Defining Life

This article reminded me of one of Greg's - "When the Enterprise Got a Soul."  The news piece considers the advances of science and how we define what life is and when it gains rights.

Ray Kurzweil, a renowned futurist who advises people such as Bill Gates, believes that by 2029 a machine will pass a prime test of artificial intelligence, offering the same kind of answers as a human.

"The key issue as to whether or not a non-biological entity deserves rights really comes down to whether or not it's conscious," Kurzweil said. "Does it have feelings?"

This isn't just a Kurzweil concept.

"A monumental shift could occur if robots continue to be developed to the point where they can at some point reproduce, improve themselves or if they gain artificial intelligence," said a 2006 study commissioned by the British government's science office. That report compared the situation of robots to the emancipation of slaves.

Soulish behavior would be indicated by consciousness, feelings, self-awareness, ethical awareness.  But this idea leads to the question that Greg considers in his article:  What is the nature of a soul or consciousness?  Some modern theories are actually capitulations to physicalism, reducing consciousness to a mere physical property.  But can the unique qualities of consciousness be produced by a physical source that has nothing in common with those qualities?

Comments

[Douglas Towne II]

When are you guys just going to concenrate on What God has Commanded us to do, that is the Great Commission? We are not saved to sit, but SAVED to Serve Him.. Lets see you guys looking for ways God will bless your evangelismm efforts rather than discussing that tit for tat stuff????.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is an either or situation? Some time can be spent in discussion of these topics here and some time spent in reaching out to those around us in personal evangelism. Wouldn't you agree that this is a reasonable possibility...Douglas?

[Sage S]

"When are you guys just going to concenrate on What God has Commanded us to do, that is the Great Commission?"

Douglas,
The Bible contains many commandments, not just one. In 2 Cor 10:4-6 Paul's ministry entailed the destruction of arguments. You yourself are making an apologetic for evangelism, meaning (I presume) preaching Christ as the resurrected Savior.
Many of the lost hold strange ethical views about things like artificial intelligence. If we can cause them to see these ideas as unfounded or inconsistent, or even as suspicious, they might be more willing to consider more "religious" claims.

[Sage S]

By the way, discussing the particulars of complex subjects (law, genetics, economics, foreign policy, etc.) can be evangelistic. All these areas hold implications for our truth claims about 1) the Bible; 2) the Creator; and 3) human beings as fallen creatures in God's image. So defending the truth in, say, the field of artificial intelligence can be a defense of Christianity as it relates to that particular issue.

[Louis Kuhelj]

I wonder if this could be considered something like an issue of gifts, not everyone has the kind of gift that Billy Graham has in delivering the gospel. However, whatever gift, it is all for the building up of the body of Christ and therefore in no way lessens its importance.

[Sage S]

Louis,

I take it you mean Douglas' emphasis on the Great Commission as though apologetics is not consistent with that command.

I agree that different members of the Body are given different gifts - "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you,' nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.'" (1 Cor 12:21)

"The key issue as to whether or not a non-biological entity deserves rights really comes down to whether or not it's conscious," Kurzweil said. "Does it have feelings?"

I think what he means is "self-conscious," awareness of itself as distinct from its environment. However, self-consciousness (awareness of itself) and meta-cognition (awareness that it is aware of itself) seem to presuppose the existence of a self that can know itself, a self deserving of rights.

If he were not positing the existence of a self or a soul, why would Kurzweil hinge rights on the faculty of consciousness? How could we conclusively demonstrate that this was actual consciousness, and not simply the end result of complex algorithms? Could there ever be a way of determining the difference? And, if we could establish actual self-recognition, would that have any meaning in terms of "individual rights?" Wouldn't we simply have a fantastically complex machine - a marvellous moving computer?

[Louis Kuhelj]

Ahhh...to be human or not to be human, that is the question. I am not convinced that we are going about this question the right way. We are looking at characteristics that can be used as milestones on the road to identification of what a human being is. However, these milestones do not make us human beings. So the real question here is : "Are we looking at the wrong thing for the answer of what actually entitles us to the kind of rights human beings have been granted?"
Does a car have the right to say it is a car unless its designer and builder grant that right or can it choose to say that it is a bicycle? More importantly, will that make it a bicycle?

When the designer states that from the womb to the time of death, we are human beings(Judg 13:7), it is clear that self awareness or if you wish to call it self consciousness does not exist throughout all those stages of development and yet, God the designer clearly tells us we are human beings regardless of what identifying markers are present or not. Should the car argue with the designer about what it actually is based on what it has built in or not? I think there is no profit in this.