The specter of computers that conquer the world is a standard theme in SF dystopias. The first example of this I recall seeing as a kid was Colossus: The Forbin Project (c.1969-70).
Here’s a current philosophical analysis of the issues:
I'm curious as to the theological feasibility of strong AI, creating machines with a soul. How would it be different from creating flesh-and-blood entities with a soul?
I'm curious as to the theological feasibility of strong AI, creating machines with a soul. How would it be different from creating flesh-and-blood entities with a soul?
I'd think this assumes strong AI is even possible in the first place, a possibility with which some take issue (e.g. John Searle).
I believe traditionally Christians have argued, for example, that animals (which are "flesh-and-blood entities") have souls.
However, humans are unique in that God breathed the breath of life into them.
I agree. But God breathes life into each and every infant that is born into the world, right? The infants don't even have to be perfectly developed; many are born with a range of mental problems.
If humans can "create" such life by reproduction, why could not an analogous process give rise to a person with a soul and yet a silicon-based structure?
As I write this it's dawning on me that, even if we could mimic God's creation to that extent, it's extremely doubtful whether we could ever surpass it. As with other man-designed substitutes--titanium bones, etc.--there are some benefits over the ones God designed, but a whole slew of disadvantages. If it is possible for a machine to have a soul, it couldn't be superior to us, because God designed us. Am I off here?
I'm still curious as to whether there is a fundamental distinction between humans and machines in terms of "soul-bearing capability", so to speak, or if it is only a matter of degree.
(I'm using "soul" in a loose way to refer to that nebulous difference between us and animals. I don't have a better term at the moment, though I'm open to suggestions.)
I'm curious as to the theological feasibility of strong AI, creating machines with a soul. How would it be different from creating flesh-and-blood entities with a soul?
ReplyDeleteJonathan W. said:
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to the theological feasibility of strong AI, creating machines with a soul. How would it be different from creating flesh-and-blood entities with a soul?
I'd think this assumes strong AI is even possible in the first place, a possibility with which some take issue (e.g. John Searle).
I believe traditionally Christians have argued, for example, that animals (which are "flesh-and-blood entities") have souls.
However, humans are unique in that God breathed the breath of life into them.
I agree. But God breathes life into each and every infant that is born into the world, right? The infants don't even have to be perfectly developed; many are born with a range of mental problems.
ReplyDeleteIf humans can "create" such life by reproduction, why could not an analogous process give rise to a person with a soul and yet a silicon-based structure?
As I write this it's dawning on me that, even if we could mimic God's creation to that extent, it's extremely doubtful whether we could ever surpass it. As with other man-designed substitutes--titanium bones, etc.--there are some benefits over the ones God designed, but a whole slew of disadvantages. If it is possible for a machine to have a soul, it couldn't be superior to us, because God designed us. Am I off here?
I'm still curious as to whether there is a fundamental distinction between humans and machines in terms of "soul-bearing capability", so to speak, or if it is only a matter of degree.
(I'm using "soul" in a loose way to refer to that nebulous difference between us and animals. I don't have a better term at the moment, though I'm open to suggestions.)