Idea: Artificial Intelligence: Can a robot have a soul?

[GodComplex]

But humans are the only mammal with emotions,

Really? So wolves are incapable of mourning the loss of a mate? Bears do NOT get angry? Pets are not at all fond of their owners? Etc., etc., etc.

Nope, it's all just instinct. Same reason they only see black and white, they lack the hardware. They even lack the appropriate facial muscles to express any emotion. Children even lack the mental physiological development for full emotion, until around age 10, which is partly why puberty sucks so hard.

There is interesting video of chimps possibly understanding to concept of death and there is evidence of inter species helping behavior. But as far as my knowledge base goes and it's been close to 10 years since I took a psych class, emotion is a function of a developed frontal lobe, and other creatures don't possesses that. Nor do they posses anywhere near our encephalon ratio.

Think about it this way, what benefit does emotion serve in a state of nature? What selective forces would allow for emotion to be beneficial in a time when life is crude brutish and short?

[CaptainPatch]

You could just as easily contend that what human beings call "emotion" is "just instinct". Because human beings have not thoroughly learned animal "languages", we have no way of determining that an animal is saying, "I'm sad because ______." Or "I am happy because _______."

There was a time when black Africans were believed to have no soul. Likewise Native American Indians. Anyone that works closely with animals would be glad to explain that your assertion is just as fallacious. Just human beings being their usual egocentric, egotistical selves.

[GodComplex]

No offense, well a little actually, but that is a stupid argument and you should feel ashamed for making it. To state that animals have emotions cause you think people are wrong about souls? For your argument to work at even a logical level you'd need empirical evidence to back the existence of souls.

Now, do you agree or disagree that emotion lies in the frontal lobe? Because if it does, then animals don't have them, if they don't then it's up for debate. And we can separate out instinct vs motion through case studies of lobotomies. There could be a point of debate about the amygdala and the 4 Fs (feeding, fighting, fear, fornication) being the instinct level or emotion, but that comes down to whether you want to take a behavioral/cognitive/gestalt/psychoanalytical approach as each paradigm views the separation differently. Now go take yer anecdotal evidence and come back when ya can argue about the interaction between the mesencephalon and diencephalon.

[CaptainPatch]

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/NewsCentre/67668.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90169 ... 5B7jNXl-F8
http://researchnews.wsu.edu/health/141.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 212013.htm
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~irvinel/Anim ... otions.pdf
....and on and on.

Your Psych professor was either a quack, or else he didn't properly convey that what he was detailing was just a theory. The human mind has been barely "mapped" to any degree. Animal brains even less so. To suggest that emotions occur ONLY in the frontal lobe, and then ONLY in the frontal lobes of humans is egocentric racism taken to the Nth degree.

[Sharpstone]

I have to agree with Patch on this. I give a deer as an example. When it senses danger it runs for fear of its life. Instinct yes but fear none the same. A young deer injured will call out for help. Wolves will howl when one of the pack die. The bear getting angry is my favorite because if you have ever seen a Grizzly mad up close you know for sure that sucker has emotion. He is also aware that he is getting an emotion back from you and if you don't take action he is going to stomp you into the ground and eat you. That emotion is hunger and satisfaction. I would reason that the emotions may not be as developed as our own, but even that is a stretch because honestly we do not know. I will give one last example of a cat taking a crap in your shoes when you do something to piss it off. I have seen it happen with my own eyes, trust me, animals have emotions.

[jurbanek]

I'm all for the Robots having a soul as long as there are some sexy robots to bang

[CaptainPatch]

I'm all for the Robots having a soul as long as there are some sexy robots to bang

Futureworld (1976): "I heard once you've made it with a robot there's no going back."

[TΛPETRVE]

Looks like we'll never get rid of the adolescent masturbation fantasies hijacking this board .

[Interloper]

Humans are just complex organic machines - once robotics get advanced enough there's no reason you can't have a robot of human intelligence or greater and have it considered a person.

Regarding animals, I don't see why they can't have emotions. Even if they aren't developed enough to be as deep or nuanced as ours, but that doesn't make them not emotions.

[CaptainPatch]

Humans are just complex organic machines - once robotics get advanced enough there's no reason you can't have a robot of human intelligence or greater and have it considered a person.

If the robots develop ego, what will the effect be when they realize that as a matter of course, they can think a thousand times faster than the fastest-thinking human? If their emotions are anything like a human's, what effect will derive from a burgeoning Superiority Complex?

[GodComplex]

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/NewsCentre/67668.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90169 ... 5B7jNXl-F8
http://researchnews.wsu.edu/health/141.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 212013.htm
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~irvinel/Anim ... otions.pdf
....and on and on.

Your Psych professor was either a quack, or else he didn't properly convey that what he was detailing was just a theory. The human mind has been barely "mapped" to any degree. Animal brains even less so. To suggest that emotions occur ONLY in the frontal lobe, and then ONLY in the frontal lobes of humans is egocentric racism taken to the Nth degree.

the word you're looking for is hypothesis, which is an educated guess based on observation and/or historical data. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, retested, peer reviewed, and found to be statistically significant. Very little in the world angers me as much as when people say "it's just a theory" because they obviously haven't taken a single science class since grade school. To get your hypothesis to theory level is what scientists dream of and it's incredibly difficult to accomplish. So if you ever want to piss of a PhD in the sciences, that's the quickest way to do so. So if you ever want anyone with a science background to take you seriously you should learn the difference, it could save your life in the event of a charging biologist.

As for the articles listed, I only took the last one with a grain of salt cause well, peer reviewed or nothing. It was interesting, but there wasn't anything conclusive, just "we think" or "observed to elicit behavior that could be" but no physiological explanation other than an increase in dopamine ad other neurotransmitters during 'play' and you raise all your neurotransmitters whe your active, that's why doctor's prescribe exercise for depression. Of course the prescribe exercise for most things, but a few minutes a day can treat depression very quickly.

What I found interesting about the last article was it coincides with the paradigm shift from behaviorism to cognitive being the lead in most research. Of course they even mention Skinner, whom many now consider to be a quack, but he the was THE man for many decades. Fun fact, the main reason behaviorism was the lead paradigm is due to some dean of sciences being caught with a hooker, in his office.

But anyhow, until I see a physiological explanation that's got 'peer reviewed' stamped on it, I maintain my position.

Also, I think you're just fucking with me at this point. Racism really? I think you're taking poe's law too far, no one could be that that stupid...unless... oh my god..you're Al Sharpton! It all makes sense now..the Kennedy assassination, the Builderburger group, it all fits..

Looks like we'll never get rid of the adolescent masturbation fantasies hijacking this board

I disagree, some of those fantasies are quite mature. Now, that thread about the Cindy Crawford sexbot, THAT's an adolescent masturbation fantasy.

[Elerond]

Human brain has about 100 billion (10^11) neurons, you could compare neuron to transitor (which are single calculating units in our current processors). Neurons are little bit lower in signal processing than transistors, but they can do more than give out 0 or 1 signal. But where greatest difference comes between neurons and transistors is how they are connected to other neurons and transistors. One transistor is connected to max three other transistors (one input, and up to two output), where neurons are connected to 7000 other neuron and all of these connections are in and out connections. These connections between neurons are called synapses, and human brain has parrellel computing power, which even our super computers can't match, because of these connections.

Our understanding of morality comes from our great skill do anlyse millions things same time. Brain can go through same time all our past experiences, all rules that are told to us, many different scenerions what we could do to complete task we have decided to do (and reasons why we shouldn't to do that ), and still take more information from our eyes, ears, nouse, touch nerves, etc. and adapt it's calulations to this new information.

So when we decide which kind morality A.I. have we should think how it is made. So do it same (or better) capacity of parallel processing than humans, or do it only mimic parallel processing via linear processing (like our A.I. simulations today) and after deciding how much prosessing power our A.I. have we should decide what rules and experiences they have. Then we can try to think how they would treat humans, each other etc.

For soul question I don't have any sort answer for humans or robots.

[lomifeh]

But humans are the only mammal with emotions,

Really? So wolves are incapable of mourning the loss of a mate? Bears do NOT get angry? Pets are not at all fond of their owners? Etc., etc., etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual
That is all.

It's not that humans are the only mammals, or living creatures, that exhibit emotion. It's that humans can override things like emotion and instinct to act. Other animals have not shown this capability in any meaningful way.

It's not about making a computer or robot that can make decisions or exhibits intelligence. We can do this now with expert systems. The question is can we create a machine that can not only think but also feel. Can we create a machine that sees not only the composition of a painting but why it can be beautiful and can feel that beauty. We have machines that can perform complex mathematical calculations, generate music, and do all sorts of tasks. What we don't have is a machine that can make the leap needed to not only solve math but create new math. No machine can go beyond the logic of 0 and 1 to think "maybe" or act in a manner based not on pure logic but intuition. It's not about having a soul, it's about being messy and chaotic as well as ordered. At least that is how I see it.

This question makes me think of Legion from ME3

[CaptainPatch]

We have machines that can perform complex mathematical calculations, generate music, and do all sorts of tasks.

That reminds me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIbLoT51PFo&feature=related

[Kage]

Here's a better question for you, what is a "soul" and how do you know without a reasonable doubt that you or any other being said to posses one, actually posses a "soul"?

[WEKarnesky]

In an effort to get this back on track about robots...

I think you can have everything the OP suggests. I would shy away from using "soul" because that is impossible to determine outside of one's own religious views; you could even have plots around that aspect, people shoring bigotry towards the robot, etc...

I would like to define some terms. AI is a relatively simple matter, something that we have achieved. You can create a program that learns from past experience and makes judgement calls in order to complete it's tasks. Then you can have a fully-independent and sentient AI, this is not something that we have achieved. Such a being would be able to go beyond it's programming, act contrary to it's initial programming, and develop it's own motivations and goals.

A simple example of this in pop-culture would be Kryten from Red Dwarf. He started as an AI but he was not a fully-independent and sentient AI. He was an AI designed to learn how to better serve his masters and had no programming beyond that. After millenia alone and with the helpful(?) influence of Lister he broke his programming, developed hobbies, desires, hatred, and more.

Many of the "evil" AI's are the former of these two types, one who was programmed with a goal and designed to learn how best to complete it. Some how a piece of knowledge has lodged itself in the memory banks that make it think the best way to complete it's goal is the destruction of humans. There is no malice or hatred in it. It would actually be possible to introduce information to change the decision at which point the AI would continue along that path with no hesitation once it determines it is the most efficient way to complete the task.

There is nothing preventing having everything the OP suggests as both can co-exist in the same universe. Adding a variety of motivations is as simple as choosing what their initial programming was and deciding how that got perverted or modified.

[lapinbeau]

It's true. In science fiction, you generally don't see any robots that are truly "evil," in the sense of the word. Few robots actually take pleasure in the suffering or destruction of humanity, instead coldly approaching it as the most logical solution to a problem.

AM from "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" is a rare example of a truly EVIL robot that is capable of hatred and sadism. Of course, Harlan Ellison is a bit of a nutjob himself, so that could just be attributed to having a screwed up view of the world.

I think a better example of a "bad" AI would be HAL9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the Autopilot from WALL-E. Neither of these entities showed any actual malice. HAL wanted the mission to succeed at all costs, and was willing to kill for it.

The Autopilot, on the other hand, had a directive to protect the humans on the ship, by following orders that were grossly outdated. He HAD to follow his orders, he had absolutely no other choice in his programming. Usually the problems of fictional Artificial Intelligence stem from poorly thought out programming by humans.


On the other hand, you also have robots that were intentionally designed to be destructive, or inefficient. For this, let's take a look at Wheatley from Portal 2. Wheatley wasn't poorly programmed. In fact, he never showed any signs of "malfunction" throughout the game. He was literally designed to be a hasty, boorish character. Not designed badly, but PERFECTLY designed to be as HUMANLY stupid as possible, unlike GlaDOS, whose malice is attributed to a myriad of conflicting programs causing flawed reasoning and skewed priorities.

What I'm thinking of is perhaps a true AI that the Rangers would be able to influence... a robot PERFECTLY designed to make its own decisions based on its observations, slowly becoming more intelligent and observant as it builds up priorities and observes what is generally considered to be "appropriate" to humanity. Naturally the Rangers would have a profound effect on its decisions.

Perhaps it could even offer a sort of "retrospective" on the quests you complete when it is in your party.

"Sir, why did you allow that man to live? Wouldn't it make more sense to kill him? He may continue to harm others."

or alternatively, "Sir, although killing that man appears to have been the logical choice, is it possible that the situation could have been resolved without bloodshed?" A subtle hint to the player that this quest could have been completed in different ways, encouraging another playthrough.

After that, your character could offer his input. This could be a choice involving Sadistic, Practical, Merciful, or Ruthless responses. If your character explains that it's best to lead by example, and that killing in cold blood just leads to more cruelty, then the robot could take this to heart.

You know... A character that GROWS, rather than simply has pre-programmed responses.

In fact, a character like this could literally become a DIFFERENT character, depending on its alignment. The robot woudl start out as a blank slate, having no personality beyond typical robotic responses, like "Acknowledged," or "Affirmative." But as it grows and observes and thinks, it could become a cold, ruthless killer, or a wisecracking sheriff, or a timid diplomat. You could literally get MANY characters out of just one NPC. Do you need an extra gun? Teach the robot to fight. Need someone backing you up in an argument? Teach it to be a diplomat.

[ravenshrike]

Humans are just complex organic machines - once robotics get advanced enough there's no reason you can't have a robot of human intelligence or greater and have it considered a person.

If the robots develop ego, what will the effect be when they realize that as a matter of course, they can think a thousand times faster than the fastest-thinking human? If their emotions are anything like a human's, what effect will derive from a burgeoning Superiority Complex?

That's a false assumption. The human brain processes information at speeds multiple orders of magnitude faster than it consciously thinks. To assume that the same would not remain true for AI is a rather large assumption not supported by any data. Now, they could probably think somewhat faster than humans, but assuming thousands of times faster is rather silly.

[ravenshrike]

Not designed badly, but PERFECTLY designed to be as HUMANLY stupid as possible, unlike GlaDOS, whose malice is attributed to a myriad of conflicting programs causing flawed reasoning and skewed priorities.

GLaDOS is insane because they forcibly uploaded a woman's consciousness into the program and then gave it a virtual drug addiction.

[Hiver]

There shouldnt really be a talk of the "soul" as that is a religious concept and as such it will be always contested in relation to anyone else other than humans regardless of reality or facts.


As for emotions, or what humans call "feelings" - all organic life has it. Certainly all higher organisms exhibit complex emotional responses and behavior.
All you need to do to verify that is to use google and look.

What we call instincts are nothing else than emotions.
It just one part or the whole spectrum of it.

What Emotions actually are is - A Primary Interface With Reality.
That interface is deeply imbedded into us and those that think they control them or got rid of them are just delusional.
In fact such people are even more so controlled by emotions then some others.

Only not those that they notice the most, the most obvious ones.
But even those seep in and all suppression has its.... consequences..

The answer is not trying to discard one or the other, emotions or mind-intellect.
The answer is to use them both fully. Together. To let one guide the other and check and guard the other. To stop it from making mistakes.
Easy? Why would you want that to be easy?

A mind without emotion is just a blind, dessicated, damaged thing.

As for robots or Ais, there is no doubt that if sufficiently capable and complex they would develop something like that "interface" in order to comprehend reality. It is quite possible reality itself imposes it on all beings, in a way, as a way to process overflowing sensory input or full reality.


Also, meet David. Im sure many have already seen this. I just love this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMlBVtR12Hs

Yes, he says he doesnt feel emotions. David says a lot of things. Especially the ones you want to hear.