Can you construct sentience?

We don't like the idea that machines can be sentient, because the reverse implication is that we ourselves are no more than machines. That's where the talk of "souls" comes from - it's a pretentious assumption that we are somehow special or holy, as opposed to "dead" things. By imbuing ourselves with supernatural characteristics, we neatly restore faith in our own free will.

Is it so ridiculous to believe that humans are just machines? If you take a look at human society, you can see that we are incredibly predictable. Even when our brains break down (mental illness), they do so in a set number of ways that have commonly reoccurring characteristics - schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.

You do know that the "androids" in Blade Runner weren't actually robots, but artifically grown and genetically altered humans with short lifespans, right?

pilottobombadier said:

You do know that the "androids" in Blade Runner weren't actually robots, but artifically grown and genetically altered humans with short lifespans, right?

Aww, you pwned the thread. :-p

One key thing is missing so far:
So survival is key to life. But what would we be surviving for?
Answer:
Reproduction.
So what would robots be surviving for?
Mechanical intercourse?
(Let me plug into you there...)

doom2day said:
Mechanical intercourse?

You had pretty much implied it; mechanical reproduction (which modern industry has developed so invasively), which is thoroughly tied to organic reproduction. But saying life exists to reproduce is misleading, or at least a simplification; reproduction is a key mechanism for susbsitence and continuity in space-time, not a "reason to be".

fraggle said:

We don't like the idea that machines can be sentient, because the reverse implication is that we ourselves are no more than machines. That's where the talk of "souls" comes from - it's a pretentious assumption that we are somehow special or holy, as opposed to "dead" things. By imbuing ourselves with supernatural characteristics, we neatly restore faith in our own free will.

Is it so ridiculous to believe that humans are just machines? If you take a look at human society, you can see that we are incredibly predictable. Even when our brains break down (mental illness), they do so in a set number of ways that have commonly reoccurring characteristics - schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.

It isn't ridiculous to assume humans are just biological machines, in fact this is generally accepted by most people. It's just that some people believe that there is something more. This is where the argument goes into a gray area between science and philosophy.

A pure scientific view is that the human brain is a huge series of switches and operates as a biological machine. Any self awareness experienced, any personality, any defining trait of that machine is simply a result of each machine being a bit different. The machine works in a purely mechanical way and everything it does is predictable. When the machine is broken, than that is the end of the machine and there is nothing left over. No non-material substances representing a person, nothing. Just rotting meat.

A pure soul-based philosophical view would vary depending on the argument, but it would range from some philosophers saying a soul exists in the sense that self awareness is proof we are more than a meaty shell and organs even if there is no magical immaterial representation of us that flies about after death to other philosophers claiming that a non-material conscience continues to exist even after our shell disappears.

I don't think that it is very fair to blame people for believing in souls or immaterial consciences that exist separately from our body. First of all, it is one of those things that cannot be proved one way or the other. I know that I will get a lot of flak from people on this board for saying something like that, but the fact is that you can make as many claims about the science of neurology and they could all be true, but they do not fully negate the idea of a soul. The idea of a soul can coexist with a strict scientific view of the neurology of the brain, because no one makes any claims that the brain IS the soul. The brain may very well hold everything that makes someone who they are but it doesn't disprove the possibility that something less solid is what manifests it.

Humans are aware of their own existence and contemplate it. They are, as previously stated, sapient. This is why it annoys me when someone says something along the lines of: "that person is religious and religion is stupid." Religion and philosophy are just manifestations of man's ability to question himself and the world around him. Religion is just guided philosophy. The problem with religion today is that a lot of people are religious because they are supposed to be, not because they are actually looking for answers. They are just jumping through the hoops and not exploring universal questions for universal truths as religions originally intended. However, people who say that religion is stupid are very ignorant and more often than not just trying to make a misguided statement to assist in cultivating an image.

The fact is, soul or not, people want to feel like they have free will and that they are special. But in the same vein, there's nothing that proves that we don't have free will. And there's nothing that proves that our sapience is JUST an evolutionary achievement that means nothing, no matter how much we desperately try and justify it. When we look at the world around us and understand our existence is something that deserves questioning, it is clearly different than just existing and taking it for granted like other animals who are also just biological machines.

The idea of a soul cannot be proved or disproved by science because it falls outside the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. Also, a soul can mean a whole range of things to a whole range of people, but the general consensus is that it is the sapient, immaterial part of a man or woman. Some people believe it goes somewhere after a physical death, whether to a resting place, a heaven, a hell, another person or living thing. Others may believe that the soul of a person lives on in others' memory, which is more abstract but still fits the definition of a soul. In short, you can prove how the brain works scientifically as much as you want, and it is very useful for many reasons to know how the mind works, but when you get into discussions of consciousness, sapience and super-material being, it is as stupid to say that science disproves any philosophy and religion as it is to say religion disproves any science.

doomer524 said:
The idea of a soul cannot be proved or disproved by science because it falls outside the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy.

If you are referring to the use of fiction in philosophy (which is practically inevitable in thought), yes, the soul can be a philosophical device with varied meanings, and not something found in science (the study of material phenomena).

But in the same vein, there's nothing that proves that we don't have free will.

Except that existence itself shows that all our actions are bounded by and determined by various intercepting factors. Decision is always relative and limited. Free will is political, and not concrete.

pilottobombadier said:

You do know that the "androids" in Blade Runner weren't actually robots, but artifically grown and genetically altered humans with short lifespans, right?

You do know that the film never specified any of that information right? Why don't you tell me where you established those facts? Replicants can be seen as either machine or man, or both.

The original novel makes mention of the biological components of the androids, but also alludes to the mechanical aspects commonly found in other material relating to robots.

And the movie keeps it purposely vague to keep the conflict of the movie centered on what is human.

It's funny that people generalize a "soul" as a ghostly thing that flies around without a body after the death of a body, even within Christianity, because in Christianity -- or at least all scriptural reference -- you don't GO to heaven in some kind of ethereal body. You die, you go in the ground, and you're left there until you're brought back up, fully restored, after the restoration of the kingdom of Heaven on Earth itself.

S'what it says, anyway.

It REALLY pisses me off when certain Catholics *coughcoughhispanics* go on about how their goddamn relatives are ANGELS watching them from UP ON A CLOUD. GAAAHAHHHHH. There isn't any basis. It's NOT "your religion" to believe that! I wouldn't have a problem with it if people would admit that that is not a Christian belief, but when I see Christians of any flavor running around completely getting their own religion wrong, it gives me a bit of a tick.

I'd say the common conception of an incorporeal soul came about with growng materialist criticisms from philosophers (and eventually science as we know it today) and with the establishment of written literature over the previous mostly oral transmission of knowledge. If you talk about bodily or material phenomena in regard to religious experience, that can be exposed consistently, but formless and supposedly nonperceptible things can be kept in the realm of conjecture much more easily. Most widely accepted religious works were written during a period when the written word was not as ubiquitous, and thus often have a much more material conception of religious matters than what's acceptable today.

Ultraviolet said:

so basically the life fairy sprinkles magic pixy dust on it and it's like "omg im alive now i kin feal it"

srsly thx 4 poastin

You expounded brilliantly on your points.

I merely believe sentience is not a material thing, I can't explain it for you. If you disagree, that's fine, but let's not be immature about it.

If you could put your brain into a robot body, would you?

Yes.

ZOMGGG but u woodn't b abl to pheel fings or haev sex0r-

YES.

I actually agree closely with Terra-jin.

Bank said:

You do know that the film never specified any of that information right? Why don't you tell me where you established those facts? Replicants can be seen as either machine or man, or both.

The original novel makes mention of the biological components of the androids, but also alludes to the mechanical aspects commonly found in other material relating to robots.

And the movie keeps it purposely vague to keep the conflict of the movie centered on what is human.

So the gene therapy discussion between Eldon Tyrell and Roy Baty didn't take place, then? ;) And of course, the guy that makes the eyes can't be forgotten either.

In the novel itself, they're very sophisticated androids. Iirc, it's noted that machine parts come out of Leopold's head when Deckard cannons him with his laser tube. Or was it his pistol? That I can't remember.

The movie follows the philosophy of the book about whether or not something manufactured can be "human" in that it is capable of hopes, dreams and aspirations.

Regarding an artificial self-awareness, in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, that's definitely something to take to heart. But in Bladerunner, it isn't because they're biologically and genetically engineered; there's no reference to cybernetics or androids, iirc.

So in short, the book would be more relevent as a springboard than the movie :P

And to bring the thread back on topic, I don't think we can do that now, but I highly doubt it's an impossibility. However, because we're still trying to get around artificial intelligence, I would say that artificial awareness could be a long ways off.

pilottobombadier said:

I would say that artificial awareness could be a long ways off.

If it's artificial would it really be awareness? Even if the being is artificial, wouldn't awareness have to come naturally? It wouldn't really be awareness if we programmed it that way.. or would it?

Again, awareness would not be programmed with a finite-state machine approach. There would be no variables for itchiness, hating level or hunger. There would be no events or functions associated. Think of it more like an enigmatically complex algorithm that processes a whole fuckload of data continually.

It would be artificial the way we make laboratory-grown diamonds. They're still the same chemical compound, the same orientation, and, ignoring technical inmaturity, the same value.

If intelligence can be manufactured, why not awareness?