robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (06/27/84)
References: I am the originator of the problem of attributing a soul to an AI program. The original idea has been widely misunderstood, so here is an explanation again: Suppose that you have created a computer (hdw+sfw) that appears to converse quite well, and to add its own ideas to conversation. Suppose now that some well respected theologian comes along and claims to the world at large that your computer has been a soul by G-d. If you disagree, what do you do? Please note in the above that it is a non-technical outsider, not a computer professional, who may make the claim for a soul! Those who agree with the theologian will want to make sure you do not harm or "kill" the soul. They may regard any further software changes as vivesection of the worst kind. Your scientific arguments will be lost on your opponents. I think that this possibility must be seriously considered by all who hope to achieve good computer models of human thought. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/01/84)
I think you have not understood most of the replies; a theologian who thought an AI system had a soul would probably base his concepts of the soul on the model he uses for human beings. A human being's soul is not modified by surgery is it? Or by granting a college degree after "educating" the mind? Nor is it harmed in any way by death (turning off the machine). Your hypothetical theologian just does not act like a theologian. There is no such thing as soul murder--murder is the unlawful killing of a person, the unbinding of his soul from his body. Doesn't your Kaballah teacher tell you the soul returns to God after death? That you get to try life until you get it right? What you have originated is an inconsistent conjecture. To illustrate, allow me to turn the tables: I, a programmer, coming from outside of theology, decide that you, Tony, have a soul. I declare that you must not be allowed to die, as that would violate your soul, something I, educated in your school of thought, find unacceptable, even if part of the natural order. I believe we must turn all our societal efforts to AI research in order to preserve your soul past your death, by loading it into a computer. In order to accomplish this, like the inquisitional church of the dark ages, I am even willing to kill (NOT murder) you to effect the transfer. Now, what have you to say? This discussion grows like an onion; it gets longer as your head gets buried deeper. Can we stop yet? Anybody heard the one about the widower and the parrot who davens? I like the jokes that are up front about it! Offensive to no one.... -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba