Catholic dogs go to heaven, Presbyterian ones don't

[Kaliayev]

I'm pretty sure that essay helped create spambots, which in internet terms makes Turing sort of like a cross between the Devil and Pandora's Box.

[Swatopluk]

I'm pretty sure that essay helped create spambots, which in internet terms makes Turing sort of like a cross between the Devil and Pandora's Box.

I am surprised that there were no Spambots in Futurama yet (although there are a lot of weird -bots in the series)

[beagle]

I'm pretty sure that essay helped create spambots, which in internet terms makes Turing sort of like a cross between the Devil and Pandora's Box.

Well the other guy couldn't build a garden fence capable of keeping serpents out.

[Opsa]

How do you feel about the idea (that some earth-based philosophies suggest) that everything has a soul, including plants and rocks?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

IMO if we have a soul everything else also has it (remember The Force TM?  ).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

How do you feel about the idea (that some earth-based philosophies suggest) that everything has a soul, including plants and rocks?

I like the notion, myself.

It means all my beloved pets will be with me, or at least where I may communicate with them a bit, for afters.

But, sadly, it also means that every rock I ever threw off the bank, into a body of water, will be there too....to accuse me of separating them from their families on the banks....

[The Meromorph]

I still occasionally throw a ball for Zephyr, in my head before I go to sleep. 

[Opsa]

That's nice.

I like the idea of everything having a soul, too. It's a good way to encourage respect for the world around us.

I wouldn't worry about the rocks, B of the Q. Just because they may have souls doesn't mean they think about things the same way we do. Maybe the rock enjoyed the change of scenery.

It is interesting to think, though, about the case of artificial intelligence. If everything natural has a soul, and everything we have made has come from (once natural?) elements of our world, then would the computer minds also have souls?

I feel conflicted about this. If I had a robot helper around the house, it would sort of weird me out to think of it having a soul. I would have to then worry about its existence as basically a slave in my house.

I would hate to think this computer I'm typing on would feel like a slave. Poor thing. But, as with the case of the rocks- even if it has a soul, it may not see things the same way we do. It's life would be different from ours. It might form completely different philosophies from us. It may see itself as pridefully doing it's job well.

or...

maybe having a soul doesn't necessarily mean thinking at all. In the case of some Earth-based philosophies, the word for the common quality we share is "spirit". Not exactly soul, but more like presence. Does that change things?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I suppose a robot helper around the house, having a soul, might be problematic.

On the other hand, what is the purpose of the robot?  It's an around-the-house helper. By letting it help around the house, it is fulfilling it's built-for purpose.

Such as that chair, in the corner.  It's sole purpose is to be sat upon.  To not sit upon it, would be to diminish it's existence somewhat.  Unless, it has a lessor purpose to be beautiful.  Then, just existing, it fulfills some purpose.  And if you sit on such a chair too often, you diminish it's beauty, and therefore diminish some of it's reason for existing.  (Which is why I *always* buy comfy chairs, just for the sitting upon.  Just in Case.  I live in a home, not a museum.)


I'm reminded of Marvin the Robot (I'm soooooo depressed, from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and of the door computer.

Yes, on the spaceship the Heart of Gold, the doors had automatic computers, who's sole purpose was to gleefully open and close the ships airtight doors for anyone who approached.

The doors were easily satisfied--- they would cheerfully open for you, then just as cheerfully close behind, certain in the knowledge that their primary function was completely satisfied.

It was a fairly blissful existence, for those door computers.

So, too, a house-helper robot, even with a soul, may be blissfully satisfied, whenever the housework is completed in a cheerfully and timely fashion.   Who can say?

Think of a flower:  Most exist but for a brief moment in time, yet, they appear to have little purpose beyond being beautiful to behold.  After all, many plants have very simplistic arrangements for reproduction that work just as well, without all the glamor of a flowering body.

Thus, being beautiful for a brief moment in time, may very well be the purpose of a flower-- yet, if it has a soul, it is likely quite satisfied with fulfilling this purpose.  Or I can only imagine they would be....

...unless, they are republican flowers.  Then their purpose is likely some sinister thing we do not yet know about.... 

[Swatopluk]

Let's put some more references here
1) Ghost in the Shell
2) Do you exist, Mr.Jones? (a radio play by Stanislaw Lem)
While I assume that the former is well-known, I doubt that the latter is. It is a discussion in court about Mr.Jones, a car race driver, who had a number of accidents. After each accident another part of his body was replaced including one half of his brain. But then the artificial half of the brain did not fully work with his remaining natural half which happened to be the last organic part in Mr.Jones' body. Also Mr.Jones bought the part on credit and is unable to pay. He is tricked by the insurance/credit company to replace the other half of his brain with a computer too. Then it sues him for the return of all unpaid parts claiming that since he has no organic part left, he does no longer exist as a human being and that therefore he could be disassembled without a murder being committed. Also Mr.Jones is barred from his job because only humans are allowed in car races, not robots.
Mr. Jones himself rejects the arguments of course because he considers himself not changed in essence (although he complains about some flaws of his brain computers). He is also a religious man and claims that his soul is still with him while the company lawyer claims that since he is no longer an alive human his soul (if any exists in the first place) must be with his maker.
The court doesn't find it easy to decide the case (and iirc no final decision is reached in the play).

In another radio play it stays organic and the race driver tends to crash into the stands. The emergency team has to sort out the parts but it seems that after each accident with the incorporations of parts of other victims of the crash the personality of the driver begins to change until in the end the person is outwardly the original driver but the soul is that of a colleague also involved in the crash. (the whole play takes place in the offcie of a psychologist who helps the driver to recover from the accidents).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Cool, Swatopluk.

Reminds me of:

This is my Great-great-great-great grandfather's Axe.

Oh, the handle's been replaced any number of times, for having been broken.  And the axe-head's been replaced twice, too.  Once because it was simply too worn to resharpen, and once because it chipped so badly that it could not be resharpened.

But.

It *IS* my Great-great-great-great grandfather's Axe.

[anthrobabe]

I like radio plays- and I think I would love to hear these as referenced by Swato.

[Swatopluk]

I doubt that there are English versions of the plays (and I only possess the German prints, not the audio*)
If you want to search yourself, here are the original titles. The German versions are authorized by Lem

Czy pan istnieje, Mr. Johns ?   (Hörspiel)
      (Existieren Sie, Mr. Johns ?)
1969

Przekladaniec   (Drehbuch)
      (Schichttorte)
1971

*there are potentially two for Mr.Johns, one from the FRG, the other from the GDR.
There may exist a Polish TV version of the 1971 work

[anthrobabe]

Thank you--

[Pachyderm]

Most exist but for a brief moment in time, yet, they appear to have little purpose beyond being beautiful to behold.


Not entirely true. Flowers exist to entice pollinators, be it by smell, or visually, and reward curious creatures with little nectary treats, in return for which, usually unintentionally, the curious creatures get splattered with genetic material, which they gaily transfer to other flowers, when they get curious about those ones. Basically, flowers are perverts. Look at the trouble we get into with reproduction. They use not just other species, but species from a totally different kingdom....

Oh, and just don't ask about fruit.....