Can Andriods Have Souls?

[Key]

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

Actually, Pete, this doesn't really support Jonathan's view, either, as it's open to interpretation, as everything else is these days. It still doesn't chart the changes or evolution of robot/androids to the particular image we see today when thinking of them. Which came first, the robot, or the android? Or taking the first part of the definition, "an android is a robot", might we assume the robot did as it is used as a primary term of reference?

The true answer might be from out of left field. Here is an old joke as an example: (word of warning as it may offend some who read due to sexual content)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither, the rooster did.

If this is deemed inappropriate by the moderator, I or said moderator may happily remove the reference.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Keystrikr

[Pete]

Androids are robots but not all robots are androids. I still do not see how my post does not support Jonathan's position. Not being awkward but I just do not see it at present.

[Key]

Androids are robots but not all robots are androids. I still do not see how my post does not support Jonathan's position. Not being awkward but I just do not see it at present.

To me, it does and it doesn't. Like I said, it can still be open for debate.

It states an android is a robot or synthetic organism that is designed to look and act human. But, it doesn't really distinguish one from the other in technological order except for outside of science fiction.

[mererdog]

Seems Jonathan is correct according to Wiki

Since my dispute is with his etymology, rather than his definition, I scrolled down to the etymology section of the wiki link.

"The word was coined from the Greek root ἀνδρ- 'man' (male, as opposed to anthrop- = human being) and the suffix -oid 'having the form or likeness of'.[6]

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest use (as "Androides") to Ephraim Chambers' Cyclopaedia, in reference to an automaton that St. Albertus Magnus allegedly created.[3][7] The term "android" appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature human-like toy automatons"

Nothing there about flesh and bone.

Edited April 21, 2015 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I am working from childhood memories of stories. The stories were of flesh and blood creatures -- indistinguishable from Humans except for the manner of their creation. One such story ended on the note that the child of two android parents was not an android, but fully human.

I'm not trying to prove anything. This is what I remember of the literature of the late 50's and early 60's. When I first encounterd reference to a robot as an android; I was astonished. Well, words change their meaning. It happens.

[emalpaiz]

It might happen some day. When? I do not know!

[mererdog]

When I first encounterd reference to a robot as an android; I was astonished. Well, words change their meaning. It happens.

In this case, it seems to not be about the word changing its meaning, but about your limited exposure to the word giving you a limited understanding of the word's meaning. Having only seen the word used in one context, you naturally assumed that the specifics of that context were inherent to the word's meaning. When you later saw it in contexts where those specifics didn't apply, you naturally assumed the meaning of the word had changed. In fact, however, you had simply been working under a false assumption. It's a pretty common thing. When its about people you care about, instead of words, it can be pretty rough. Did he change, or did I just never really know him? When its about androids- Is this the first to develop consciousness, or have I simply failed to recognize the consciousness of the others? Edited April 23, 2015 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In this case, it seems to not be about the word changing its meaning, but about your limited exposure to the word giving you a limited understanding of the word's meaning. Having only seen the word used in one context, you naturally assumed that the specifics of that context were inherent to the word's meaning. When you later saw it in contexts where those specifics didn't apply, you naturally assumed the meaning of the word had changed. In fact, however, you had simply been working under a false assumption. It's a pretty common thing. When its about people you care about, instead of words, it can be pretty rough. Did he change, or did I just never really know him? When its about androids- Is this the first to develop consciousness, or have I simply failed to recognize the consciousness of the others?

Possibly. These old memories of mine are dim.

[Atwater Vitki]

I, Robot

AI

Both of these productions address this very question with a great deal of logic and rational thought.

Enjoy,

Blessings of Peace,

[Pete]

My thoughts:-

There is that which evolution has created and I wonder if we will one day we can take the short and create that which is human equivalent. My thought is if it can be created then what we are talking about here is the means of its creation rather than the possibility of it ever happening.

[Ex Nihilo]

No but shoes can. Badumpching!

[Pete]

Its coming:-

http://on.aol.co.uk/video/humanoid-robot-interacts-with-people-518784596?playlist=160757&icid=hpaolon

Edited April 24, 2015 by Pete

[Key]

Its coming:-

http://on.aol.co.uk/video/humanoid-robot-interacts-with-people-518784596?playlist=160757&icid=hpaolon

Cool. Thanks for sharing this, Pete.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

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?

People say a lot of strange things. I don't find this one to be a useful argument.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Its coming:-

http://on.aol.co.uk/video/humanoid-robot-interacts-with-people-518784596?playlist=160757&icid=hpaolon

I know it's not the point -- but --. Hotel clerks are going to lose their jobs from this? Is anybody's job safe?

[kokigami]

no ones job is safe so long as the objective is maximizing profit over maximizing the social contract. People complain about unemployment, then use self checkout lanes.

[Pete]

no ones job is safe so long as the objective is maximizing profit over maximizing the social contract. People complain about unemployment, then use self checkout lanes.

Totally agree. I refuse to use them. They keep treating me as if its to do with my age and thinking I am a technophobe but it is not. I probably know more about computer than they do. Yet, every time I see one of the machines I keep thinking that's someone's job and they need the work and refuse to use them and if they insist I make sure as many things go wrong as possible until someone assists. One place was so insistent I use the machine I just logged some of it in and left the rest on the counter. I then walked away and shopped elsewhere. The manager was not happy with me. I just said to them - it was them that insisted I use it. Not me.

I know so many people who would be glad of the counter work. I know it's a bore but most of us do not go to work just for the fun of it. We go to earn a living. We need to to put clothes on our back and food in our bellies and a roof over our heads.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Pete

[Brother Kaman]

Totally agree. I refuse to use them. They keep treating me as if its to do with my age and thinking I am a technophobe but it is not. I probably know more about computer than they do. Yet, every time I see one of the machines I keep thinking that's someone's job and they need the work and refuse to use them and if they insist I make sure as many things go wrong as possible until someone assists. One place was so insistent I use the machine I just logged some of it in and left the rest on the counter. I then walked away and shopped elsewhere. The manager was not happy with me. I just said to them - it was them that insisted I use it. Not me.

I know so many people who would be glad of the counter work. I know it's a bore but most of us do not go to work just for the fun of it. We go to earn a living. We need to to put clothes on our back and food in our bellies and a roof over our heads.

The stores have self check out lanes not as a customer convenience but to save money on employee costs. When they pass those saving on to me I will use them. I have stood in a long line with two items rather than use self check out.

[Dan56]

I have stood in a long line with two items rather than use self check out.

I used the self check-out once, but found myself to be incompetent...

[mererdog]

Totally agree. I refuse to use them. They keep treating me as if its to do with my age and thinking I am a technophobe but it is not. I probably know more about computer than they do. Yet, every time I see one of the machines I keep thinking that's someone's job and they need the work and refuse to use them and if they insist I make sure as many things go wrong as possible until someone assists. One place was so insistent I use the machine I just logged some of it in and left the rest on the counter. I then walked away and shopped elsewhere. The manager was not happy with me. I just said to them - it was them that insisted I use it. Not me.

I know so many people who would be glad of the counter work. I know it's a bore but most of us do not go to work just for the fun of it. We go to earn a living. We need to to put clothes on our back and food in our bellies and a roof over our heads.

What about the people who build, program, install, and maintain self-checkout machines? Don't they deserve work, too? It's a strange state of affairs. As technology advances, there is less and less need for people to work in order to provide for everyone's needs. But we insist that everyone should work to earn what they need....