What if we are just very highly advanced machines?

Question

With the advances in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and nano-technology it is not that wild of a conjecture to imagine a time when we will have a technology capable of self realization on a level equal to if not surpassing our own ability. Self realization is the prime factor present in sentient beings. If our own technology is able to achieve this one day, will we believe that the technology itself has somehow acquired a soul? Or will it confirm that a very well built machine can be so good at what it does that It can even convince ITSELF that it is more than a machine. What if all life is merely working proof of this? Granted thousands of Religions and years of history would point towards the possession of a soul as the deciding factor for sentience, but this is backed solely by belief. If we could make a machine that believed it had a soul then what is the possibility that we ourselves are very well built machines?

It is proven through experimentation that it is possible to remove body parts from one creature and connect them to another. In some very 'extreme' and inhuman experiments they have even severed heads of animals and kept them alive while attached to artificial machines (albeit for just a few hours, but this is still relevant). They have even performed head transplants on monkeys. The ability for interchange of working parts, though very primitive suggests a very 'machine-like' nature to life itself. What if one hemisphere of an animals brain was to be replaced with the corresponding hemisphere from its siblings brain successfully. Would the personality traits of both begin to manifest itself? Or would the 'soul' simply make use of both hemispheres as it normally would maintaining its original traits.

In regards to evolution. Lets not cloud this question more than it already is. It is possible that the ability to adapt genetically is core to the central 'technology' of life itself and yes of course all life hence would be machines. But what we are taking about here is Entropy. The universe as we know it has been moving from a state of high order/low entropy to a state of high energy/low order gradually over time. Yet living organisms seem to have the ability to maintain a state of high order throughout the duration of their lives as oppose to flying apart like everything else in the universe dancing about in brownwinian motion. (granted living organisms consume a lot of highly ordered food products and convert them to states of disorder in order to survive) but the coherence of a living organisms structure is definitely an oddity in and of itself.

Let me go on record to say that I do not want this theory to turn out to be true. If it did it would mean that when we die our programs, end. If we are simply the macroscopic result of trillions and trillions of molecules caught up in some sort of balancing act for delaying an inevitable break down in favor of entropy and our own consciousness is just one of many uncanny side-effects of this balancing act then what is there to say of an afterlife? Quantum physics and string theory are pointing strongly towards the existence of parallel worlds. the LHC next year will confirm or deny this path of thinking. The soul and mind being separate from the body opens a wealth of possibilities. It offers hope. Perhaps this is why historically this is the model that civilizations have held on to. But it is possible that all of this is wishful thinking and the reality is far more mundane.

Answer 1

Yes, we are inteligently & highly designed automatic machines

Answer 2

Depeding on your defintion of an "Highly Advanced Machine", I guess you could argue that we are one. As far as science being able to produce machines with the capacity of self-relization, I will say it seems possible. However just because it "Seems" possible that does not mean it is probable or even practicable. Perhaps we will never reach that compacity in technology? For the sake of arguement lets Assume we do. Now if we did create such machines - are we nothing more than machines ourselves?
I would say NO. Even though these machines would be able to feel the sensations of self realization there is one key difference between Us and Them.
We humans are functional living organims. Machines are not. What seperates man from machine is not the ability of self relization or intelligence. Perhaps one day machines will surpass man in conciousness and in intelligence - However, this does not change the fact that we are living organisms and Machines are not. Take our freind Mr. Computer as an example. A computer closely resembles human intelligence when it comes to performing and executing tasks. The computer uses Boolean Logic gates which is somewhat similar to the way the nuerons in our brain fire to perform an action. But let me ask you this. Are humans beings more closely related to Bacteria or computers? The answer is Bacteria because what the things in question are capable of doing is irrelavent. Self realization and intelligence is irrelavant. We like bacteria are functional living organisms computers are not living nor are they organims. Now if you want to talk about
Bio-Technology I.E. The creation of DNA computers or DNA machines then my friend you`ve got one hell of an arguement. Because not only could one argue that these self realizations machines are concious or even intelligent one could argue these machines are ALIVE. As far as human beings possesing a Soul - I think this is non-sencial propostion that cannot be taken serioulsy. We have no evidence of an Eternal Mind, therefore we cannot say for sure that we have a soul.
Excellent question btw keep an eye out for Nanotechnology. The Nano age will make the Computer age look like peanuts.

Answer 3

What do you mean by "soul" - are you just equating sentience with having a soul? OR is sentience PART of having a soul? I guess what we need to figure out here is what exactly the human mind is composed of - if we could arrange atoms any way we like - could we copy someone's brain? Is the mind more than the arrangement of atoms? I don't know. What I do think is that a mind cannot exist outside of perception: the mind is a set of experiences and the interaction of those experiences based on perception. So, something (like a machine) that is incapable of experiencing touch, sight, taste, smell, sound, etc would be incapable of sentience. Likewise, a mind cannot be born outside of a body (or whatever you want to call the sensing thing that gives experience to the mind). That isn't to say that a machine would be incapable of experience, it could have sensors and so on. So I don't know. I guess my question for you is - do you think humans are the only things with sentience?
Also -- believing you have a soul and actually having one are two very different things. I think the word soul is what trips us philosophers up a lot. Is the question "do I have a soul?" even a good one? Is that like asking "what would a snake with legs be like?". We need to define the soul, define what separates a sentient mind from a non-sentient mind, and one last thing: what will soul-filled machines mean for ethics?

Answer 4

Maybe we are the cast-off experiments of an advanced and distant civilization who were horrified to have created a machine with a soul?

We are, of course, complex organic machines with thousands upon thousands of interdependent parts and processes. This does not mean we have been built, as that implies a plan and intention. We exist. C'est tout.

Because we humans have the ability to extrapolate morality from an understanding of good and bad (what benefits or hinders our own survival), we believe we have a soul. If we were able to create machines that believed they had souls, then this hubris that allows us to apply reason to survival would simply allow us to believe something new -- we are gods with the power to impart sentience.

And really, this lack of self-doubt has brought us pretty far, depending on your moral perspective ;-)

Answer 5

There is nothing unreasonable in defining 'Life' as a machine capable of replication itself.

The soul is the part of the mind that exists independent of the brain. Cute concept, but about as logical as a programing running independent of the computer.

Artificial consciousness is tricky, but more or less inevitable.
A good measure of computer consciousness is not "When it has a soul" but when it starts believing it has one.

Answer 6

Well, I think the proof that we're not machines is that we evolved (bear with me here), and have proof (again, bear with me) of evolution. If we're machines, then everything living thing around us has to be a machine as well, because we have evidence of their evolution too, unless our designers were just all-knowing and decided that they'd make everything a machine to make it seem like we're not machines... in which case it doesn't matter if we're machines or not, 'cause everything else is, so there's no difference between a machine and a living being.

And if we're machines and everything else alive is a machine, then it's reasonable to assume that our designers and creators are machines as well, and so on, like the infinite clockwork of the universe, creating and destroying.

It's really just pointless.

And technically we are machines, just not metal ones with gears and lasers. Organic machinery is the same thing as metal machinery, isn't it? It serves the same purpose.

Answer 7

Of course we are. Now consider a gedankenexperiment: consider how you could tell whether these words are coming from a cleverly programmed computer, or from a human being. I could claim to be human, but I lie -- a lot.

Answer 8

an interesting theory.

Have you been watching one of "The Matrix" movies, perhaps?

Answer 9

WOW....Could be.