Can Andriods Have Souls?

[panpareil]

Are we not programmed from childhood?

We consciously and unconsciously program and reprogram ourselves in response to our environment, and our already existing program. But programming from external sources is much less effective, since it can never account for our current programming which is mostly hidden to outside agents, and to an extent, even from ourselves.

Never is a long time. The future may surprise.

It is not a matter of time, it is the nature of the problem. There are unsolvable problems, at least in this universe.

The problem is like trying to build an infinite line with points. It can never be done.

On the other hand, a machine that just does and responds may just eventually program itself by accident to be self aware, but no one can cause such an event except that machine.

Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."

That is the birth of sentience. Who can say an android may never become self aware and begin thinking for itself? Machines are evolving rapidly, making the future less predictable in their regard.

When a person or thing begins making choices based upon thought, for a conscience to form, could not a soul be born within?

But I am before I think I am, not as the result of thinking I am.

[Brother Kaman]

We consciously and unconsciously program and reprogram ourselves in response to our environment, and our already existing program. But programming from external sources is much less effective, since it can never account for our current programming which is mostly hidden to outside agents, and to an extent, even from ourselves.

It is not a matter of time, it is the nature of the problem. There are unsolvable problems, at least in this universe. Because a solution does not yet exist for a problem does not mean the problem is unsolvable.

The problem is like trying to build an infinite line with points. It can never be done.

On the other hand, a machine that just does and responds may just eventually program itself by accident to be self aware, but no one can cause such an event except that machine.

But I am before I think I am, not as the result of thinking I am.

[Key]

We consciously and unconsciously program and reprogram ourselves in response to our environment, and our already existing program. But programming from external sources is much less effective, since it can never account for our current programming which is mostly hidden to outside agents, and to an extent, even from ourselves.

It is not a matter of time, it is the nature of the problem. There are unsolvable problems, at least in this universe.

The problem is like trying to build an infinite line with points. It can never be done.

On the other hand, a machine that just does and responds may just eventually program itself by accident to be self aware, but no one can cause such an event except that machine.

But I am before I think I am, not as the result of thinking I am.

Ah, but if you could not think, you would not know to exist. Sort of a catch 22, isn't it?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

We consciously and unconsciously program and reprogram ourselves in response to our environment, and our already existing program. But programming from external sources is much less effective, since it can never account for our current programming which is mostly hidden to outside agents, and to an extent, even from ourselves.

It is not a matter of time, it is the nature of the problem. There are unsolvable problems, at least in this universe.

The problem is like trying to build an infinite line with points. It can never be done.

On the other hand, a machine that just does and responds may just eventually program itself by accident to be self aware, but no one can cause such an event except that machine.

But I am before I think I am, not as the result of thinking I am.

Breaking the sound barrier used to be an unsolvable problem. Now, it's not. Things change.

Programing a machine to walk used to be a problem. Then a new strategy was used. The programers let the machine learn how to walk -- from it's mistakes.

[panpareil]

The nature of this problem is that it is the opposite of all other problems in nature. All other problems are examined from the outside. This is one that is examined from the inside. From the outside we have no way of knowing that we have succeeded or If it just appears to have succeeded. There is no way to measure this, which places it outside the realm of science.

Then there are the problems of complexity and chaos. The reason why it is not possible to solve this problem is the same reason it is not possible to create a system to manage the economy or to predict the weather with any accuracy farther that a month out. There are too many independently acting parts. For inanimate matter the location and direction of travel is generally ignored for each atom and particle in each reaction. What is tracked is the mass of components, or the probability that something will happen to an individual particle. It is not possible to know exactly what will happen any more than a random flip of a coin or spin of a roulette wheel. But for animate beings the complexity is even higher because there are more variables of action. For individual brain cells the complexity of action may be less than the actions of the animals they inhabit, but far beyond the capacities of computation.

When they talk about Artificial Intelligence they are really only talking about a model, not the actual thing.

I am not discounting that some advanced technology could solve this problem, but nothing in current technology indicates that we are going in the right direction.

As to thinking and existence, before something can think it must exist. then it must have something to think about, then it thinks.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In other words -- it is impossible -- until it happens.

[Seeker]

There's a good background article on this at http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

[Key]

Ah, but if you could not think, you would not know to exist. Sort of a catch 22, isn't it?

The nature of this problem is that it is the opposite of all other problems in nature. All other problems are examined from the outside. This is one that is examined from the inside. From the outside we have no way of knowing that we have succeeded or If it just appears to have succeeded. There is no way to measure this, which places it outside the realm of science.

Then there are the problems of complexity and chaos. The reason why it is not possible to solve this problem is the same reason it is not possible to create a system to manage the economy or to predict the weather with any accuracy farther that a month out. There are too many independently acting parts. For inanimate matter the location and direction of travel is generally ignored for each atom and particle in each reaction. What is tracked is the mass of components, or the probability that something will happen to an individual particle. It is not possible to know exactly what will happen any more than a random flip of a coin or spin of a roulette wheel. But for animate beings the complexity is even higher because there are more variables of action. For individual brain cells the complexity of action may be less than the actions of the animals they inhabit, but far beyond the capacities of computation.

When they talk about Artificial Intelligence they are really only talking about a model, not the actual thing.

I am not discounting that some advanced technology could solve this problem, but nothing in current technology indicates that we are going in the right direction.

As to thinking and existence, before something can think it must exist. then it must have something to think about, then it thinks.

True. But, as you see above in my previous quote, while one may exist, without thinking they wouldn't know to exist. Thinking shapes experiences and creates belief.

[Key]

What is a soul?

There are many interpretations, of course, as there are faiths and religions.

My personal feelings on it is simply a part of one's persona or existence that continues beyond the material realm. The energy that drives life to experience life. The continuance of experience through reincarnation, how is it to be without a soul transference through time or passing material existence?

Take your pick. But can anyone truly define a soul? Which is why one can't rule out that androids can't one day develop one. Just my thoughts.

[mererdog]

The most honest answer to this sort of question is "I don't know."

[kokigami]

you are just being modest..

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

There are many interpretations, of course, as there are faiths and religions.

My personal feelings on it is simply a part of one's persona or existence that continues beyond the material realm. The energy that drives life to experience life. The continuance of experience through reincarnation, how is it to be without a soul transference through time or passing material existence?

Take your pick. But can anyone truly define a soul? Which is why one can't rule out that androids can't one day develop one. Just my thoughts.

No. Which is why this discussion is breaking down. We are talking about something we can't define. Still, a moment of clarity. If the soul is eternal -- can it be "developed?"

This is not the same question as "sentience" or "feeling."

Edited April 19, 2015 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

you are just being modest..

You can't prove that!

[Key]

No. Which is why this discussion is breaking down. We are talking about something we can't define. Still, a moment of clarity. If the soul is eternal -- can it be "developed?"

This is not the same question as "sentience" or "feeling."

Eternal? I don't know. Perhaps. Could it have had a birth into existence at some point? We may never fully grasp the concept of eternal life until such time as we have attained it.

But the birth, for all we know, could happen for a droid, I'm thinking.

It is said, "All things are possible with God", or, "God is within everything". Why not a droid to create a new soul deserving of a new life form?

[kokigami]

yes, this discussion first needs a defining of terms. android and soul are both open for debate.

[Key]

yes, this discussion first needs a defining of terms. android and soul are both open for debate.

True. Which could be said of many threads here. Definitions for the like of: faith, religion, soul, spirit, eternal, belief, and so on.

It seems we need be more specific these days for matter of heart and thought. Otherwise, all we can do is expression of individual interpretation.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I grew up on science fiction. The original meaning of "android" was an organic being with an artificial origin. Androids were the same as Humans; except for how they got their start in life. The android as robot meaning was a much later development.

[Key]

I grew up on science fiction. The original meaning of "android" was an organic being with an artificial origin. Androids were the same as Humans; except for how they got their start in life. The android as robot meaning was a much later development.

As did I, but for me the development was in reverse. Androids started as robots, but evolved into a sort of organic being via advancement in technology. (Artificial organs, simulated blood, manufactured nerve or neural nets, etc.)

[mererdog]

I grew up on science fiction. The original meaning of "android" was an organic being with an artificial origin. Androids were the same as Humans; except for how they got their start in life. The android as robot meaning was a much later development.

I looked it up, based on your words not matching my own memory of scifi history, and it looks like you've got the etymology wrong.....

[Pete]

An android is a robot[1] or synthetic organism[2][3][4] designed to look and act like a human, especially one with a body having a flesh-like resemblance.[2] Until recently, androids have largely remained within the domain of science fiction, frequently seen in film and television. However, advancements in robot technology have allowed the design of functional and realistic humanoid robots.[5]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)

Seems Jonathan is correct according to Wiki

Edited April 21, 2015 by Pete