about our consciousness. If we could make an iron duplicate of a soul, that would not indicate anything about the materials of which our souls are made.


@ Wnope:

Your thought experiment assumes that the soul is a physical artifact. If the soul exists, it must be immaterial and non-physical in nature, as nothing physical can be immortal.

Alright, let's say that's the case.

Would you be willing to admit that a person, once his neurons have been fully replaced with artificial substitutes, will not suddenly lose the ability to have conscious thought once you go from 99.999% artificial to 100% artificial?

That would seem to suggest that, whatever the soul is, it is not needed for consciousness to exist.

From there, we can infer that robots can be given consciousness, even if they cannot get souls.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:03:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:54:42 PM, Wnope wrote:

Alright, let's say that's the case.

Would you be willing to admit that a person, once his neurons have been fully replaced with artificial substitutes, will not suddenly lose the ability to have conscious thought once you go from 99.999% artificial to 100% artificial?

That would seem to suggest that, whatever the soul is, it is not needed for consciousness to exist.

From there, we can infer that robots can be given consciousness, even if they cannot get souls.

What your saying is not medically possible, or even close to being medically possible on the scale you're suggesting. Cognition requires learning and growth, which is achieved through rapid neuron regeneration and rearrangement. IBM's Watson computer doesn't even come close to the creative intelligence of the organic brain.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:03:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:52:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:49:34 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

You are asking for physical evidence of a metaphysical concept? Do you realize how contradictory that is?

Using the estimated mass of the known universe, please calculate who I am in love with.

No. I didn't ask you for physical evidence. I asked you for evidence. Surely something made you aware that souls exists. What is that thing?

Or are you tacitly suggesting that your belief is a faith-based assertion?

Please note the forum we are in.

Souls are theological/philosophical constructs. There is no direct evidence that I am aware of for their existence, nor can I imagine any physically measurable way to prove their existence. If they exist at all, they are spiritual, not physical.

The only evidence I know for the soul is both subjective and indirect, and it has to do with the tenuous connection of our consciousness to our physical existence.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even if we could create consciousness in a robot, how would we know that we did?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:07:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:03:50 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:52:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:49:34 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

You are asking for physical evidence of a metaphysical concept? Do you realize how contradictory that is?

Using the estimated mass of the known universe, please calculate who I am in love with.

No. I didn't ask you for physical evidence. I asked you for evidence. Surely something made you aware that souls exists. What is that thing?

Or are you tacitly suggesting that your belief is a faith-based assertion?

Please note the forum we are in.

Souls are theological/philosophical constructs. There is no direct evidence that I am aware of for their existence, nor can I imagine any physically measurable way to prove their existence. If they exist at all, they are spiritual, not physical.

The only evidence I know for the soul is both subjective and indirect, and it has to do with the tenuous connection of our consciousness to our physical existence.

Admitting you have no evidence,...but yet claiming to believe in it. That's a classic leap of faith. While we're at it, since evidence isn't required for us to believe in things, I can go ahead and say that the pacific ocean does not exist. Obama is a Republican, and soda comes from hell...which of course exists in Las Vegas.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:09:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:04:22 PM, Oryus wrote:
Even if we could create consciousness in a robot, how would we know that we did?

How would we define consciousness in this case?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:11:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 6:04:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:

I would imagine that a soul supporter could argue that a soul has nothing to do with the brain and was never deteriorating in the first place.

As a Catholic, I would agree with that.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:13:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:04:22 PM, Oryus wrote:
Even if we could create consciousness in a robot, how would we know that we did?

consciousness is a state of self-awareness and intelligence. When robots know that they exist, and know that human's created them, and have the ability to learn. They are conscious.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 8:04:22 PM, Oryus wrote:
Even if we could create consciousness in a robot, how would we know that we did?

consciousness is a state of self-awareness and intelligence. When robots know that they exist, and know that human's created them, and have the ability to learn. They are conscious.

Well then, what are the aspects of self-awareness and intelligence and how could they be recognized? In what manner and through which medium of expression?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:27:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:51:12 PM, Wnope wrote:

And yes, the argument can be extended to all creation. However, I'm not familiar with any other lumps of mass that claim to possess souls.

I'm not familiar with any other lumps of mass that claim.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 7:54:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:37:06 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Your thought experiment assumes that the soul is a physical artifact. If the soul exists, it must be immaterial and non-physical in nature, as nothing physical can be immortal.

Alright, let's say that's the case.

Would you be willing to admit that a person, once his neurons have been fully replaced with artificial substitutes, will not suddenly lose the ability to have conscious thought once you go from 99.999% artificial to 100% artificial?

I imagine that ability would be lost with the very first replacement, followed shortly by death; but for purposes of argument, I'll assume that the replacements are perfect duplicates of the removed organic matter, and that death/irreversible brain damage is not caused by the procedure.

The only reason that I can see why consciousness would be effected is if it were tied somehow to the actual physical matter that was removed.

Four possiblities exist:

1. Consciousness is an artifact of our physical/chemical brain. Replacing that brain will destroy the current consciousness, although it may be replaced with an equivalent artificial one.

2. Consciousness is a product of the memories and knowledge stored in our brains, and the connections we have made between those. A perfect duplication of the brain would continue this seamlessly.

3. Consciousness is metaphysical, and tied to our physical life; as at death, when that physical life ends, the consciousness will separate from the matter of the body. Once the physical brain has been partially replaced and cannot support life on it's own, consciousness would separate.

4. Consciousness is metaphysical and not tied to our physical existence. Replacing the brain would have no effect here.


That would seem to suggest that, whatever the soul is, it is not needed for consciousness to exist.

Or that the soul/consciousness is not contained in the physical matter of the human body.


From there, we can infer that robots can be given consciousness, even if they cannot get souls.

I admit it is a possibility, if consciousness is a purely physical artifact.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:42:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:07:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
While we're at it, since evidence isn't required for us to believe in things, I can go ahead and say that the pacific ocean does not exist. Obama is a Republican, and soda comes from hell...which of course exists in Las Vegas.

All of those things are physical, and can be verified. The manufactured origins of sodawater, the existence of the Pacific ocean, Obama's registration as a Democrat - all of these are easily verified.

Your scorn is noted, but your analogies fail.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:13:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 8:04:22 PM, Oryus wrote:
Even if we could create consciousness in a robot, how would we know that we did?

consciousness is a state of self-awareness and intelligence. When robots know that they exist, and know that human's created them, and have the ability to learn. They are conscious.

But still- how would we know they are really self-aware? If they are programmed well enough to learn, why wouldn't they be programmed well enough to perceive themselves in a mirror and say, "that's me"?

Also, many animals are not necessarily self-aware in the same way humans are. What is self-awareness?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 8:46:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 8:07:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 8:03:50 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:52:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/24/2012 7:49:34 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

You are asking for physical evidence of a metaphysical concept? Do you realize how contradictory that is?

Using the estimated mass of the known universe, please calculate who I am in love with.

No. I didn't ask you for physical evidence. I asked you for evidence. Surely something made you aware that souls exists. What is that thing?

Or are you tacitly suggesting that your belief is a faith-based assertion?

Please note the forum we are in.

Souls are theological/philosophical constructs. There is no direct evidence that I am aware of for their existence, nor can I imagine any physically measurable way to prove their existence. If they exist at all, they are spiritual, not physical.

The Fool: I really think you are unaware if we were actually true that all information is direct from phyical expereince they way you are and many positivist explain it.

Just think about what is really of your five senses. colours, sound, taste, touch, smell.

If you really can grasp what I mean, you should understand that all we get from that Is colourfull, tasty, noisy, smelly, tactical. Things.
Now lets assume space, (you need more then that too even get space)

So now we have Colourfull, tasty, noisy, smelly, tactical, bodies which take up space.

Try it for youself look around the room, and based of senses alone, point to something which is more, then that.

tasty, noisy, smelly, tactical Bodies taking up space.

You should realize that if we took your understanding of physcal evidence alone, what other knowledge can you possible arrive at?

Is this really the source of all evidence ----> colours, sound, taste, touch, smell.
Just like that!

000ike: The only evidence I know for the soul is both subjective and indirect, and it has to do with the tenuous connection of our consciousness to our physical existence.

The Fool: So physical evidence is direct!?? IF you can take something as drug that will exepct your physical experience. Would you say it was still direct?

If we try and make sense according to this understanding of science, isnt it just a collection of subjective claims by a particluar set of scientistsm which we have faith in?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL