do robots have a soul?

does artificial intelligence constitute a personality? does a personality mean it's got a soul? can its feelings ever be anything other than a collection of microchips, programming and the conversion of observed feelings? (this being the basis of a whole lot of sci-fi, it's got literary merit.)

jester, either opinion or facts are good. both can be thought-provoking and/or lead to storyline tangents. naturally, it's a question that could be from a technological standpoint and also a philosophical one, so if you're inclined, have at it from any angle ya want.

does everyone pretty much agree that at some point in robot evolution there will likely be a point where asimov's robot laws come to fruition (in real life or fiction)? so, even if your robot has true AI, his programming will limit his freedoms, and without freedom to act on its opinions and 'emotions,' does that negate any kind of karmic soul? and if that's the basis of your 'soul,' the creators are effectively, though unwittingly, being bad gods by withholding the potential to be a soul? or something like that? lol. that's to say if you're programmed to excercise virtue, or even incapable of committing sin, a robot has no choice other than to be 'virtuous,' which you really can't be that without the opportunity to be sinful, so the robot really doesn't have the ability to earn its soul, eh? (unless, of course, you write it to where a robot either breaks its bonds of programming or isn't programmed like that to begin with.)

for the sake of argument, let's say a robot or supercomputer can develop a soul. naturally, a soul implies emotions. how would a super-intelligent soul reconcile all it knows about history, psychology, etc. (where 'etc' depends on your story)? in a lot of sci-fi, these souls come to the conclusion that the human race has to be destroyed. is this a natural conclusion, do you think, or a result of a soul having gone unsane due to its overwhelming smarts? for that matter, what would be the results of instilling the whole of human knowledge into a regular human brain? isn't it rather cynical for writers to arrive at the conclusion that if you pulled all facts together that the conclusion would be humans are too corrupt and/or weak to survive?

is freedom an intrinsic ingredient towards having a soul? by limiting its freedom, you limit its ability to have a soul? and is having a body necessary? can the internut develop self-awaredness, for instance?

for that matter, do humans develop a new soul when full-blown alzheimer's happens? or if it's possible to completely erase a person's memories, does their 'new life' merit a new soul?

i think a robotic soul implies, like it's implied above, that there would be the possibility of a robot ghost. it's kinda hard to know when a robot is self-aware or is just programmed to say that, or with unlimited knowledge convinces itself it is but is really just a function of circuits cranking out blather.

that's true, dave. i pose the question (and a lot of others) *as* a way of research, a food-for-thought type of exploration.

watcher, i'm not a spiritual person at all, really. i'm as likely to equate 'soul' and 'personality' and leave it at that. being agnostic, i'm not going to aver a soul does or doesn't exist, though some people's theories seem to be ridiculous to me based on research, the type of people who believes in their version, and last but not least the argument's pros and cons. i'm more than willing to listen to someone's anecdotal 'evidence,' but at the same time still have to put it into perspective.

a lot of people will swear animals won't go to heaven because they have no soul. 'they're not self-aware,' is one big argument, i think. how self-aware are *we* really, though? 'animals merely react based on their environment, needs, and genetic disposition, therefore they don't have a *true* personality.' oh, like humans are sooo much different in this respect, eh? lol. at the same time, i can't find much of a con to 'their' argument the further down the foodchain i go. at some point i have to wonder if a worm has a soul, and if i go that far, why not plants? why not atoms? why not abstracts like the wind and sea and gravity?

so, when it comes to what constitutes a soul, i'm conflicted. that's why i explore it in some of the things i write about. 'soul' appears to have everything to do with having faith. add to that the fear of death, of there being no life after the ones we piss away on earth. and being at the top of the food chain and supposedly intelligent, there's possibily an egotistical side to being a human that we use to further elevate us to the ultimate creatures. i mean, God created us in 'our' image (not specifically His as it's often quoted as saying), but i have to wonder if the writer/s of that made Him in *our* image. from a 'pagan' standpoint, that's certainly unusual to have god be like us. indeed, to have the main god be male wasn't the basis of a lot if not most of early paganism (based on my research, at least ~ yours might contradict that).

so, if someone wants to worship treebark, good for them. personally, i think it's ridiculous, but so are a lot of things the majority of the world takes for fact. i'm more than willing to, at the very least, be educated.

i'll offer a definition of what a 'soul' is based on the story's implications, but i'll typically stop before it gets to be a dialogue defining what it is and its finer points. in the situations is where i'll do the exploring, though often i find the character reacting to the philosophies of his 'religion' based on research than coming out with explicit arguments for or against. i've had characters have religious epiphanies which lead to their 'self-discovery.' how it happens and how it affects them depends on the needs of the story. this is where my question in the political thread about how writers might instill their own afflictions, i mean, affiliations in their writing has a cross-over -- do writers often put their religious beliefs in a story? if so, by the process of writing, how do direct conflicts with their personal belief get resolved?

to me it seems a given that if you have your robot develop a true soul that that necessarily implies there's a religion behind it. how, i wonder, would a robot in a muslim household consider his soul as opposed to one in a christian household? and is it possible for an atheist robot to have a soul? (in as far as it has to do with traditional, i.e. mass-market appeal, ways of thinking as opposed to being a part of a cosmic life force belief.)