My Computer Has A Soul

What is a soul?

Souls are what i deal in. They are my gold, they are my tender. What i trade away is of no consequence. My prize is the only truly priceless item. The loss of which is eternal.

Soul: many definitions exist, but the common theme is a relation to life.

Seperating a soul from its host causes death.

To seperate my body, you must seperate my soul.

To seperate a computer, you must seperate its soul.

My seperated body, will die. Either the seperated portion, or the whole.

My computer seperated, can live and function. While a finite limit on seperations exist, the computer can exist as 2 or more individual and seperate parts.

Therefore, the computer, as a whole, cannot have one soul. If it has a soul, it has many. One for each of it's atomic parts.

My computer seperated, can live and function. While a finite limit on seperations exist, the computer can exist as 2 or more individual and seperate parts.

What about organ transplants?

Quote from: narcberry on August 31, 2007, 08:08:26 AM

My computer seperated, can live and function. While a finite limit on seperations exist, the computer can exist as 2 or more individual and seperate parts.

What about organ transplants?

Interesting idea. Most advocates of soul (no not the blues brothers) would say the transplant would die until it was placed in a body with a soul. The body with a soul would give life to the organ.

Interesting idea. Most advocates of soul (no not the blues brothers) would say the transplant would die until it was placed in a body with a soul. The body with a soul would give life to the organ.

Well, organ transplants are no different than changing parts in a computer. A computer part will not function properly unless it is connected to a power source (in most cases, a computer), just like an organ will not function properly unless it is attached to a person.

Quote from: narcberry on August 31, 2007, 08:33:57 AM

Interesting idea. Most advocates of soul (no not the blues brothers) would say the transplant would die until it was placed in a body with a soul. The body with a soul would give life to the organ.

Well, organ transplants are no different than changing parts in a computer. A computer part will not function properly unless it is connected to a power source (in most cases, a computer), just like an organ will not function properly unless it is attached to a person.

Not to say you don't have a good point, but the comparison is fairly different. Without a host, the organ will irreversably die. A computer part will not die without a host, but it can also function. A simple example, your CPU fan can be entirely removed from the computer and still perform its function if it has power.

put an electric charge through a muscle and it will work

put an electric charge through a muscle and it will work

Only while the tissue is alive.

Not to say you don't have a good point, but the comparison is fairly different. Without a host, the organ will irreversably die. A computer part will not die without a host, but it can also function. A simple example, your CPU fan can be entirely removed from the computer and still perform its function if it has power.

Organs can be kept alive and working in labs.

A computer is not made of living tissue, so the parts cannot die or decay. You are basically falling back on the "It isn't alive, so it can't have a soul." argument.

disagree. My nan used to kill chickens to eat. The leg, once well and truly dead would still twitch with a pulse through it (or work completely as a claw if you pulled the nerves)

EDIT: Disagreeing with Narc, not the one who made the lab comment

disagree. My nan used to kill chickens to eat. The leg, once well and truly dead would still twitch with a pulse through it (or work completely as a claw if you pulled the nerves)

That's because the tissue was still alive.

Perhaps then, the soul of a PC would be in the core of the machine itself, not the individual parts. The keyboad/monitor etc can be changed but the soul of a PC remain intact

Perhaps then, the soul of a PC would be in the core of the machine itself, not the individual parts. The keyboad/monitor etc can be changed but the soul of a PC remain intact

If you say that, you are redefining soul for the immediate purpose. If applied to the actual argument, you would be saying the soul is my core organs, or at a more fundamental level whatever it is that makes my organs alive. A beaker of saline could be defined as the soul of laboratory tissues.

While there might be a principal connection, it would be wise to not consider it an actual like'ism.

Perhaps then, the soul of a PC would be in the core of the machine itself, not the individual parts. The keyboad/monitor etc can be changed but the soul of a PC remain intact

If that were true then the same thing would hold true for a person.

If you say that, you are redefining soul for the immediate purpose. If applied to the actual argument, you would be saying the soul is my core organs, or at a more fundamental level whatever it is that makes my organs alive. A beaker of saline could be defined as the soul of laboratory tissues.

While there might be a principal connection, it would be wise to not consider it an actual like'ism.

A soul is not supposed to be a material object. This entire argument is really about what is capable of being a container for a soul. Nobody is redefining soul, we are just speculating what can hold one.

Skipping my bs, 2 pages of flames and a gulliver/divito anti-semanticism...


What is mechanically different from a living cell and a dead cell?

Not directed toward Divito, nor Roundy, nor anyone but Encycolpedia-Know-It-All-ica.

Sokarul, see my thread "Neo-Charlatans" for your bitch slap.

As for the "Advanced AI" comment, lookup the Honda Robot AI team. It can outperform you on many tests (and tasks). Then we will talk shop. Until then, enjoy the belief you have any concept of what the fuck you are debating about.

And for the record, I have been in this thread since it began, Suckanut. I have watched with first amusement, then horror at how ignorant the conversation became. You are the star of this Intelligence Demise.

*goes to sleep with a sincere sneer of contempt for fools*

I know exactly what I am debating about.  AI is much more than just the Grunts in Halo, the Germans in Call of Duty, and a sports team in a sports game.   

ASIMO has trouble walking up stiars.  Its not even close to AI yet. 
For AI see the movies IRobot and Blade Runner.  Even then, the robots in those movies aren't perfect. 

The test is simple, can you have a conversation and not realize you are conversing with a robot. Once we are at that stage, the test will change, but we are nowhere close.

I like how the OP is nowhere in sight.

Quote from: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 05:02:33 AM

Quote from: Username on August 31, 2007, 03:31:39 AM

You can't just say "something has a soul if its intelligent or sentient." 

I can say anything I wish. I didn't say that however. I was talking about sentience and not a soul. We already established earlier on that this thread has no purpose regarding that discussion. No living person on this planet can DEFINE WHAT A SOUL IS, and none of you have certainly done that lofty milestone.

Thus, nothing said in this thread has any possible way to be defeated, or won, because none of you CAN DEFINE WHAT A SOUL IS, AND THUS CANNOT ASSIGN ONE TO ANYTHING!

I can define anything I wish.

Edit:

And from what I've read of your posts, you should neither be one to criticize prententiousness or to claim you know more about AI than anyone else here.

Straw Men Are 2d.

ASIMO has trouble walking up stiars.  Its not even close to AI yet.

You need to read current tech journals. Your head is going to fall off soon.

Even then, the robots in those movies aren't perfect.

Nothing is perfect, and I never claimed otherwise. My point was your entire argument is based on incorrect assumptions based on old data about things you obviously learned about on wikipedia. The failure is PREGNANT.

ASIMO has trouble walking up stiars.  Its not even close to AI yet.

I like to think people with MS are without intelligence. You sir, are a victor!

Speaking of 'artifical intelligence'. The nonperson qualifies.

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2007, 10:03:37 AM

ASIMO has trouble walking up stiars.  Its not even close to AI yet.

You need to read current tech journals. Your head is going to fall off soon.

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2007, 10:03:37 AM

Even then, the robots in those movies aren't perfect.

Nothing is perfect, and I never claimed otherwise. My point was your entire argument is based on incorrect assumptions based on old data about things you obviously learned about on wikipedia. The failure is PREGNANT.

I like science.  I have seen quite a few shows about robots.  I did not have to consult wiki.
As soon as ASIMO can pass the Turing test then you can talk. 

I like science.  I have seen quite a few shows about robots.  I did not have to consult wiki.

Television. The yardstick by which all debate is measured. I concede out of sheer certainty this debate is useless because you are incapable of serious conversation.

As soon as ASIMO can pass the Turing test then you can talk.

Again, welcome to "Behind the Curve".

Where is this "soul"?  Can I see it?  Hold it?  Touch it?  Fry it, bake it, throw it, hear it, smell it, taste it?  You must prove the existence of a soul before you can say whether or not something has one or not.










P.S. - Good luck.

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2007, 11:46:50 AM

I like science.  I have seen quite a few shows about robots.  I did not have to consult wiki.

Television. The yardstick by which all debate is measured. I concede out of sheer certainty this debate is useless because you are incapable of serious conversation.

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2007, 11:46:50 AM

As soon as ASIMO can pass the Turing test then you can talk.

Again, welcome to "Behind the Curve".

lol

Exactly what part of a dancing robot is AI?  Maybe its the ability to use stairs and run.  
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

A computer is not alive.  It does not respond to stimuli, it doesn't give off waste, it doesn't reproduce.

A computer is not alive.  It does not respond to stimuli, it doesn't give off waste, it doesn't reproduce.

What do you mean doesn't give off waste? They produce waste heat. They don't respond to stimuli yet. Reproduction is another story.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2007, 12:26:49 PM

A computer is not alive.  It does not respond to stimuli, it doesn't give off waste, it doesn't reproduce.

What do you mean doesn't give off waste? They produce waste heat. They don't respond to stimuli yet. Reproduction is another story.

They do respond to stimuli though. Keyboard sending in electronic signals isn't stimuli.