robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (06/14/84)
References: Philip Kahn, in his discussion of souls and essences, writes: >> A "soul," like the concept of "essence," is undefinable. >> The problem of "cognition" is far more relevent to the study of AI because >> it can be defined within some domain... Whether "cognition" >> constitutes a "soul" is again not relevent..." I submit that the concept of "soul" is irrelevant only if AI is doomed to utter failure. Use your imagination and consider a computer program that exhibits many of the characteristics of a human being in its ability to reason, to converse, and to be creative and unexpected in its actions. How will you AI-ers defend yourself if a distinguished theologian asserts that G-d has granted to your computer program a soul? If he might be right, the program, and its hardware must not be destroyed. Perhaps it should not be altered either, lest its soul be lost. The casual destruction, recreation and development of computer programs containing souls will horrify many people. You will face demonstrations, destruction of laboratories, and government interference of the worst kind. Start saving up now, for a defense fund for the first AI-er accused by a district attorney of soul-murder. On second thought, you have nothing to fear; no one in AI is really trying to make computers act like humans, right? - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison princeton!eosp1!robison
kalnitz@ellie.UUCP (Paul Kalnitz) (06/21/84)
If my grandmother understood AI and was told of the possibility of GOD giving souls to programs, she'd say stop talking such narishkeit.