Would It Have A Soul?

some believe rocks trees have a soul.
so yes a sentient computer would have a soul.
souls wait to be reborn.
I think it would be fun to get reborn as a robot.
no less than some humans......

I don't believe there's any evidence that humans or anything else have a "soul", let alone a sentient computerized brain.
-

As much as I'd like to envision that time of advancement. I don't even think we will make it to that point. War will have boiled over at that point and if anyone is left you can kiss advanced science and technology goodbye. Even prior to that you will see how vain society will become when they are replacing body parts and organs for the thrill of it. So in the end it prolly wont have a soul, and if it does it may be the only one left cause humanity will have lost theirs long ago

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I say it will have a soul.

Everything has a soul, even that which is inanimate.

This comes from a belief that all is one and is one soul. Everything comes from and is a part of God.

Rocks do not have a soul and God hasn't been proven to exist...

My answer to the OP's question is no, we don't truly understand the human brain or the concept of what a "soul" actually consists of; so with that in mind a human programming such a system could only add their interpretation which would make said system not self aware, it would simply be emulating the idea of of being autonomous.

reply to post by Signals


I think that answer depends on two things.
1) What defines a "soul"?
2) What defines a "fully functional brain"?

I think the second is easier to attempt an explanation. In order for it to be a "fully functioning brain" then it must be connected to some sort of system for it to sustain and operate control of within the normal parameters necessary to self support life. In other words, it would need a body. It can't just be a brain flopped out on a table. It must be contained in a living vessel and it must support and control that vessel with complete self awareness, perception of environment and free will.

This brings into question the possibilities and moral ethics involved with the laboratory creation of an organ as important and complex as the brain for use in transplant patients suffering sever mental trauma. Given the ability to "download" memories from one brain and "upload" them into a new laboratory grown brain, while removing any negative self destructive defects before implantation, would the new host retain his former soul or gain a new one, assuming he has one at all?

This of course raises a new question of whether or not it is our own memories and experiences in life combined with social and religious environments that create the illusion of an ethereal "soul". Or is our assumed understanding of not only self awareness but environmental awareness and the realization of free will an evolutionary adaptation of self preservation through trial and error. “Cogito ergo sum”; “I think, therefore I am.” said Descartes.

This begs a new question for those of faith. Had Adam and Eve not eaten the fruit, would they have had souls?

reply to post by Signals


This is exactly the thought that disturbs me with the idea of AI and human Cloning..sure they can make humans in labs, but i cant imagine a soul and actual 'being' being produced the same way! A scary thing to think of even more soul-less humans on this Earth.

Originally posted by randyvs

There are any number of atheists that will say no it will not have a soul. I think this is an opportunity I can't pass up to agree with them.

Because they'd say we don't even have a soul, we are in fact biological robots so, we, as I see from an atheist point of view, have no soul either.
I don't agree with this. But it also begs the question if we are just organic "robots" with no soul, that would mean something had to manufacture us, would it not? So that in and of itself blows the theory out of the water of atheists' of there being no creator either. So it's confilcted isn't it??? A soul may simply be described as a higher conciousness, that simply observes and in observing chooses a physical form to observe in so there is no creator, we are the creators,this should certainly be more acceptable to Atheists, NO? There has to be an observer, if there were no observer, there'd be nothing at all. This is the conundrum.

reply to post by bestintentions


Hi.. just wanted to say i would imagine that yes many souls would chose to live in an abusive family or poor country etc just to have the life experience gained from such situations..life experience is of utmost importance to a forming and growing soul.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Yes. That's fairly much my line of reasoning.

reply to post by Signals

Depends on your beliefs i would guess. Imo there is no soul and we simply are our brain.
If you were to make a fully functional human copy of the brain, then yes i think it would be self aware/conscious just like us.

The way I see it, is if the "being" was an observer, that would in fact mean it has made a connection to the Observer, the collective.

I interpret the Observer phenomena as this: a singularity, would remain a singularity had it not been observed. Think of the double-slit experiment.

Now think of the ball shoot machine being shrunk to the size of the quantum level where instead of shooting out tennis balls, it now shoots out extremely tiny particles called electrons. Those electrons travel through vacuum and hit a wide screen which marks their positions.

Imagine another smaller screen with single vertical slit in the middle that is placed between the particle launcher and the wide screen. Some of the electrons will pass through the slit and hit the wide screen behind it and some will be blocked.

What we will see on the wide screen is a vertical column marking the area where the electrons have hit it.

Next, instead of a single slit we use double slits. So now the electrons can pass through either one of those slits to hit the wide screen behind.

What we are supposed to see is two vertical column marking the area where the electrons will hit on the wide screen. But the strange and amazing thing is, we do not see that. Instead what we see are several vertical columns a small distance apart from each other appearing on the wide screen.

Imagine a swimming pool with a screen with double slits in the middle and a wide screen at the end. When a ball is dropped into the water in front of the double slit screen, it causes a circular wave that ripples outwards in all directions. The wave pass through the double slits and split into two smaller waves. As the two waves continue to travel, they simultaneously reinforce and cancel out each other at certain angles.

What you see on the wide screen are several vertical columns each being a small distance apart from the other. The columns show the part where the waves reinforce each other while the spaces show where they cancel each other out.

So the question is why does the electron behave like a wave when it passes through double slits?

The theory is that the electron splits into two when it reaches the first screen and travels through both slits simultaneously. It then interferes with itself thereby causing a wave effect on the wide screen. In quantum physics, this is called the principle of nonlocality where something exist in two places at one time. It is not restricted to one location in time and space but it becomes omnipresent.

Observer Creates Reality

This can be interpreted as the soul, or more accurately the Oversoul. Just an idea.

Well, if souls do in fact exist and we are more than simply physical beings, why shouldn't it have a soul? Why does it matter whether a body is created through sexual reproduction or engineered? The body will still exist just the same.
As one poster already said though, perhaps it won't be self-aware.
Maybe it would be fully alive and functional, but needing a soul in order to be "human". Would an engineered human being be capable of sin, or would it be more like an extremely intelligent animal?

Originally posted by ldyserenity
The way I see it, is if the "being" was an observer, that would in fact mean it has made a connection to the Observer, the collective.

I interpret the Observer phenomena as this: a singularity, would remain a singularity had it not been observed. Think of the double-slit experiment.

Now think of the ball shoot machine being shrunk to the size of the quantum level where instead of shooting out tennis balls, it now shoots out extremely tiny particles called electrons. Those electrons travel through vacuum and hit a wide screen which marks their positions.

Imagine another smaller screen with single vertical slit in the middle that is placed between the particle launcher and the wide screen. Some of the electrons will pass through the slit and hit the wide screen behind it and some will be blocked.

What we will see on the wide screen is a vertical column marking the area where the electrons have hit it.

Next, instead of a single slit we use double slits. So now the electrons can pass through either one of those slits to hit the wide screen behind.

What we are supposed to see is two vertical column marking the area where the electrons will hit on the wide screen. But the strange and amazing thing is, we do not see that. Instead what we see are several vertical columns a small distance apart from each other appearing on the wide screen.

Imagine a swimming pool with a screen with double slits in the middle and a wide screen at the end. When a ball is dropped into the water in front of the double slit screen, it causes a circular wave that ripples outwards in all directions. The wave pass through the double slits and split into two smaller waves. As the two waves continue to travel, they simultaneously reinforce and cancel out each other at certain angles.

What you see on the wide screen are several vertical columns each being a small distance apart from the other. The columns show the part where the waves reinforce each other while the spaces show where they cancel each other out.

So the question is why does the electron behave like a wave when it passes through double slits?

The theory is that the electron splits into two when it reaches the first screen and travels through both slits simultaneously. It then interferes with itself thereby causing a wave effect on the wide screen. In quantum physics, this is called the principle of nonlocality where something exist in two places at one time. It is not restricted to one location in time and space but it becomes omnipresent.

Observer Creates Reality

This can be interpreted as the soul, or more accurately the Oversoul. Just an idea.

I'm sorry, but the double-slit experiment isn't something that can be reconstituted to serve as an explanation for every friggin' thing that someone doesn't understand.

Besides, the double-slit experiment debunks particle physics as being foundational. It doesn't actually debunk time and/or space, or prove that human conscioiusness is the lord and master of all creation, as most people who trot this disaster out seem to believe. It's the prime example of advanced technology backing particle physicists into a corner, and those poor bastards swinging for all their worth in an effort to stave off obsolescence.

Originally posted by Signals
I was watching an episode of Through The Wormhole and an interesting question was raised.

Eventually, we will have the technology and computing power to synthesize, actually create a fully-functional Human brain.

Every connection, every spark, perfectly duplicated.

From the tissue, the cells, blood flow, etc.

When that day comes, will that mind have a Soul?

Given My belief that Consciousness is God/Spirit/Soul, if what We create is Conscious, it has a "soul." If it is capable of asking for rights, it is also a Being (note the cap) and becomes It (cap again).

That's how I see it. Or It. [smile]

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm sorry, but the double-slit experiment isn't something that can be reconstituted to serve as an explanation for every friggin' thing that someone doesn't understand.

Besides, the double-slit experiment debunks particle physics as being foundational. It doesn't actually debunk time and/or space, or prove that human conscioiusness is the lord and master of all creation, as most people who trot this disaster out seem to believe. It's the prime example of advanced technology backing particle physicists into a corner, and those poor bastards swinging for all their worth in an effort to stave off obsolescence.

What are You on about? The particle physicists are obsolete? Huh? Consciousness IS God - and the collapse of the wave-function supports that. (You may disagree, of course; cool with Me.) Of course, there's more to Consciousness than Humans, I agree - EVERYTHING is Consciousness on some level.

But the particle physicists are hardly obsolete because of "advanced technology" (what was that again that's obsoleting Them?).

Sorry I don't have anything else to add.

Some great posts so far though , food for thought.

People are missing my point here, anything created and/or programmed will only be as intelligent as it's creator. At present we do not understand what a soul is exactly, and as such it couldn't be programmed....

Originally posted by bestintentions
reply to post by OwenandNoelle

 

I think that’s a very interesting question. In some theories of reincarnation, it’s suggested that before our next life begins, we actually choose what family we want to be born into and that often we don’t actually enter into our ‘infant’ body until right before we’re born.

yeah right..... would anybody choose to be born into a family that will be abusive, poor, live in an underprivileged country, where they look ugly, or any such sort ?

edit on 16-6-2011 by bestintentions because: (no reason given)

Maybe.. what if we are here to learn different lessons? A big what if..

reply to post by FullVisionProject

and i believe that we chose our future with our actions and choices moment by moment - not in 'heaven' before we are born again.
so, in a way, we agree.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
People are missing my point here, anything created and/or programmed will only be as intelligent as it's creator.

I'm not sure that's the case.

At present we do not understand what a soul is exactly, and as such it couldn't be programmed....

Agree 100%, plus there's not even any real reason to suspect that a "soul" even exists.

But if it's possible to create a sentient computer it's likely that its intrinsic behavior may create the illusion that it has a soul. Perhaps such a computer could come to believe it has one.

Ultimately, until we can prove that anything has a soul, speculating on whether computers could have one is cart-before-the-horse.