How can we identify the soul or spirit in an object? what is the difference between man and machine?
If you consider a human and a very smart computer, you have no trouble turning off the computer but most people would consider "turning off" a person to be bad.
If a computer becomes as smart as a human, you still intuitively know [citation needed] that turning off the computer is not a bad thing to do and turning off a human is a bad thing to do.
What if the robot (computer) can do everything a human can do? What then? If you cannot tell the difference between the robot and the human then how would you feel about turning off the robot? For me, I would still have no trouble in turning off the robot because I know how it works fully and I know it has no spirit. However the problem here is the spirit is something which is not defined.
I intuitively believe as an axiom of my reasoning that there is some sort of spirit or soul in people, animals and tree's (life) that differentiates life verses machines. This is a axiom of my reasoning of course since I cannot construct any rational basis for believing it.
We all have axioms of reasoning, but I believe many other people have this axiom as well.
I am sure many people believe this, if you conduct the thought experiment as I have outlined above that most people would be happy to turn off the machine but not happy to turn off the human. They would most likely say because the human has something "special", a "soul", or something which cannot be defined, but you would liken it to a "soul" or "spirit".
So the question is, what is the soul/spirit as I have discussed? The difference between a person and a machine? Can it be identified or defined?
If we ultimately build smart robots as smart as a us, then why should we believe we are more special than them? It must be on the basis of a "difference" between man and machine. That difference must be a "soul", something which I find very difficult to define.
There are consequences of particular answers, if you say that it is just how we evolved to value each other, then you deny the soul's existence and then there is nothing special between man and machine. Then you have no logical reason to value people more than machines, and ultimately we may end up in a dystopia where machines are more valued than people.
If you say there is no such thing as a soul, then fine, but is there still something "special" about people when compared to a smart robot which acts as exactly like a person?
Please don't think of the word "soul" exclusively in terms of religion, i.e. Christianity, I am talking about that which we intuitively believe is a "soul" but we are not taught. Even non-religious people would say there is something special about people that has a "soul" like character, they cannot rationalize it because it is axiomatic.
I feel this is an important question because it has consequences which may be real consequences in the future if we do develop smart robots.
Turning off is defined as killing for computer and human for the purpose of this question, destructive deletion of the information which composed the human or computer.
If a computer becomes as smart as a human, you still intuitively know [citation needed] that turning off the computer is not a bad thing to do and turning off a human is a bad thing to do.
What if the robot (computer) can do everything a human can do? What then? If you cannot tell the difference between the robot and the human then how would you feel about turning off the robot? For me, I would still have no trouble in turning off the robot because I know how it works fully and I know it has no spirit. However the problem here is the spirit is something which is not defined.
I intuitively believe as an axiom of my reasoning that there is some sort of spirit or soul in people, animals and tree's (life) that differentiates life verses machines. This is a axiom of my reasoning of course since I cannot construct any rational basis for believing it.
We all have axioms of reasoning, but I believe many other people have this axiom as well.
I am sure many people believe this, if you conduct the thought experiment as I have outlined above that most people would be happy to turn off the machine but not happy to turn off the human. They would most likely say because the human has something "special", a "soul", or something which cannot be defined, but you would liken it to a "soul" or "spirit".
So the question is, what is the soul/spirit as I have discussed? The difference between a person and a machine? Can it be identified or defined?
If we ultimately build smart robots as smart as a us, then why should we believe we are more special than them? It must be on the basis of a "difference" between man and machine. That difference must be a "soul", something which I find very difficult to define.
There are consequences of particular answers, if you say that it is just how we evolved to value each other, then you deny the soul's existence and then there is nothing special between man and machine. Then you have no logical reason to value people more than machines, and ultimately we may end up in a dystopia where machines are more valued than people.
If you say there is no such thing as a soul, then fine, but is there still something "special" about people when compared to a smart robot which acts as exactly like a person?
Please don't think of the word "soul" exclusively in terms of religion, i.e. Christianity, I am talking about that which we intuitively believe is a "soul" but we are not taught. Even non-religious people would say there is something special about people that has a "soul" like character, they cannot rationalize it because it is axiomatic.
I feel this is an important question because it has consequences which may be real consequences in the future if we do develop smart robots.
Turning off is defined as killing for computer and human for the purpose of this question, destructive deletion of the information which composed the human or computer.
To side step the concerns about where the soul lies, let me attempt to answer the second question about what the difference is between a human and a machine with respect to ethics.
A machine is an artificial device, constructed deliberately and based on scientific rules (by definition, otherwise it is magic). And so, whatever outward appearance a machine may have (simulating a human in every respect), it is ostensibly a repeatable process to create another identical machine with the identical characteristics and exactly repeatable behavior.
However, a human has to be born and tended to for years. There is no such thing as an exact replica of a human, no clone popping out of an artificial womb to look and act like an identical twin. There is no recreating an individual human. The effort is unobtainable.
This difference is why turning off a machine, even though looking and acting like a human, somehow doesn't feel of the same ethical 'badness' as turning off (killing?) a human.
Then there's also the more petty 'humans are one of us and machines aren't'.
A machine is an artificial device, constructed deliberately and based on scientific rules (by definition, otherwise it is magic). And so, whatever outward appearance a machine may have (simulating a human in every respect), it is ostensibly a repeatable process to create another identical machine with the identical characteristics and exactly repeatable behavior.
However, a human has to be born and tended to for years. There is no such thing as an exact replica of a human, no clone popping out of an artificial womb to look and act like an identical twin. There is no recreating an individual human. The effort is unobtainable.
This difference is why turning off a machine, even though looking and acting like a human, somehow doesn't feel of the same ethical 'badness' as turning off (killing?) a human.
Then there's also the more petty 'humans are one of us and machines aren't'.
First, the question was already asked on StackExchange and this is just a copypasta: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1689/how-can-we-identify-the-soul-or-spirit-in-an-object-what-is-the-difference-betw/1699. However, I think this one is worth talking about, so I would try to give an answer.
I think you should make a distinction between the “soul”, which I would define in a more precise term as “consciousness”, and the computations that occur in the human brain. These two are completely different things, and current scientific findings imply that the latter entails the former, but not necessarily the other way around.
In the discussion of this paragraph, please replace all “I” with “the reader who reads this text”, not the answerer of this question. The first question to ask is, why, on the earth, “I” am the only one who has the consciousness to view the world in my own perspective? Why the person reading this text is “me” instead of someone else? If “I” can’t see the world from others perspectives, can’t feel what they feel, can’t know what they think, then how can I prove that they have the same “soul” as mine, instead of just zombies that exhibit the same behaviors I have, while just performing these behaviors mechanically without possessing the de facto soul that fool me to think they are the same as me?
The fact is, unfortunately, you can’t. This problem is usually called “philosophical zombies problem”, where a consciousness being can only prove the existence of consciousness of itself. We can just adpot what Descartes say, “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) as a solution. That is, I don’t care whether the others have a soul or not, I just prove I have a soul, and that’s it. This is, in fact, an avoidence of the problem instead of trying to actually solve it, and it creates more problems than it actually solves. For example, if we believe in the statement of “cogito, ergo sum”, then what about the other beings? Are they zombies without feelings, or they are actually same as me? If they are zombies, then why I am the only person on the earth not being an zombine? If they are not zombies, then why do I have no access to their “consciousness”?
Science is what we could see so far as the most promising tools for solving all of the problems mentioned above, as it has successfully solved and made correct predictions of many phenomena in the universe. Yet science relies on a key principle, which is the “physicalism”.
Well I don’t have time to finish the answer, so TBC for now.
I think you should make a distinction between the “soul”, which I would define in a more precise term as “consciousness”, and the computations that occur in the human brain. These two are completely different things, and current scientific findings imply that the latter entails the former, but not necessarily the other way around.
In the discussion of this paragraph, please replace all “I” with “the reader who reads this text”, not the answerer of this question. The first question to ask is, why, on the earth, “I” am the only one who has the consciousness to view the world in my own perspective? Why the person reading this text is “me” instead of someone else? If “I” can’t see the world from others perspectives, can’t feel what they feel, can’t know what they think, then how can I prove that they have the same “soul” as mine, instead of just zombies that exhibit the same behaviors I have, while just performing these behaviors mechanically without possessing the de facto soul that fool me to think they are the same as me?
The fact is, unfortunately, you can’t. This problem is usually called “philosophical zombies problem”, where a consciousness being can only prove the existence of consciousness of itself. We can just adpot what Descartes say, “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) as a solution. That is, I don’t care whether the others have a soul or not, I just prove I have a soul, and that’s it. This is, in fact, an avoidence of the problem instead of trying to actually solve it, and it creates more problems than it actually solves. For example, if we believe in the statement of “cogito, ergo sum”, then what about the other beings? Are they zombies without feelings, or they are actually same as me? If they are zombies, then why I am the only person on the earth not being an zombine? If they are not zombies, then why do I have no access to their “consciousness”?
Science is what we could see so far as the most promising tools for solving all of the problems mentioned above, as it has successfully solved and made correct predictions of many phenomena in the universe. Yet science relies on a key principle, which is the “physicalism”.
Well I don’t have time to finish the answer, so TBC for now.
What you said remind me of soma, maybe you played it. A human soul copied to machines.
I will just quote someone on r/soma
People on r/soma never find an answer for questions like these, maybe there are no answers.
I will just quote someone on r/soma
This game really made me question where we draw the lines on what equals human. It feels like it just keeps moving the line. As the game progresses I was continually saying to myself "well okay this is human too isn't it?" And then before I fully accepted that it presented me with something that pushed it even further.
To be honest there's no succinct way to put the questions it made me ask myself on what constitutes humanity and how to value life. I left with the notion humanity isn't tied to a normal human body but where do we draw the line? Where does "human" end and something new begin?
It also made me really question the ethical implications of A.I. To just create sentient programs or robotics or cyborgs and worse to end them. The scenario with Brandon was so disturbing with how callous it was in regards to the value of his "life," if you could even consider him to have "life." Catherine certainly didn't. But playing the game from Simon's perspective you basically are like Brandon and Brandon's situation becomes so much more relatable.
Plus all the choices you were given on if or who to "kill" in regards to robots and hybrids. When is it ok to not only create life but take it as well?
This game actually made me uncomfortable in a lot of (good) ways. Just tonight I watched an episode of One Punch Man and it involved clones and I found myself squirming. It's made me so much more aware of what it is to create a thing and when that thing is something you can call human and how much value does its existence have.
People on r/soma never find an answer for questions like these, maybe there are no answers.