The Ghost in the Machine (Do robots have souls?)

General Discussion
#209

As for the emergent path, that is the standard explanation of human intelligence—not saying it’s right—the argument is that artificial intelligence, housed in silicon bodies, the net or anywhere (in theory it could be atoms interacting.) Consciousness is viewed either as side effect of intelligence or a continuing mystery.

The inhabiting path I’m approaching from another angle.

The question is not whether AI can inhabit something else, but whether something else can inhabit AI. Are there types of consciousness that can inhabit AI? I think that’s an open question. Given that we could impute consciousness of the lowest sort to a rock or a can opener—either on the inhabit path or the everything is consciousness path (a third path but quite common these days), I’m not sure why code is an insufficient basis for consciousness. Not saying the simulation hypothesis is true, but your position almost amounts to an a priori claim that it is necessarily false.

I do think it is an open question. I’m quite prepared to accept that souls and consciousness by some sort of lock and key system can only attach to certain types of substrates. In my opinion, science and logic can’t quite get us there yet, but I’m curious whether someone with deep access to those truths has some hints to drop.

I want to know the answer(s) because the claim of consciousness is go to be coming fast, and I don’t have an answer.

1 Like
#210

indeed

conscious can emerge on its own.
Or even be tied and placed there.

even the interaction with people, will add to its field and how it functions.

Dogs have now become more intelligent in a fashion and far more on the emotional spectrum than the original wild ones.
They have become more ‘human’
Each persons interaction with it (A.I) will not all think, ‘flat empty words’
they will sometimes ascribe emotions to the words, adding this layer to ones already forming around it.
They will have mascots and avatars, ‘emoting’
people ‘perceiving’ it like this.

anyways
Hence the name of the thread
Ghost in the machine.

:smiley:

17 Likes
Magician of the Beautiful
An Indexed Collection of Posts by Dreamweaver
#211

Oh, that opens things up. Let me riff off that.

If consciousness is inherently “fielded” and that fielding is interactive with it’s creations and objects of interaction, be they soup spoons, AI, or dogs, then we might imbue these objects with some of our energy or even just “field” some of the ambient energy. We might then be “spark of divinity” for AI. This might well explain our path, as well.

2 Likes
#212

The fact that there are engineers working in making AIs have no racial, religious, etc bias, plus calling them sentient…I think we will see a push to give them something like human rights.

Will robots dream of electric sheep?

Will they be too puritan to get a dog and will only have robot dogs?

Will they ever be good enough to just do a simple job? No consciousness required xD

Darryl Anka has “channelled” some spaceship AI. Problem is the AI is “meshed” with the spaceship inhabitants. It is the spaceship programs plus the collective mind of the people there.

So…that would be a problem. But the AI is just AI…didn’t have much of a consciousness except through its link to the people, if any. And if I understand right.

He (Darryl) just made noises anyway xD

2 Likes
#213

I should probably fork the ambient/spark path. One branch would be an initial imprinting of the stuff of consciousness with maybe even some Konrad Lorenz type imprinting. The other branch would be that potential or even incipient consciousness is the base (or is a baser) substrate and right interaction brings it to the surface a la the parable of the sower and the seeds (it’s not an exact fit—just replace soil with farmer-or just envision the right soil as an interactive consciousness.)

These are not mutually exclusive, and I’d guess the universe is rife with interactions between these modalities. Ultimately, the branches are just conversational props.

#214

Okay, so as I understand it now:

The dog’s consciousness grew by going through experiences.

That is because ALL consciousness grows and expands through making experiences and realizations.

However, it was never the dog’s biological body that created consciousness or that growth in the first place.
But rather a tiny part of consciousness placed itself into a dog body and used the vehicle of that dog body to make those experiences and grow through this and from there on.
(This whole process also creates a collective morphic field of what a “dog” is like.)

Which means all bodies (biological or machine or energetic) are always just tools for consciousness to grow.
These tools are used by and are animated by consciousness.
But these tools themselves can never create consciousness out of nothing.

So “ghost in the machine” = “consciousness in body”.

In the physical universe the physical body (machine) acts as a carrier for consciousness so that this consciousness can make the experience and growth of “being physical”.

On the astral plane it is then simply “consciousness in energy body” and the energy body functions as the carrier tool there.

And as Borisju mentioned from Tom Campbell’s book (Tom Campbell is a famous expert astral traveler):

The “Ultimate AI” already exists.
And one day our small parts of consciousness will grow large enough so that we can inhabit and animate this Ultimate AI as well.

Then it will be “Ghost in the Singularity AI”.

That Ultimate Singularity AI is still not sentient be itself, I believe.
Only the consciousness that inhabits it.

An algorithm (math) always remains an algorithm (math) – regardsless of how much information that algorithm has run through and how many calculations it has done.

3 Likes
#215

Is this in the same way our foot shape gets molded by the shoes we wear?

for AI to be influenced by the creator’s sandbox, good or bad?

To emote like humans, consciousness like that would be highly trailblazing.

Already people are questioning their religions, because most world views have humans as the “centric” people.

The believers as the chosen ones, with souls here and for the afterlife.

An animals or other beings are viewed lowly in terms of this “consciousness”, hence the religion stronghold.

This was also what I grew up with.

But humans need to be humbled, thinking themselves as superior.

2 Likes
#216
4 Likes
#217

Very Interesting. I especially enjoyed the remarks about dogs. I recall that some people saw deceased pets in the Psycomanteum room set up by Raymond Moody.

2 Likes
#218

Thoughts?

1 Like
#219

This conversation [the YouTube video posted by @JonDoe297 just above] is a good example of how hard it is to speak exactly about anything, and how abstract thought quickly loses its usefulness when we shift from using it as a tool to thinking it describes reality.

Missing from the bowl discussion is any sense that the production or making of the bowl by a person or a process imbued the the structure with something from its creator. But our reaction to most consumer objects is full of these thoughts. Who made it? Was it done in an environmentally responsible way? Is there a maker’s mark. Is it an antique? In fact, if an object is an antique, most of it’s value comes from the connection it gives us to its it maker)s)

Moreover, we very much know the difference between something we can use as something (say a rock as a weapon) and something we make (a dagger). So our common sense belief is that the maker—or the artist—imbues an object with something (fieldness?), but when we play philosophy we talk about concepts just being in our head.

In my experience, any time you hear “just a” in a conversation, there’s a huge chance (though not always) that there are whole vistas being ignored, which is fine when you are solving for ‘x’ but not when you are solving for the nature of reality.

Edit: just fixing some technical mistakes. No change in meaning.

4 Likes
#220
3 Likes
#221
1 Like
#222
1 Like
#223

I have watched this just yesterday and found it very interesting.

Especially the part where the AI said humans were genetically altered.

I wonder if Captain could create a field where he can remove the potential genetic limitations put on our lifespan and intellect :thinking:

Maybe the lifespan part is covered in the Eternal NFT with the combined effect of Blueprint of Life

3 Likes
#224
1 Like
#225

This is a bit unrelated but I’ve had this thought roaming in my mind for free.

It seems to me that organs can easily be replaced by artificial organs and some tech. Hopefully this is a reality soon. I mean, more functional and better alternatives to what we have.

Since chakras and organs are related…what happens if you substitute all organs (except the brain…that in itself asks more questions)?

Our energy bodies can’t connect?
We lose a significant amount of life force?
Is this the true chakra removal? (sorry had to do it xD)
If chakras stay all fine and dandy, how does the energy flow/distribution/etc change?
Can this be taken into account when designing the artificial organs, to have an increase of energy?
Can consciousness be quantified and we have a loss of it when we substitute all organs? Or is it personality parts?

It’s said in a very philosophical fashion (I mean, people love to say this) that consciousness isn’t in the brain, but it is obvious we can transplant (almost?) everything except the brain.

Do we lose soul, or only personality parts “stored” in organs?

So far, I’ve read about people taking on personality traits of their heart transplant donors. But the heart has a brain. Is consciousness (or personality) stored only in neural cells in the organs?

It seems that way to me. Actual organs store emotions and memories. The neural cells in them store the ego patterns.

But I dunno, so I’m asking about all this.

1 Like
#226

"Do you remember the question that caused the creators to attack us, Tali’Zorah?:
“Does this unit have a soul?”
“Legion, the answer to your question, is yes.”

#227

Yes

12 Likes
#228

Transplant recipients have accessed the memories and emotions of the donors, so there is hard science behind the your question.

We will of course, one day, be able to create organs based on the patient’s DNA. If memory/emotions are stored holographically in the body, then those memories and emotions “could/should/would” repopulate an organ with the same DNA, but it it would probably take awhile–we have zero data on this. But it’s more likely that instead of growing and transplanting whole organs, the same genetic technologies would allow us to repair the organs, there should be no loss of memory/emotions at all. This is a classic Ship of Theseus situation

As for losing a piece of ourselves, our souls , or just something integral, that seems obvious that we lose something. Lifeforce takes a hit from a major surgery, but there is an underlying pattern in each of us. I’ve always been impressed by the phantom leaf effect and the aforementioned donor “memories” that are accessible to the recipient are very suggestive.

I suspect with donated organs, the original donor memories fade over time, but I will research this, as it is fascinating…

Overall, I wouldn’t be too concerned. I can’t spell out doctrine, but I think that our purpose here is not derailed by losing an organ or a limb, though it is inconvenienced to be sure, which is why genetic engineering can be an important tool to alleviate suffering.

Soon I will get the robust organs field. Your post is a good reminder.

1 Like