/sci/ - Science & Math

>implying there is a soul
>implying all these emotions aren't given by the brain

>>3802784

>implying modern science knows the basis of emotion

inb4 chemicals and neurotransmitters

>>3802784
>Implying the brain isn't the soul

>>3802784
Implying anyone on sci has a functional brain.

>>3802790
>they don't know, therefor i am right

>objective soul

But souls are made of lots of tiny robots.

>>3802790
>implying it isn't
>implying they don't

What is happiness?

what about an oversoul?

>>3802831
enorphin
>endor
>little bear things is happiness

Hey! Hey! Listen!
When you turn your computer off, and then on again, is it the same computer or different?
Bonus points: if you change the processor to another but the same model?

>>3802778
Humans will never have souls

\thread

discrete computers that work with 1s and 0s can never be conscious, they are just philosophical zombies, simulations of consciousness, their life could be described as an equation on a piece of paper, sure it's a very large equation but that's still all that it is

If we build a computer as complex as a human and if he values his and other machines lives because he thinks they have souls, then computers will have souls

>>3802881
Implying human consciousness could never be reduced to an algorithm.

Humans are biological robots grown naturally.

>>3802881
Why? There are discreet chaotic systems.
Actually, functionally expressing continuous systems is arguably easier.

>>>3802881
humans that work off biology, chemistry and physics can never be conscious, they are just philosophical zombies, simulations of consciousness, their life could be described as an equation on a piece of paper, sure it's a very large equation but that's still all that it is

>>3802900

Life is very complex natural machines in general.

The difference between viruses and bacteria are the differences between rudimentary programming and artificial intelligence.

>>3802930
This.

Their hardware doesn't even work at the quantum level so they are just squishy calculators. Plug in the same values and you'll get the same results.

>>3802896
>Implying this algorithm isn't as simple as "stimulus->reaction->feedback", or some other inane shit like that, just complicated by the amount of nerves and brain cells.

>>3802895
they are entirely ruled by their programming
>>3802896
I know right.

>>3802881

Discrete systems can emulate analog, continuous systems. The opposite is not true.

>>3802959
> implying the universe isn't continuous on the scales of computers
> implying computers are impossible

oh wow

So if humans don't have souls either, then we're like...creating humans. because we're pretty much robots too... O.O

>>3802971

>implying atoms aren't discrete

>>3802959
I sure hope you just worded that wrong, because it looks like you're saying analog systems cannot be used to emulate discrete systems.

Not only can analog systems be used to emulate discrete systems, every discrete system in existence is a continuous analog system, which through immense effort can approximate a discrete system.

>>3802989

I did. Discrete systems can emulate analog systems but analog systems can only approximate discrete systems, I think it was.

>>3802778
No one will ever have a soul, if you narrowly define it and limit it.

>>3802998
I think it's the opposite.

>>3802981
a new technological form of life is not human

ITT: butthurt robots

>>3803002

The very definition is "nobody can have a soul except what god says so", and the Bible's all about that "only god can make shit from scratch" nonsense that will ultimately be invalid.

>>3802981
We are self proclaimed humans as a species, we are biological machines while robots are mechanical contraptions that are programmed by their respective owners to do certain actions.

So no, we are not creating humans, in the future we may be able to just that trough genetics, but for now no.

>>3802778
>>3802930
Humans are limited by there brain chemistry. The human brain is basically a 'fixed' physical object, in terms of composure and function.
There are only a finite set of permuations that can be achived with human brain matter. They are therfore fundementally limitied in there thinking (if you can call what humans do thinking) and learning potential.

The set of androids on the other hand, is not limited to some "set brain chemistry". There is no universally 'set' androdid brain.

There is no 'fixed' type of brain that all androids must have. The learning potentail and thinking ability of the set of androids is therefore much much much greater then that of humans.

Human thinking ability is to andriod thinking ability, as oranges are to all possible types of fruit.

>>3803017
You can define soul without using god.
Basically, soul is magical thingie that controls your body but cannot(yet?) be perceived.
Shit's retarded, but rarely people imagine themselves without one. Even self-proclaimed atheists have hard time dealing with this.

>>3803032

>>3803037
prove otherwise...
oh right, you can't.
fuck your speculations.

>>3803037
>Implying most athesits believe in a soul

You sir are a fucking rotarded. Have you been standing too close to a magnet recently?

>Women Robots will never have a soul
fixed

>>3803037
>Thinks atheist believe in a souls

LMFAO

>>3803062
Prove what? That I'm not actually supernatural something that controls this body in some unimaginable way?
I'd rather believe I have dragon in my garage.
Or that I have a garage.

>>3803069
>implying any woman has a soul

>>3803069
Agreed. Robot women are nothing more then a basic calculator with a vagina.

Only good for doing my taxes, making me dinner, and sucking my plug.

>>3803069
>Women will never have a soul because no inferior lifeforms do
fixed

>>3803069
Implying robots have gender.

1) They dont reproduce like animals, Why the fuck would then need gender?

2) If you wanna "fuck" a robot, that "looks like" a "girl" all you have to do is add a special "whore skin".

>>3803081
you can start small; prove what will or consciousness are.

>>3802881
>this indeed because humans aren't smart and organized enough to create REAL intelligent systems, you have to be much more intelligent than yourself so you can RECREATE yourself (mind algorithms, and unknown operating ways)
so you would create a rudimentary image of your past self after a lot of progressing ahead

>>3803128
why would you fuck a robot?

Why not just steal some celebrity DNA and clone that individual?

Cloning would do wonders to the prostitution industry

Customer: "You have a copy of X?"
House: "Yes"
Customer "how old is she?"

you know what's going to happen, don't you OP? they're be folks bitching & whining about synthetik gynoid rights and bullshit. pan-sentient defense leagues and all that. no way. give a synthetik and inch and they'll drag you a mile.

you know what's going to happen next, don't you OP? there will be folks bitching & whining about synthetik gynoid rights and bullshit. pan-sentient defense leagues and all that. no way. give a synthetik an inch and they'll drag you a mile.

>>3803135
>prove what something is
proves don't work this way.

>>3803209
>2233
>implying that lumps and wet mass of flesh and blood are more attractive than perfect shapes of artificial materials

>implying a soul isn't just a consciousness created by the chemical and cellular interactions in the brain.

>>3803915
niggers and clones, they're less than human

because soul doesn't exist dumbass

I start studying intro to Robotics when I get back to uni in a week. In the meantime, I've been reading all the textbooks. In particular,

Robot Brains; Circuits and Systems for Concious Machines - Pentti O. Haikonen

outlines numerous models for atrificial neural networks, including a dozen different neurons. Most of it's a systems approach, maybe tailored for electronical engineers, but still a fascinating read and goes into some thought about what conciousness should include, what qualia may be, etc.

One day they'll have secrets.

One day they'll have dreams.