does anyone out there half convincing evidence that only a creature with a soul can create original art?

Question

I want to show that the only difference between humans and ultra-advanced humanoid robots with synthetic flesh would be the method of art production. While the humanoids would be able to produce art, only humans are able to produce original art. And since art is in itself the self-expression of the soul, I would use this to prove that the only difference between and the bots is that we have souls, and I will put this argument forth: Embrace art or you might as well be a soulless robot doing exactly the same functions as a human.

by original I mean not pre-progammed or taken from previous art styles

NO, by art I mean any form of self-expression, I should've said liberal arts. Clothes, music, singing, the list goes own, so long as its you

A robot would only be a mimicre of the bahaviour of a human but it could never be human because of our lack of capacity to create a human robot. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying WE can't do it because when we try to look into ourselves and write binary code for what we see, what we see is not what is supposed to be there. Our minds are like quantumn uncertainty: we can never know what we really are thinking when we think about what we are thinking because we are aware that we are looking into ourselves and therefore we don't know how our minds function when we are not looking in. No shrink could tell you what you are thinking even if they hypnotized you, you would have to tell them under hypnosis, and again, how do we know if our brain isn't aware in some way of the introspection.

I do not attempt to define soul, I just can say that it can not be created by mechanical means, it is intrinsic

chack out astrogoodwin's response

Argument: as robots are able to do more and more of what humans can do, and as they become more life-like, one day the definition of what it means to be human can be lost. On the other hand, as we medically and mechanically modify ourselves (post-humanism) we are redefining ourselves as a race, or are we? What is is that makes us human? Will there be one day when we are something other than human? Will there be a day when a robot can be declared human (as in the movie: Bicentinial Man)? Or is there something that humans have and robots can never have. Robots simply mimic behavior (input-output) but no matter how much we research how our brains work, can we ever know what goes on inside the box where Shrodeinger's cat lay (I'm using uncertainty analogy here). What do you think?

Answer 1

All evidence come from our senses. Our senses in the material realm are easier to to use and a lot clearer. The spiritual intuitive senses are less clear and more subtle. Art tend to come from spiritual sources, so it is very hard to explain, in the most clear language where it comes from. One may feel one has a soul with a high degree of confidence, but to prove it to someone else would be difficult.

Answer 2

Your argument is circular. You beg the question when you assume that humans have souls in order to prove that the difference between a human and a robot is that humans have souls.


Another explanation (a more likely one) would be that humans have more complex computers in our heads than robots have.


Also note that you're not bothering to define the key term in your argument, the word 'creative.' Are you defining it to be, essentially, whatever art humans create?


Personally, I think we all *are* soulless robots, but that doesn't make us less human.

Answer 3

Then please explain to me the numerous neural network studies out there where unintelligent neural networks created not only original, but GOOD art.

Do these neural networks have souls then?

---------------

You are operating on an unfounded asumption -- that there is a soul to begin with, or something that separates us from being machines.

Please prove this first.

--------

You are wrong. Robots do not "only" mimic observed behavior. Numerous programs and robots have produced novel, never-before experienced or observed behaviors.

Answer 4

I think the argument here would be "what is art?" I have seen paintings done by monkeys and elephants. There are nice and colorful. But are they 'art'? I think my 5 yr child's fingerpainting is art but a lady I know says it isn't because he isn't at the age of knowing what "real art" is. We go back and forth with this.

I personally think art is in the eye of the beholder.

Answer 5

hello,

Yup just our loving God is able to give life in general, of course humans have obstinated themselves in trying to do the same as God.

With Dolly the sheep and else anomalies,
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7."

Greetings
Grace be with you
http://www.srac.de

Answer 6

That is not proof of a soul.
That is proof of a complex brain, capable of logic, but still mostly controlled by base emotions.

Answer 7

It depends entirely on what you mean by "soul". It's a very ambiguous word, really. I just use it for convenience, except it's not really all that convenient.

Answer 8

OK, so you've made the claim, but where's your argument? Where's your evidence?

Answer 9

wow that sucks, i can't draw for the life of me =(
does that mean im less than human? pooey. =(