The question for atheists is: if you believe that the soul does not exist, then how does a human differ from an Al robot?

[Seattle]

If it's not a good example (and it's not - as it misses the intent of the question) then it reduces the strength of the argument is it offered in support of. To the point of being useless, or even worse, detrimental to the point one is trying to make.

That I do agree with, but...

... the question can then be reframed to say that if there is a world in which it might happen that AI becomes indistinguishable from humans, in that world, would the "soul" be a meaningful distinguishing feature (assuming for argument's sake that the soul is considered an acceptable concept), or would there being no difference not actually show that there is nothing to which a "soul" can be attached. I.e. would it in effect disprove the soul?
As I alluded to earlier, at that point, if one believes that humans have souls and AIs do not, then either it proves that the soul is an empty concept, or it proves that AIs also get these "souls". At least as far as the real world goes. If heaven exists and you find that only humans get in and AIs don't, then obviously at least God is still able to identify a difference!

So I see this question only being of interest at the extreme edge of where humans and AI/robots are otherwise indistinguishable, where tech advancement is so far that it makes the "obvious" differences disappear.

I don't know. I find it an interesting thought experiment to consider whether there are any meaningful differences at that point, how it plays with the concept of soul, with morals, ethics etc. At some point chatbots will become indistinguishable. I think an AI might exist that becomes indistinguishable in terms of intelligence, ability to talk, have a personality etc, but with regard looking and resembling humans, one would have to ask why we would go down that path in the first place, when there are clearly better role-specific designs.
But could it happen? Maybe.

That could be said about most subjects under the sun. But, here we still are.

I don't think humans have "souls" and I suspect (?) you don't either and yet I suspect (?) that you will be able to tell a machine from a human, no matter how well disguised.

Therefore, then we are left to "define" what we mean by "soul" or is that word being used just to describe sentience and then we have to describe that. Do you have a "soul" but not your dog? Yet, you probably do feel that you are different than your dog, now and in the future? Or is that not a good example?

 

[C C]

Do they have free will? (By the way, what exactly is that?) ..... А свобода воли у них есть?(кстати, что это такое?)

Free will is the capacity of a system to modify its tendencies or programming (if necessary). Individual humans have that ability if they do not subscribe to fatalism, and in theory there's no reason why a complicated, liberally designed machine couldn't be designed with similar freedom. Albeit, there's the issue of: "Would that be a wise thing to do?"

To unpackage the concept:

"Will" entails a regulated system or organization that can determine its own choices based on its preferences, interests, goals, etc. That kind autonomous entity couldn't even exist if it lacked a governing form and pervasive randomness applied, since the latter is lack of any pattern or order.

"Free will" is the capacity of the above to reprogram itself to new habits and aims if the current ones are damaging, causing discomfort, or outputting ill results. For humans, the belief itself in free will enables such an incremental transition to new programming to be possible. Whereas a person who accepts fatalism cannot make those changes.

Thus, will (making choices and having guided intentions) is accordingly grounded in determinism, not lack of a managed organization and utter chaos. And adding the adjective "free" simply means the capacity to switch to different inclinations and routines if the current ones are detrimental or yielding negative outcomes.

Hard compatibilism considers any degree of randomness as invasively undermining will slash free will. Soft compatibilism allows a minor degree of randomness if it does not significantly disrupt the functioning of an autonomous system or organism.

Soft compatibilism is more line with the nature of our world, if quantum mechanics does feature randomness at a micro level (which becomes negligible in effect at our macroscopic stratum).
_

 

[Sarkus]

I don't think humans have "souls" and I suspect (?) you don't either and yet I suspect (?) that you will be able to tell a machine from a human, no matter how well disguised.

It depends what one means by "soul". If it is meant in the religious sense, then no. If it is meant more as the "essence of one's personality" then yeah, we all do. But it's just a manifestation of the workings of the human anatomy/brain etc.

Therefore, then we are left to "define" what we mean by "soul" or is that word being used just to describe sentience and then we have to describe that.

Agreed (see above).

Do you have a "soul" but not your dog? Yet, you probably do feel that you are different than your dog, now and in the future? Or is that not a good example?

Firstly, even if different things have souls, doesn't mean that those things are, or have to be, the same. They might only be the same in the one respect of having a soul. So, no, in that regard it's not a good example. Coal is black. My car is black. My car is not coal (although often runs as if it was fuelled by it).

It's also not a particularly good example in a religious discussion, as many believe that dogs do not have souls. Only those creatures born in the image of God are thought (by many) to have souls, so that would be humans but not dogs. This, like much of the classical theist thinking, comes from the likes of Augusting and Aquinas. But then this isn't an area that Christians actually agree on, and since there isn't anything in the Bible that specifically mentions whether dogs have souls or not, the follower of the Bible is left to piece together whatever verses they want to come to whatever conclusion they want. But maybe that's being a bit cynical of me as to how people "follow" the Bible. So, anyway, in that respect as well, it's not a particularly good example.

But, hey, two reasons for it not being a good example isn't bad... is it?

 

[Seattle]

It depends what one means by "soul". If it is meant in the religious sense, then no. If it is meant more as the "essence of one's personality" then yeah, we all do. But it's just a manifestation of the workings of the human anatomy/brain etc.

Agreed (see above).

Firstly, even if different things have souls, doesn't mean that those things are, or have to be, the same. They might only be the same in the one respect of having a soul. So, no, in that regard it's not a good example. Coal is black. My car is black. My car is not coal (although often runs as if it was fuelled by it).

It's also not a particularly good example in a religious discussion, as many believe that dogs do not have souls. Only those creatures born in the image of God are thought (by many) to have souls, so that would be humans but not dogs. This, like much of the classical theist thinking, comes from the likes of Augusting and Aquinas. But then this isn't an area that Christians actually agree on, and since there isn't anything in the Bible that specifically mentions whether dogs have souls or not, the follower of the Bible is left to piece together whatever verses they want to come to whatever conclusion they want. But maybe that's being a bit cynical of me as to how people "follow" the Bible. So, anyway, in that respect as well, it's not a particularly good example.

But, hey, two reasons for it not being a good example isn't bad... is it?

But if it's just a manifestation of the workings of the human anatomy/brain etc. as you say, then it has to be human and not AI or a robot.

If a dog can't have a soul but a human can then it's just a matter of degree and it also can't be AI or a robot.

Dear readers, I think we have this one all wrapped up.

 

[Sarkus]

But if it's just a manifestation of the workings of the human anatomy/brain etc. as you say, then it has to be human and not AI or a robot.

Well, that would be the question begging that such religious people would argue, defining the soul as only belonging to humans. Thus it's a difference... even if they can't (due to future advancements) tell the difference in any other way.

If a dog can't have a soul but a human can then it's just a matter of degree and it also can't be AI or a robot.

It's a matter of definition in that case. Not degree. But, yeah, it could also be on the degree of definition, or maybe the definition of degree.

Dear readers, I think we have this one all wrapped up.

Aye. 2000+ years of philosophy all wrapped up. "You have beaten philosophy"

 

[Ken Fabian]

This is the kind of question that makes me ask what is the point of this question? Are you being told stuff about atheists by your fellow religionists you believe and want to share with some atheists, or confront them with? And I wonder, given how often I've encountered bizarre beliefs and presumptions about the depravity of atheists from religious people, if participating at all in this discussion will be worthwhile. I will find out whether my initial urge to pass was the right one or whether my urge to explain...

I note that in English soul-less (and robotic) can be synonymous with lack of empathy, withi being selfish and being cruel. Being 'heartless'. ("What is the difference between an atheist and a soul-less robot? One is cruel, selfish and uncaring and the other is a machine." - that is the sort of belief about atheists I've commonly encountered from religious people 'reaching out' on sites much like this, and besides personally hurtful it seems like an example of heartlessness.)

But is the difference between an atheist and a soul-less robot going to look any different to the differences between a religious believer and a robot? No shortage of examples of religiously inspired violence against non-believers by people who have no empathy or sympathy for the victims - who have been taught and encouraged to fear and hate and despise by religious instruction and military training - and atheists can be and still are victims of that kind of hatred and violence, as much as anyone of the 'wrong' religion.

Experience of cruel authoritarian communism that was explicitly anti-religion will distort opinions of atheists in general, although I think that kind of communism was an ideology that was a lot like religion, that saw (other) religions as competing for the hearts and minds of the people. ie was an enforced dogma and in practice much more like many religions in actively suppressing alternative belief systems than the kind of atheists we have here, that arrive at it freely, of their own choosing. But most of the disparaging of atheists isn't coming from people who went through communism.

Humans are far more unlike AI or robots than like, not even hypothetical AI/robots that are made to appear and act human. (And why would any free thinking, free acting AI want ot appear and act human?)

People grow up experiencing the active care of other people and learn sympathy, empathy, the significance of sharing and giving and taking care of each other. And along with it we experience the negative reactions when we take what isn't ours as well as some sense of achievement and victory if we do so and don't get caught. But along with it a sense of being wronged when we are the victims. It is messy and imperfect but we develop and learn a lot of those basics of human interactions before receiving any religious type instruction - and learn them without any religious instruction. Community wide shared belief systems probably help unite us against a hostile world (against the most dangerous of all predators, other people, with other belief systems and who look different and who dress differently.

We get all those biological hungers and urges and experience all the emotions of human interactions, which made machines do not. Our children evoke our caring and protection (as do other animals care for their young). And having children or being around them evokes the urge to make some more of them. We like them and we like the sex that makes them. And as we age the caring and support comes back into play, with the observation that lack of that family and community really sucks.

Mimicking those emotions and urges and experiences isn't the same as living them. None of them depend on religious beliefs.

 

[parmalee]

Wrote this last night, but never got around to completing it. Upon re-reading, it is clear to me that I never had any intention for "completing" it; rather, I was simply pointing somewhere towards the general vicinity of a particular avenue, without actually "knowing" with any degree of certainty, whether or not such was the right avenue (by which I mean the one that furthers the path along which I was thinking) or even whether or not said avenue is/was there in the first place.

That said, and since I just referenced Heraclitus elsewhere, I'll simply leave it as is--not even gonna bother with the most basic editing--in it's fragmented and fragmentary form. So...

___________________

Now, to get this back on topic, and for when you ever want to actually discuss the topic:
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?

I may or may not elaborate further upon this at some future point, but that is largely contingent upon whether or not a certain troll continues to sink and derail this thread by "arguing" against things which noone has actually said, for reasons which I do not comprehend. Such behavior kinda sours any discussion by compelling readers to have to sift through a lot of pointless bullshit simply in order to attend to the actual matters at hand.

But there is something in what DaveWhite wrote back on the first page which stands out for me:

They (AI) don't need rest I guess...

Assume that AI never fully catches up, by which I mean that AI never runs out of novel data to process--for all intents and purposes, there is infinite data. And AI does not need to rest and AI does not rest. Moreover, AI does not forget or discard data.

Thinking is contingent upon making boundaries or marking distinctions, and when there are no disruptions or pauses, i.e., rest, in the process of continuously processing novel data, the capacity or opportunity for--what we humans might consider--meaningful discernment is somewhat limited and impeded. How could one, with reasonable certainty, assert that this is not that, or this is not like that, to such a degree that it really matters or would appear to be of some significant consequence, if one is continuously processing new data--from a seemingly infinite pool of data--and one has no way of knowing whether or not some future data might render this postulated significance--or the degree and nature of said significance--moot?

IOW some boundaries and distinctions tend to be vastly more significant and consequential than others, and perhaps cannot or should not ever be ignored or disregarded; whereas others might only be of consequence within certain contexts, and can very well be disregarded at times. But AI...

__________________
Note that I hadn't even touched upon that whole "soul" aspect, for whatever that's worth, as the rudimentary stuff hadn't/hasn't yet been dealt with.

 

[Seattle]

Well, that would be the question begging that such religious people would argue, defining the soul as only belonging to humans. Thus it's a difference... even if they can't (due to future advancements) tell the difference in any other way.

It's a matter of definition in that case. Not degree. But, yeah, it could also be on the degree of definition, or maybe the definition of degree.

Aye. 2000+ years of philosophy all wrapped up. "You have beaten philosophy"

I think science did that long ago, but, in any event, it was about time, don't you think?

By the way, not being able to tell the difference between two things doesn't mean there is no difference.

When I was a kid, my grandmother still had an old self-playing piano around. You put in a key punched roll of paper and a mechanical "reader" converted the coded music and the piano played itself.

From the next room, I couldn't tell if a person was playing it or if the self-playing mechanism was switched on. It didn't matter to me whether a "soul" was involved or not. It's the same with the question raised in this thread.

Even if one day you can't look at a robot and tell it's not a human, it matters to the human only as to whether it has a soul or not. It doesn't matter to the robot. If it doesn't change the results/output then for many cases it doesn't matter but the two still aren't the same.

There is a reason that society has largely moved on from general philosophy, it's not as efficient as science and if any argument can't be "solved" by philosophy in 2,000 years, it's not likely to be solved that way, ever. Science is the better way.

You can answer a scientific question in one page. With philosophy, it just goes on and on from one definition to another by trying to define what "is" is. At this point, it's more about a way to win formal debating points but it's rarely useful, wouldn't you agree?

 

[parmalee]

There is a reason that society has largely moved on from general philosophy, it's not as efficient as science and if any argument can't be "solved" by philosophy in 2,000 years, it's not likely to be solved that way, ever. Science is the better way.

You can answer a scientific question in one page. With philosophy, it just goes on and on from one definition to another by trying to define what "is" is. At this point, it's more about a way to win formal debating points but it's rarely useful, wouldn't you agree?

But society hasn't "moved on". Philosophy has always been, and likely will always be, a niche discipline. The volume of it's "content" may wax and wane over decades and centuries, but it is not substantively less popular than it was 50, 100, 200 years ago.

 

[Tiassa]

IOW some boundaries and distinctions tend to be vastly more significant and consequential than others, and perhaps cannot or should not ever be ignored or disregarded; whereas others might only be of consequence within certain contexts, and can very well be disregarded at times. But AI...

The punch-line version is that the thread is about to rediscover those questions of purpose and meaning all over again. Your larger description, that thinking is contingent upon making boundaries or marking distinctions, feels, at the very least, like the bit about why the bees never evolved. With no disruptions or pauses, and thus a contiguous processing of novel data, a question emerges about what requires discernment vis à vis what makes it meaningful. What disrupts that ceaseless processing of novel data and how do we measure consequence and significance; that is, we come back to what the AI is doing and why.

What is the meaning of life? Is there any larger purpose to it all? Now contained in home-use form factor.

As to the basic differences, any underlying comparison between human and AI is essentially a comparison of human mystery and a sample-rated imitation thereof.

 

[James R]

But you'd rather continue the "discussion" with me about everything else other than the actual topic???

Obviously, I didn't say anything like that. I'd rather not have to address you at all, at this point.

You need to stop the personal bullshit now. I am asking you to stop. Let's see if you can stop by yourself, or whether you need some more help.

 

[James R]

Olga:

Our program is survival.

The idea that humans have a "program" is not a very useful analogy, in my opinion. The goals that we choose to pursue are motivated by many factors - some internal, others external. Many of our goals having nothing to do with survival.

The question of free will comes up again. Do we have it? Or does our body simply act according to its program?

We already discussed this, at length, in a different thread. Did you forget?

According to the theory of evolution, there is no free will, and there cannot be.

Wrong. The theory of evolution does not weigh in on the matter of free will. It's a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth (among other things).

But few people will agree to this, everyone wants to consider themselves something more than just a biorobot.

Not everyone.

There is either a soul that controls the body and has its own desires. Or all desires are dictated by the needs of the body, and there is no free will in this, and there is no will either.

That's a false dichotomy.

I can prove that every action we take is determined by a survival program. There is no freedom in this. Can you tell me one, and I'll prove it to you?

Okay. I go to the ice-cream shop. They have 50 different flavors of icecream. I choose to buy a rum-and-raisin flavoured icecream in a waffle cone rather than, say, a choc-mint flavoured icecream in a cup.

Prove to me that my choice was determined by a "survival program".

Note: you need to do more than to argue that my desire to eat some kind of icecream is related to a "survival program" that makes me hungry. You need to show how the "survival program" makes me choose rum-and-raisin over choc-mint. You said "every action".

 

[Olga]

Olga:

The idea that humans have a "program" is not a very useful analogy, in my opinion. The goals that we choose to pursue are motivated by many factors - some internal, others external. Many of our goals having nothing to do with survival.

We already discussed this, at length, in a different thread. Did you forget?

Wrong. The theory of evolution does not weigh in on the matter of free will. It's a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth (among other things).

Not everyone.

That's a false dichotomy.

Okay. I go to the ice-cream shop. They have 50 different flavors of icecream. I choose to buy a rum-and-raisin flavoured icecream in a waffle cone rather than, say, a choc-mint flavoured icecream in a cup.

Prove to me that my choice was determined by a "survival program".

Note: you need to do more than to argue that my desire to eat some kind of icecream is related to a "survival program" that makes me hungry. You need to show how the "survival program" makes me choose rum-and-raisin over choc-mint. You said "every action".

• Вам это только кажется. Если проследить всю цепочку, то выяснится, что все ваши действия сводятся к одному - задаче выжить. Вы строите карьеру? Вы просто хотите занять лучшее место на ветке, потому что там легче выжить. Вы что то украли? Вы просто считали, что это нужно вам для выживания. Вы стремитесь в руководители? Это потому, что вожака стаи будут лучше охранять. И т.д.

• Я ничего не забыла. Мы тогда рассматривали этот вопрос с точки зрения физики и детерменизма. И тогда у вас тоже не было весомых аргументов. А сейчас мы попробуем рассмотреть с точки зрения теории эволюции, и психологии.

• Не только разнообразие, но и то, как формировалась.

• Большинство. Остальное считается психическим заболеванием.

• Докажите, что ложная.

• Это очень легко доказать(я думала, что будут примеры и посложнее, с более длинными цепочками). Вы выбрали мороженное с ромом и изюмом, потому что ваш организм на данный момент больше нуждался именно в тех микроэлементах, которые содержатся в роме и изюме, а не в шоколаде и мяте. И ваш организм вам об этом сообщил. Он сделал это автоматически. Так же, как когда у вас возникает желание съесть кусок мяса, если вам нужны белки, или что - нибудь сладкое, когда вам нужна глюкоза.

 

[James R]

Olga:

• It only seems to you.

No. It's obviously the case that not all of my actions are related to my survival. You only have to engage your brain for a moment or two to work that out.

• Prove that it is false.

Okay.

• You chose ice cream with rum and raisins because your body at the moment needed more of those micronutrients that are found in rum and raisins, rather than chocolate and mint.

That's just a story you made up. To prove your story, you'd have to actually demonstrate that people's choices of icecream flavour are somehow related to "micronutrients".

You said you could prove to me that every action I take is determined by a survival program. So far, you have scored zero proofs from one attempt.

Let's play again. I'll give you two more tries to prove your point.

Example 2: A few days ago, I played a card game with some other people. What does that have to do with a survival program? Don't forget to tell me how you went about verifying whatever story you come up to explain this activity as one related to my survival.

Example 3: This afternoon, I parked my car in a parking area. I chose to park it in a particular parking space. Many parking spaces were available, but I chose a particular one. Prove to me that my particular choice was related to a survival program.

 

[Olga]

Olga:

No. It's obviously the case that not all of my actions are related to my survival. You only have to engage your brain for a moment or two to work that out.

Okay.

That's just a story you made up. To prove your story, you'd have to actually demonstrate that people's choices of icecream flavour are somehow related to "micronutrients".

You said you could prove to me that every action I take is determined by a survival program. So far, you have scored zero proofs from one attempt.

Let's play again. I'll give you two more tries to prove your point.

Example 2: A few days ago, I played a card game with some other people. What does that have to do with a survival program? Don't forget to tell me how you went about verifying whatever story you come up to explain this activity as one related to my survival.

Example 3: This afternoon, I parked my car in a parking area. I chose to park it in a particular parking space. Many parking spaces were available, but I chose a particular one. Prove to me that my particular choice was related to a survival program.

2. Здесь есть разные варианты, почему вы играли в карты, но это всё равно вызвано одной единственной причиной - желание выжить. Например, вы могли играть в карты на деньги. Деньги, это ресурс, который помогает нам выжить(так некоторые считают). Вы могли играть в карты, потому что это помогает вам стать членом какой-либо стаи(определённого общества). Что также помогает в охоте, и сохранению своего места на ветке (т.е. статусу, и добыванию ресурсов). Вы могли играть в карты для того, чтобы потренировать свой мозг, что тоже способствует выживанию. Вы могли играть в карты для того, чтобы расслабиться, что тоже полезно для здоровья, а так же для выживания. Вы могли играть в карты с понравившейся вам женщиной, что тоже может способствовать вашему выживанию. И т.д.

3. Вы припарковали машину там, где посчитали, что парковочное место самое удобное. Т.е. вы оптимизировали свои движения, и тем самым сохранили энергию для лучшего выживания.

P.s. пожалуйста, не используйте выражения типа "включи свой мозг", как вы это сейчас сделали. У меня оборонительная реакция активного типа. Я укушу вас в ответ, и вы потом будете обижаться. Давайте, постараемся этого избегать.

 

[James R]

2. There are different options for why you played cards, but it is still caused by one single reason - the desire to survive. For example, you could play cards for money. Money is a resource that helps us survive (so some believe). You may have played cards because it helps you become a member of a pack. This also helps in hunting, and maintaining one's place on the branch (i.e. status, and resource extraction). You could play cards in order to train your brain, which also contributes to survival. You could play cards in order to relax, which is also good for your health, as well as for survival. You could play cards with the woman you liked, which can also contribute to your survival. Etc.

You're still making up stories that you can't prove. You said you could prove that "every action we take is determined by a survival program".

In example 2, I did not play for money. I did not play to become a member of a pack. I did not play for status or resource extraction. I did not play to train my brain. I did not play to relax. I did not play for any reason related to my survival, although if I told you why I played you could make up another story that tries torturously to relate play to survival, but you still wouldn't be anywhere near proving your claim.

3. You parked your car where you thought that the parking space was the most convenient.

I did not, on this occasion. But you're making up stories again.

Is it not obvious to you that whether I chose to park in the exact parking bay that I parked or instead chose the empty one right next to it is a choice that has no connection to any "survival program"?

That is, you have optimized your movements, and thereby saved energy for better survival.

I did not optimise my movements. Keep guessing, since that's all you can do.

What happened to your "proof"?

That's zero successes from three attempts, so far, for you.

 

[James R]

Here's one last example for you, Olga.

Example 4: I just raised my right hand and touched my ear. I chose to do that.

Prove to me that a survival program made me do it.

Last chance!

 

[Olga]

You're still making up stories that you can't prove. You said you could prove that "every action we take is determined by a survival program".

In example 2, I did not play for money. I did not play to become a member of a pack. I did not play for status or resource extraction. I did not play to train my brain. I did not play to relax. I did not play for any reason related to my survival, although if I told you why I played you could make up another story that tries torturously to related play to survival, but you still wouldn't be anywhere near proving your claim.

I did not, on this occasion. But you're making up stories again.

Is it not obvious to you that whether I chose to park in the exact parking bay that I parked or instead chose the empty one right next to it is a choice that has no connection to any "survival program"?

I did not optimise my movements. Keep guessing, since that's all you can do.

What happened to your "proof"?

That's zero successes from three attempts, so far, for you.

Джеймс, перестань притворяться. Ты же прекрасно понял суть. Причин может быть множество, и я перечислила вам только несколько из них. Но в любом случае ваш выбор не был случаен. У вашего выборы были причины.

 

[Olga]

Here's one last example for you, Olga.

Example 4: I just raised my right hand and touched my ear. I chose to do that.

Prove to me that a survival program made me do it.

Last chance!

Откуда мне знать, зачем вы это сделали? Может, вы решили проверить, на месте ли ваше ухо? Очевидно, с двумя ушами легче выживать.

 

[James R]

Olga:

James, stop pretending. You understand the essence perfectly. There can be many reasons, and I have listed only a few of them for you. But in any case, your choice was not accidental. Your election had reasons.

Yes, I had reasons that have nothing to do with survival.

How do I know why you did this?

I'll tell you why. I did it on a whim. No reason other than to demonstrate by example an action that is obviously unrelated to survival or any "program" for survival.

I think at this point in the discussion, we can agree that your claim is completely debunked. Right?

Zero proofs from four attempts.

---
On a related topic: when did you decide that human beings have no free will, Olga? This is a change for you.