The question for atheists is: if you believe that the soul does not exist, then how does a human differ from an Al robot?
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
The question is a non sequitur.
If neither humans nor AI robots have souls, then whatever differences there are between them can't have anything to do with having a soul.
The question is also phrased strangely. Differences between humans and AI robots do not appear to be contingent on what some human beings believe about supernatural gods.
It isn't hard to make a list of ways in which humans differ from AI robots. I believe there are some very obvious differences. I also believe that if Olga took a moment to think about her question, she would be able to come up with a few.
If neither humans nor AI robots have souls, then whatever differences there are between them can't have anything to do with having a soul.
The question is also phrased strangely. Differences between humans and AI robots do not appear to be contingent on what some human beings believe about supernatural gods.
It isn't hard to make a list of ways in which humans differ from AI robots. I believe there are some very obvious differences. I also believe that if Olga took a moment to think about her question, she would be able to come up with a few.
Last edited:
Я размышляла. Наличие у человеков желаний отличает его от роботов. Почему вы считаете душу сверхъестественной сущностью?
"Soul" is the spiritual and immaterial part of a human being.
Spirits are supernatural entities. They are not physical, as far as I am aware. Do you think they are physical?
Do you think that souls are detectable using physical apparatus?
Так вы же до сих пор не можете дать определение материи. Как вы в таком случае можете отличать материальное от нематериального?
Некоторые видели духов и без всякого оборудования. Но для вас это не аргумент. Вы даже если лично сами увидите, всё равно подумаете, что это у вас галлюцинации, или психическое расстройство.
Olga:
Why did you not answer the two questions I asked you?
Why did you not answer the two questions I asked you?
I can define matter. What are you talking about?
I'll answer your questions after you have answered mine.
Some have claimed to have seen spirits.
That is a far more likely explanation than the one that says that there's an undetectable spirit world populated by ghosts of dead people.
Вы пытаетесь определить душу с помощью тех же инструментов, с помощью которых вы определяете тело. Это всё равно, как если бы я спиртометром температуру меряла.
What other tools are available? Which tools do you use to define the soul? What definition did you come up with when you used those tools?
Are you saying that soul is not a spirit that can exist independently of the body? What is it, then?
В православии есть разделение: дух, душа, и тело.
Дух может существовать отдельно от тела, но в идеале они должны соединиться после воскресения. И тела должны стать другими, нетленными.
Насчёт инструментов - душа чувствует душу. Так же, как вы чувствуете тепло, даже если не знаете физику.
Olga:
Are you saying that I can detect souls, similar to way that I can feel heat?
How can I detect a soul?
Your knowledge about souls all comes from religion, then? No science?
Have any of these claims been scientifically verified?
I don't understand.
Are you saying that I can detect souls, similar to way that I can feel heat?
How can I detect a soul?
Наука не опровергает религию. Она изучает тело.
А что, кроме Христа уже кто то воскрес?
Потрогайте свои чувства, и мысли.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Not much if you just sit staring at a screen answering questions by looking up the answers in your internet browser. They don't need rest I guess, but more or less, some, a vast minority of humans are becoming more like AI and vice versa is inevitable.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
The True Self (spirit, soul, essence, heart, etc) is not physical but entangled in the physical universe until it awakens and evolves enough to escape.
Again, Olga, you didn't answer the questions I asked you.
I think that, given that you don't seem interested in having a conversation with me, and given that you just want to keep making claims that you have no intention of supporting, I will stop interacting with you, except possibly to point out errors.
Have a nice life, Olga.
Ага. Бить толпой слабого, такого как Кермос, например, вам было легко и приятно. А об меня вы зубы сломали, сначала Дэйв, потом ты, Джеймс. И благоразумно решили ретироваться, пока все не увидели ваше побиение. Ну-ну...
Они в это не верят. Им нужно, чтобы им предоставили душу, состоящую из атомов и молекул. Они говорят: мы не верим, что такая душа существует. Я с ними согласна - ТАКАЯ, наверное, действительно не существует. А другая им не интересна. Ну, пусть умирают в неведении.
That's a rather uncharitable reading. A non sequitur is a conclusion of an argument that does not follow from the premises. That is not the case here, as it is a question. And within that question is a hidden assumption that the soul is the only difference, with the question challenging that assumption.
As a logical argument:
P1: the soul is the only difference between humans and AI robots
P2: the soul does not exist
C: there is no difference between humans and AI robots.
This question is asking you to provide challenge to P1. No non sequitur.
That's the question: what other differences are there? The question is implying that there is none.
Again, this is what the question is asking you to explain: the differences.
The question is phrased quite acceptably.
It is the same phrasing, and form, as if I asked: "if taste does not exist, what is the difference between an apple and an onion?" It's not a non sequitur, it merely has an obvious hidden assumption that, while seemingly obviously false to you, is what the question is challenging.
And now you're actually addressing the question, although not answering it, and not even addressing Olga.
You then complain that Olga hasn't answered the questions you asked her... yet you haven't once addressed the question she asked you at the very start, in the very thread title.
So, James R: what differences do you think there are between an AI robot and a human, assuming the future, as per Olga's first post? You say there are some obvious differences, so they are...? What?
One has to assume that we're talking beyond the mere cosmetic, the appearance, such that future tech can make them appear indistinguishable.
It's therefore more a philosophical question that people have asked for a while, with no conclusion. Some think there will always be obvious differences, but the only differences, assuming technological advance, will be in intangible things, like whether you are grown or built, whether you actually "feel" emotion or just mimic, whether you are actually "conscious" or just mimic it, whether you are subject to decay, whether your sense of morality and values are learned or given to you, etc.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quack likes a duck, who's to say that it is not actually a duck. Sure, the AI-robot may have "made by Tyrell Corp" lasered at nano-level into some part or other, with a serial number, and maybe, like in Blade Runner, there will be a time before parity that they will fail the likes of the Voight-Kampff test.
But it's an interesting question.
However, what your question also supposes is that there IS a soul and that that will always be a difference. Okay, but then the only difference will not be discovered, meaningful, practical on earth, only in the AI-robot not going to any afterlife. And that's assuming that AI-robots will not have souls bestowed upon them when they otherwise reach the same state in all other regards as humans. Does God, for example, care whether a child is born biologically or from technology? There is nothing in the Bible, is there, that suggests a created artificial "human" would be seen by God as any different from a natural one?
Sure, it begs the question of what is "human" but assuming you can not distinguish? You could argue that the "soul" becomes the only distinguising difference, but then "soul" can not be distinguished from "no soul", and to simply assert it existing in humans compared to non-humans would be to beg the question.
So maybe AI-robots will eventually be developed to the point where they are so indistinguishable from humans that they, too, are blessed with a "soul" (whatever that is).
Спасибо, Саркус! Вы всё правильно поняли.That's a rather uncharitable reading. A non sequitur is a conclusion of an argument that does not follow from the premises. That is not the case here, as it is a question. And within that question is a hidden assumption that the soul is the only difference, with the question challenging that assumption.
As a logical argument:
P1: the soul is the only difference between humans and AI robots
P2: the soul does not exist
C: there is no difference between humans and AI robots.
This question is asking you to provide challenge to P1. No non sequitur.
That's the question: what other differences are there? The question is implying that there is none.
Again, this is what the question is asking you to explain: the differences.
The question is phrased quite acceptably.
It is the same phrasing, and form, as if I asked: "if taste does not exist, what is the difference between an apple and an onion?" It's not a non sequitur, it merely has an obvious hidden assumption that, while seemingly obviously false to you, is what the question is challenging.
And now you're actually addressing the question, although not answering it, and not even addressing Olga.
You then complain that Olga hasn't answered the questions you asked her... yet you haven't once addressed the question she asked you at the very start, in the very thread title.
So, James R: what differences do you think there are between an AI robot and a human, assuming the future, as per Olga's first post? You say there are some obvious differences, so they are...? What?
Мне интересен сам принцип работы сознания. Уже сейчас понятно, что человек не может так быстро обрабатывать информацию, и в таких количествах, как это делает ИИ. ИИ способен собирать и хранить информацию со всего мира, он буквально может быть энциклопедией. Кто из людей способен запомнить с первого раза такое количество слов? Никто. Пока что роботы - это просто инструмент в руках людей, у них нет собственных желаний. Но разве нельзя поставить роботу задачу, цель, и он будет искать пути решения. Возможно ли научить робота анализировать? Как именно анализирует человеческое сознание? Если следовать логики эволюции, то всё, что делает человек, он делает ради выживания своего тела. Это программа, созданная эволюцией(так считается). Следовательно, никакой свободы воли у человека нет, его выбор обусловлен наиболее выгодным вариантом, способствующим выживанию. Где то, что то просто записано в гены, или в память. Обычный опыт, собственный, и опыт предков. Если сделать программу, по которой робот должен будет выжить любой ценой, и загрузить в него множество информации, научить некоторым навыкам(пусть не сегодня, а через 50 лет, например, когда позволят технологии), то будет ли робот вести себя как человек? Будет ли он конкурировать с человеком, ведь для выживания ему не требуется еда и пр., что нужно человеку? Является ли человечество тупиковой ветвью эволюции? Ведь мы живём, пока преодолеваем трудности, все наше тело сформировалось в процессе эволюции как навыки, способствующие выживанию. И эксперимент с мышками показал, что в райских условиях живые существа деградируют и вымирают. Но мы же всё равно стремимся создать себе Рай на Земле. Получается: когда мы воюем, и убиваем друг друга - мы уничтожаемся. И когда мы живём без бед и несчастий - мы тоже самоуничтожаемся. Какой то замкнутый круг получается. Человеческий разум мечтает о вечности и Рае, но человеческое тело живёт только в борьбе. И мы не можем его перепрограммировать(или можем?), а робота можем.One has to assume that we're talking beyond the mere cosmetic, the appearance, such that future tech can make them appear indistinguishable.
It's therefore more a philosophical question that people have asked for a while, with no conclusion. Some think there will always be obvious differences, but the only differences, assuming technological advance, will be in intangible things, like whether you are grown or built, whether you actually "feel" emotion or just mimic, whether you are actually "conscious" or just mimic it, whether you are subject to decay, whether your sense of morality and values are learned or given to you, etc.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quack likes a duck, who's to say that it is not actually a duck. Sure, the AI-robot may have "made by Tyrell Corp" lasered at nano-level into some part or other, with a serial number, and maybe, like in Blade Runner, there will be a time before parity that they will fail the likes of the Voight-Kampff test.
But it's an interesting question.
However, what your question also supposes is that there IS a soul and that that will always be a difference. Okay, but then the only difference will not be discovered, meaningful, practical on earth, only in the AI-robot not going to any afterlife. And that's assuming that AI-robots will not have souls bestowed upon them when they otherwise reach the same state in all other regards as humans. Does God, for example, care whether a child is born biologically or from technology? There is nothing in the Bible, is there, that suggests a created artificial "human" would be seen by God as any different from a natural one?
Sure, it begs the question of what is "human" but assuming you can not distinguish? You could argue that the "soul" becomes the only distinguising difference, but then "soul" can not be distinguished from "no soul", and to simply assert it existing in humans compared to non-humans would be to beg the question.
So maybe AI-robots will eventually be developed to the point where they are so indistinguishable from humans that they, too, are blessed with a "soul" (whatever that is).