h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well in that case, if the existence of a soul is based on the beliefs of an individual person, then an argument based on an assumption in this respect (whether affirmitive or negative) is going to be invalid.

Let's put this on a larger scale...
Let's say, human beings include clones. Who are the parents? Who is responsible for the doings of the clone? Up till now, parents are liable if their little one smashes in a window, or steals something. What happens when a clone does things like that?
Every human being has rights and obligations. This doesn't really change if the origin is altered: a human is a human, wether conceived in the traditional way, or in a test tube, with dna extracted from a different person.
To illustrate this, if a computer were to be able to simulate life and a personality, upto a point of being as complex and indistinguishable (don't know if this is a word) from a human mind, should we make the distinguishment because of it being an 'it' and n ot a 'he' or 'she'?
Can human rights become applicable to artificial life forms? I would think so. If there is no real difference between two things, other than it being not bilogical but made by humans, we should recognize it as such. I would therefore go a step further, even a computer could be seen as having a soul, if it is complex enough.
Better still, we could learn what a soul is, if we do research in this field. We have the chance to define what values we have held for the past thousands of years, and decide wether or not we dod good by believing in them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F19585
click on the link above
Go to ASK h2g2 and start a new convo/the same topic. That is where people genearlly
ask questions.

clones are just like us "humans" but they come into this world in a different way i.e through cloning . Therefore they have a relative or twin with identical genes. They function in the same way as us "humans" and have all the same bits providing they have not been mucked about with !! So I feel that they will definetly have a soul. Howver I do find the whole issue rather scary and disturbing !
ruth

couldn't agree more Ruth . . . I think it's best we don't delve into things which we don't understand . . .mind you,perhaps if we new for sure if 'souls' existed the human race might treat it's fellow members better than they do now . . .

Spud

Ther is no such thing as soul. But you friend wrpng about democrasy.
Soul is just our imagination. It's only moral.

Hmm interesting question.
I'm an AI student and was debating whether an AI could be considered to have a soul and/or any 'human' rights?
I have always thought of the soul as just another 'x' factor which we will discover and quantify in time (spot the aetheist*)
I think its only a matter of time before we can create a soul and add it to our+ clone or AI. I think of that as a wonderous thing, but a lot of people I put it to consider it a scary concept.
Your thoughts...

* - I mean that in the truest sense - I do not consider myself agnostic
+ - I realised after I typed it that this implies ownership, I left it in just to point out people think of these things in that fashion. Is that right?

If you define ownerships as in *my* clone, a clone made from my DNA, I would think that ownership does not apply. If the clone is grown ito a fully functional human being, then it must follow that the clone becomes an individual. Human rights would apply. No one is subject to ownership, as slavery is not possible in our present day society.
This will not be automatically be the same for AI's. An AI is not recognizable as a living being. Not straightforward anyway. An AI (as far as my knowledge goes) resides in a computer. The computer is owned by the entity that bought it, and subsequently placed the AI on it. This is in itself not that big a deal. Someone living in my house is still not my property.
What is a big deal, is that in creating the AI, a lot of programming is involved. The code is the property of the person who wrote it, or the company that person works for. What happens if the code evolves into an AI? Does the writer of the code now own the AI?
This is a tough cookie, and although I am a lawyer, I don't think I have the authority to claim one way or the other on this. Refreshing isn't it, a lawyer not making himself into an expert?

I can only assume your lying about the lawyer thing. You didn't claim to know everything and were being far too nice. Unless you read my first journal entry and are angling for a case...
There is a lot of chemisty invloved in creating human DNA. To do so is a time-intensice and financially-intensive task. So should a clone belong to whoemever foots the bill for its creation? How is the evolution of a few cells into a person any different from the evolution from some self modifying code into an AI? At what point does the clone aquire these human rights if it must devlop as an individual in order to claim them?
My personal belief is that once something is aware of its own being it has rights. Regardless of who made the 'body' it happens to reside in.

The trick would be, that the easier it is to recognize something as sentient, the easier it is for it to get fundamental rights. Human rights are a nice way to name these rights, but would limit these rights to humans. Detail, I know, but essential. Precedents are set ebfore you know it, and it would be a shame to exclude species just because of carelessness.
Being aware of one's own being would be too limited in some cases and too loose in others. A dog can be aware of its own being, but to grant it something close to human rights, would miss the mark a bit. Animal rights, sure, but that's a totally different thing.
A baby for instance, does have inalienable rights. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a baby is not very much aware of its surroundings, let alone its own existence. What's the difference? Potential? Could be, the inalienable rights are there in the case of a baby, but it hasn't got the ability to effect them yet. That will come in time. Take the right to express opinions, the freedom of speech. A baby cannot speak yet, but we know, one day it will. It already has the right now.
A dog is much more aware of itself, but its potential is rather limited. It has some rights, the right to live, the right of good treatment, but others are not applicable.
Don't know yet where I am going to end up with this yet, but let's call it a 'work in progress'...

Oh god no not potential.
If thats the case then we cannot do anything.
Until we get to the end of testing a new system it has the potential to be an AI.
That means its probably wrong for us to keep it in a lab and prod it (electronically) to see if it is intelligence.
So we should not test anything?

But your point is a good one. I would question whether a dog has a sense of 'self' this is quite a complex thing which to my mind means more than just feeling and reacting to the environment. Did I talk about adaptability as a measure of intelligence on this forum or was that another one? I'll check before I launch into a massive rant...

Of course if we belive the behaviourists the dog has intelligence and is only quantifyably different from us...

Have you thought about what a life a cloned child would have? I wouldn't subject any human (or animal) to the kind of constant observation, abnormal life they would lead. You talk of human rights, but a cloned child wouldn't be given the freedom to live.

Also, we humans do have a tendency to abuse things don't we? Taking metal out the ground, makes a lovely chair, a gorgeous new car, oh, and a gun that can blow a mans head off at 50 feet. Ok, not strictly accurate, but you see what I mean. What starts off as curiosity develops into misuse. I know its all very star wars, but if its successful, how long till its used in warfare or terrorism? How long can anything last on earth before misuse occurs?

Kirp the cynical

Not everything develops into misuse.

We developed modern medicine and chemical weapons using the same principles - but which has been used more often?

Modern Medicine - Cosmetic surgery, in cases where its purely for personal gain (liposuction', rather than after a severe accident (skin grafts etc). People pay obcene amounts of money for a 'tummy tuck', rather than changing lifestyle. Body size is between 50 and 90 percent genetical. And to erradicate wrinkles - hello, everyone gets them. Accept it.


Sorry, highly charged response. Don't get me started on chemical weapons - Its just the whole 'Oh, look what happens when we split this helium atom' 'Thats interesting, how many people can we blow up with THAT!' Ok, not very scientificly accurate I know, but still! Did you know that on BMWs, when they first came out, they could be detected within ten metres by the satellite navigation, as in they could find you to within 10 metres, but they had to make the error margin bigger on request of the M of D, to prevent assasination attempts or, if you'll excuse the over use of the word 'MISUSE'.

Rant over...

(sorry)

Heres a tangent for ya:

How much use of cosmetics is acceptable?

You seem to be a tad against cosmetic surgery. Do you object to other cosmetics such as bathing and cutting your hair (Almost purely cosmetic activities)

Thanks for the tangent (I love opportunities to chat like this!)

All animals wash - its a natural part of being. Cutting hair, I suppose it could be constrewed as cosmetic surgery, but all animals moult, and have ways of controlling their hair growth. However, as far as I am aware, there aren't any african elephants queuing up to pay extortionate amounts for a facelift. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, not a lot can go wrong, medically, with a haircut. Extensions, yes, colouring, yes, but a haircut? There are a fair number of species, besides us, in the animal kingdom who are engaged in such 'cosmetic activities', I think its humans capacity to take everything that other animals take for granted to another level, exaggerate it, if you will, that makes us so dangerous (though you may not agree with that word use).

As another aside, did anyone see walking with cavemen? I love the reason why we walk on two legs! Fantastic!

Hmm I always feel that the "is it done in the animal kingdom" argument is moot.
For all X Either
(1) Animals do not partake in X
(2) There is an evolutionary advantage to X
As humans have sidestepped evolution (Technology has almost eliminated natural selection in terms of surviving predators etc. and sexual selection does not apply because we change our opinions on what constitutes desirable so rapidly) there is no reason for us to partake in X

e.g. Malting of hair prevents overheating and allows the animal to see. Most people so not wait until their hair makes their head too hot or they are unable to see in order to get a haircut. And I do not see animals queing up to pay to have their hair cut either

Anything we do we choose to do. As a psychology student and as a person I always wonder why people are willing to devote such a large proportion of their time to meaningless ritual, by which I don't just mean cosmetics but all the little things people so for no obvious benefit...wind chimes for example and hats - what is the point of the hat...

I can feel a rant gaining momentum I best stop while Im ahead.

And in a doomed attempt to get back on topic: how do you define the soul in operationalisable terms?

Clearly, individuality is not the criterium. Consciousness isn't either.
Perhaps it is the ablity to define our own future. Making decisions that are not only of use in the very near future (do I make a run for it and grab that gazelle, just to have a dinner) but decisions that have almost no impact in the world, but on our person. Exactly the things about cosmetics. I want to be unique. I am, on a dna- kind of level, but that takes too long, and is of no use in a bar, while trying to engage in a conversation.
The same appearance can be of more use. People who mingle socially, usually wear the same kind of clothes, have the same kind of hairstyle.
Could that be an expression of the soul, so to speak? Is the need to express oneself a criterium?
Comments please

The ability to define our own future? I'm going to very carefully restrain myself from starting *that* debate
Again we have the babee problem...can a newborn define is future any more than most cats (I like cats), and if not should it be denied human rights?
I really do hope your wrong. Otherwise I associate with people who cut their hair only when they can no longer see, never style it and walk about the place in comnfortable clothes with dark colours to hide the stains. I choose to belive I select my friends based on more than that.

There has never been a single reputable scientific study which was able to provide any convincing evidence for the existence of a soul. And until someone can, I'm temporarily withdrawing from this argument.