How Do You Define What It Means To Be "alive"?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1617254' date='Aug 4 2008, 05:04 PM']If level of intelligence or even the capacity to be self-aware is the determining factor for actual life, then I argue that machines will be alive in our lifetime.

Consider this; it was reported this April that Spain is considering granting apes legal rights. Why do apes deserve legal rights and what is this based on? Because apes are maybe our evolutionary cousins? Or because apes are similar to us in appearance, or intelligent?

In perhaps 40 years machines will capable of being a lot more similar to us, and have intelligence (maybe not imagination) that far surpasses, let alone that of apes. Machines already can look like us, talk like us, act like us, and have emotional reactions as well as interpret our emotions and react accordingly. So are they alive yet? Will they be?

What are your thoughts? What are the possibilities?[/quote]

This reminds me a bit of the "Theological Objection" to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test"]Turing Test[/url] which Alan Turing replied to in his article "[url="http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html"]Computing Machinery and Intelligence[/url]". The article was about devising a test to determine when a machine may be considered intelligent.

Turing here handles the "Theological Objection":

[indent]
Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think.

... It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this sort. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to "swallow." But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper. In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.
[/indent]

Note that Turing has a certain, uhm, bias that is evident in his tangent which I removed. He doesn't like religion in the least; which, to be honest, I wouldn't either in his position, considering what they did to him.

Still, he makes a good point, and one that I think that Lounge Daddy is trying to make as well. Can a machine [b]become[/b] alive? Can it become intelligent enough that God in His loving mercy would grant that machine a spiritual soul the same way that God granted us spiritual souls so that we could be with Him for eternity? For God, the motivation for doing so is quite clear; He is the lover of souls, and the more souls that are with Him in Heaven, the better for Him, because He is able to love more souls.

Thoughts?

[Socrates]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1620146' date='Aug 7 2008, 10:44 AM']This reminds me a bit of the "Theological Objection" to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test"]Turing Test[/url] which Alan Turing replied to in his article "[url="http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html"]Computing Machinery and Intelligence[/url]". The article was about devising a test to determine when a machine may be considered intelligent.

Turing here handles the "Theological Objection":

[indent]
Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think.

... It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this sort. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to "swallow." But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper. In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.
[/indent]

Note that Turing has a certain, uhm, bias that is evident in his tangent which I removed. He doesn't like religion in the least; which, to be honest, I wouldn't either in his position, considering what they did to him.

Still, he makes a good point, and one that I think that Lounge Daddy is trying to make as well. Can a machine [b]become[/b] alive? Can it become intelligent enough that God in His loving mercy would grant that machine a spiritual soul the same way that God granted us spiritual souls so that we could be with Him for eternity? For God, the motivation for doing so is quite clear; He is the lover of souls, and the more souls that are with Him in Heaven, the better for Him, because He is able to love more souls.

Thoughts?[/quote]
Turing here completely misunderstands the Christian/Thomistic understanding of the human soul, as do apparently you and LD. The soul is understood as the "form" of the body - the unifying, animating principle of the body's matter. (Please read up on St. Thomas for a better understanding of these philosophical terms - I'm a little rusty myself.)
A soul is not a Cartesian "ghost in the machine" or a "magical spook" which "possesses" an otherwise inanimate material object (like Chucky the killer doll). An elephant's form, or soul, is an elephant soul - it cannot have a human soul, or it would no longer be an elephant, but a human being.
The human soul is the principle of life in a human being, and is created at conception. It's not some thing God "gives" to a physical object when it's "smart" enough.
While theoretically God [i]could[/i] do anything (as He is not limited in power), God conferring a soul on a man-made artifact such as a computer would be an act contrary to nature - and this would not be a a true soul, as in the organic form of a living thing, but a spirit, or angel, "possessing" a non-living artifact. I don't see any reason for God to perform such a bizarre miracle.
As for God's "motivations" - He has already created all the angels He sees fit to be with Him in Heaven, and there's no shortage of human souls coming about the normal way.
There's no need for God to create spirits to inhabit computers or robots any more than there is for Him to create "souls" for cars or stereo systems.

Sorry if I'm doing a poor job of explaining this philosophically, but the bottom line is: no, there is absolutely no reason philosophically or theologically to think that God will ever create "machine souls."

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='scardella' post='1620064' date='Aug 7 2008, 10:31 AM']Hey, Number 5 is alive!
[img]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b122/nam4anad/johnnyfive.jpg[/img]

and don't forget Wall-E
[img]http://www.firstshowing.net/img/wall-e-poster1-big.jpg[/img][/quote]

Your forgot one

Soveregn
[img]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1448/vlcsnap26212fd6.jpg[/img]

Now, that's a bad robot!

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1620813' date='Aug 7 2008, 09:01 PM']Turing here completely misunderstands the Christian/Thomistic understanding of the human soul, as do apparently you and LD. [b]The soul is understood as the "form" of the body - the unifying, animating principle of the body's matter[/b]. (Please read up on St. Thomas for a better understanding of these philosophical terms - I'm a little rusty myself.)

[b]A soul is not a Cartesian "ghost in the machine" or a "magical spook" which "possesses" an otherwise inanimate material object (like Chucky the killer doll).[/b] An elephant's form, or soul, is an elephant soul - it cannot have a human soul, or it would no longer be an elephant, but a human being.

The human soul is the principle of life in a human being, and is created at conception. It's not some thing God "gives" to a physical object when it's "smart" enough.[/quote]

Ok. I think that I'm understanding you. I remember hearing something to the effect of the first bolded point before, that the soul is the essence of what it is to be human, and that as all humans have a body, this implies an intimate connection between this "animus" and the thing that it animates. To put it one way, the soul and body are tied up together; when the soul leaves the body, the body begins to decay so as not to exist anymore -- someone else wrote that (maybe you, actually). Is it correct even to say that the body and soul are of the "same substance"?

This said, a created thing is not imparted a soul by "flicking a switch" on its motherboard, regardless of how "intelligent" it might be. A soul is not a [b]function[/b] of the parts to be turned on or off, but rather, as you say, "the unifying, animating principle" that both [b]holds the parts together[/b] and [b]makes them work[/b].

I'm still trying to think of an inorganic analog, though. It's not going so hot.

Ok. I'm sorry for just repeating everything that you just said, but I wanted to do two things: (1) build the idea for myself in my own mind, and (2) make sure that my understanding is correct.

Thanks!

[Justin86]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1617254' date='Aug 5 2008, 06:04 AM']If an eternal soul determines whether an entity is alive, then naturally that would be saying that humans are the only mortal creature on this planet (or universe?) that is truly alive.[/quote]
I believe you mean "immortal soul"...

[Justin86]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1617273' date='Aug 5 2008, 06:33 AM']Ok, then how does one determine the presence of a soul--which goes back to the original question of what determines the presence of life.[/quote]

I would say just because something has [b]artificial[/b] intelligence doesn't mean it has a soul. Only God can create the soul, not man. Robots are our creation not God's, and therefore do not have souls.

[Winchester]

It's the complete opposite of dead.

Mostly dead is slightly alive.

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1621420' date='Aug 8 2008, 02:27 PM']I would say just because something has [b]artificial[/b] intelligence doesn't mean it has a soul. Only God can create the soul, not man. Robots are our creation not God's, and therefore do not have souls.[/quote]

But God created us, and if we create machines, with lets say, organic parts to it, like nerve cells for computer connections, how then do you define that. Is it really artificially intelligent when it has organic nerve cells that it uses to compute things?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1621768' date='Aug 8 2008, 09:10 PM']It's the complete opposite of dead.

Mostly dead is slightly alive.[/quote]
Well said.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1619769' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:55 PM']...some confusion in the poll between whether a thing is alive and personhood, which are actually two separate issues.[/quote]
Good point. Thanks.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1619769' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:55 PM']To make a long answer short, yes, only "biological entities" can truly be alive. It's part of the whole form/matter substance thing. A living creature is a single substance, and its soul is what informs its matter.[/quote]

Ohoh. [url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_article=1"]Independently operating Robots are being built with biological neurons, or "brains." [/url]First rat brains, but I am sure it won't be long before others are used.

So, now we can say that machines can be living?

[indent]Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain tissue.

Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.

Their groundbreaking experiments explore the vanishing boundary between natural and artificial intelligence...[/indent]

Maybe in the near future a better question will be, how does one define human?

[let_go_let_God]

I also believe that in order to be "alive" one must also be able to derive joy, wonderment, and the ablitity to enhance their capacity for knowledge. Although I acknowledge all the above reasons as wholly and fundamentally true I believe there must be a form of unknowing to be able to find a greater sense of ourselves.

God bless-
LGLG

[Socrates]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1621112' date='Aug 8 2008, 12:25 AM']Ok. I think that I'm understanding you. I remember hearing something to the effect of the first bolded point before, that the soul is the essence of what it is to be human, and that as all humans have a body, this implies an intimate connection between this "animus" and the thing that it animates. To put it one way, the soul and body are tied up together; when the soul leaves the body, the body begins to decay so as not to exist anymore -- someone else wrote that (maybe you, actually). Is it correct even to say that the body and soul are of the "same substance"?

This said, a created thing is not imparted a soul by "flicking a switch" on its motherboard, regardless of how "intelligent" it might be. A soul is not a [b]function[/b] of the parts to be turned on or off, but rather, as you say, "the unifying, animating principle" that both [b]holds the parts together[/b] and [b]makes them work[/b].

I'm still trying to think of an inorganic analog, though. It's not going so hot.

Ok. I'm sorry for just repeating everything that you just said, but I wanted to do two things: (1) build the idea for myself in my own mind, and (2) make sure that my understanding is correct.

Thanks![/quote]
Oops, I had meant to answer this earlier, but forgot about it. You have the general idea right, but my own philosophy has gotten rusty.

In Thomistic philosophy, all material substances are composed of form and matter. Form is what makes the matter "what it is." The soul is the form of a living thing. Soul and body together are one substance. It's not some separate substance that "holds the parts of the body together" like glue.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1627091' date='Aug 14 2008, 03:51 PM']Good point. Thanks.



Ohoh. [url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080813192458.ud84hj9h&show_article=1"]Independently operating Robots are being built with biological neurons, or "brains." [/url]First rat brains, but I am sure it won't be long before others are used.

So, now we can say that machines can be living?

[indent]Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain tissue.

Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey matter was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who unveiled the neuron-powered machine on Wednesday.

Their groundbreaking experiments explore the vanishing boundary between natural and artificial intelligence...[/indent]

Maybe in the near future a better question will be, how does one define human?[/quote]
Basically, you're getting into the issue of the philosophy of cyborgs (or as Ah-nold says, "cybah-netic ahh-ganism").
If you're talking about a mechanically-modified human being with a human brain, etc., even if the body is heavily mechanized, it's still a human being with a soul.
Something genetically-engineered from human brain cells, I'm not so sure about.
An any case, such things would be grave affronts to the dignity of human life.
That rat-neuron robot thing was a little disturbing (though obviously having nothing to do itself with human life or souls).

[Socrates]

[quote name='let_go_let_God' post='1627582' date='Aug 14 2008, 09:43 PM']I also believe that in order to be "alive" one must also be able to derive joy, wonderment, and the ablitity to enhance their capacity for knowledge. Although I acknowledge all the above reasons as wholly and fundamentally true I believe there must be a form of unknowing to be able to find a greater sense of ourselves.

God bless-
LGLG[/quote]
A fungus is alive, yet it is dubious it has the capacity for any of those things.
Again, you are confusing human life with life itself.
All human beings are living things. Not all living things are human.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1627591' date='Aug 14 2008, 09:58 PM']That rat-neuron robot thing was a little disturbing (though obviously having nothing to do itself with human life or souls).[/quote]

I think it's fascinating.

Btw-I saw that your bookstore carries that title that you recommended; and it's on my shopping list
I'll order it in a few weeks.