Artificial intelligence and the soul OR Karma

[The Sum of Awe]

Poeticus brought up a thread regarding Zombies and the possibilities of karma based on their actions. Luis brought up robots and this made me think of artificial intelligence.

I feel one day we will create something so intelligent that it will functions very similar to a human. Such as have ideas of morals, consciousness, emotions(currently there are in fact robots with emotions). So my questions are this would said "being" have a soul? If so how? If you do not believe in a soul this question means little to you (I sowwy )

Would karma affect said "being"? if yes or no, why or why not?

Doesn't the soul develop of karma?

 

[von bek]

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (parampar&#257,
nor upon rumor (itikir&#257,
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiy&#257,
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no gar&#363
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

This is taken from the Kalama Sutta. I wish the discourses would be cited when quoted so others can look up what is being said in context.

As has been pointed out before, you are missing the context of the discourse. The Buddha gives this talk to a specific group after they ask a specific question. This is not a discourse advocating radical skepticism.

I've posted this before. I beg you to read Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary on the Kalama Sutta before posting something like this again. The Buddha is not saying what you think he is.

A Look at the Kalama Sutta

Nothing personal, we are still friends!

 

[allfoak]

What if there is no birth, no death, no reincarnation? Every thing eternal (and without duality)If one has prejudices, then it does not make sense.

It is all an allusion it is true.
But what you say, we must come to know and the way to know is through the bringing together of the two to make one.
Thus the paradox,
It is all an allusion and we are unable to experience it as an allusion unless we see it first as reality.

 

[idav]

Wow, now that is a question!

I don't think I can give your excellent question full justice in a forum post; but, I will try to give a short version that captures the essence of what I would like to say.

The main thing I would accept that a materialist would not is that mind is not a property of matter. Mind and matter are mutually dependent phenomena, neither stands alone as a First Cause. Unlike a materialist, I do believe that there are realms of existence where beings only possess mental bodies. I also believe in paranormal powers as the Buddha taught. These siddhis are developed by mental training. I also believe that mind can affect matter directly without a material agent facilitating the effect. For instance, I do believe it is possible for powerful yogis to create mental bodies or to alter matter at the molecular level.

Dependent origination teaches that in the chain of causation, volitional formations lead to consciousness, conditioned by consciousness, name-and-form arise. Conditioned by name-and-form, the six sense-bases arise. I believe this and its implication is that the body is produced by the mind. The reason this happens is because kamma generated in a previous lifetime conditions the material body that arises in this one. Of course, as I said matter and mind are mutually dependent, so some mental states and types of consciousness are in turn produced by body. It can go both ways, depending...

Materialism would turn this on its head, all mental processes would arise from the cause of a material body. Differences in individuals are not seen as the results of past kamma, but as reflections of different chemicals being fired off in the brain and different neurological connections.

One thing I want to make clear since I am disputing materialist claims is that I do not believe matter to be an illusion. It "exists" in the same manner as mind does.

Your describing a dualistic monism, similar to that proposed by Spinoza and goes more along the lines of panentheism. I know, your probably not theist.

The other way to look at it is as if the underlying substance is neutral, is neither mind or matter but can become both.

 

[von bek]

Your describing a dualistic monism, similar to that proposed by Spinoza and goes more along the lines of panentheism. I know, your probably not theist.

The other way to look at it is as if the underlying substance is neutral, is neither mind or matter but can become both.

I would not call myself a monist. I do not believe in a single underlying substance, for if there were, that substance would be a first cause, something I reject. The Buddha teaches that there is no discernible beginning to samsara.

In the Abhidhamma, four ultimate realities are set forth. Three of them, rupa, citta, and cetasika, are conditioned realities. The fourth ultimate reality, nibbana, is unconditioned. The unconditioned nibbana is not seen as the underlying cause of the universe within my tradition.

 

[idav]

I would not call myself a monist. I do not believe in a single underlying substance, for if there were, that substance would be a first cause, something I reject. The Buddha teaches that there is no discernible beginning to samsara.

Yes of course, what I am talking about is how the two, the dualism, come together as we see them as one. It's similar to other philosophies of mind I have seen.

In the Abhidhamma, four ultimate realities are set forth. Three of them, rupa, citta, and cetasika, are conditioned realities. The fourth ultimate reality, nibbana, is unconditioned. The unconditioned nibbana is not seen as the underlying cause of the universe within my tradition.

The nibbana portion, is that monistic? Why would the "ultimate" reality not also be the cause?

 

[von bek]

I would call myself a non-theist in that my religious practices are not concerned with deities. However, I do believe in the deva and will pray to them for assistance at times in my life. What I categorically reject is a First Cause god with a capital "G". An eternal, unchanging Overlord who monitors and guides the universe is untenable to me. Dependent origination explains how life arises, ceases, and is reborn without any need of an external being guiding the process. If karma is a natural law, no god is needed to oversee it. If a god is needed, then karma is redundant as god would simply override it at any time, thus negating the reality of causation. (As I see it, anyways.)

 

[von bek]

The nibbana portion, is that monistic? Why would the "ultimate" reality not also be the cause?

The only thing I can say about nibbana is that it is cessation. Beyond that, I would merely be speculating and not doing justice to your honest question.

And remember, in the Abhidhamma teachings, there are four ultimate realities. The three conditioned ones of matter, mind, and mental objects are what we have experience of in our conventional lives. These three are distinct yet mutually interdependent.

Remember, I am Theravadin. Mahayana Buddhists may very well answer you differently. I do not speak for them.

 

[idav]

Remember, I am Theravadin. Mahayana Buddhists may very well answer you differently. I do not speak for them.

That is part of why I ask. I appreciate it.

 

[allfoak]

It is all an allusion it is true.
But what you say, we must come to know and the way to know is through the bringing together of the two to make one.
Thus the paradox,
It is all an allusion and we are unable to experience it as an allusion unless we see it first as reality.

 

[von bek]

That is part of why I ask. I appreciate it.

Hope my words have provided a little help in understanding where I am coming from. Mahayana Buddhists do not place much emphasis, if any, on the Abhidhamma. Within Mahayana, two major philosophical schools have developed...

One is the Madyamaka: Madhyamaka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second is Yogacara: Yogacara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram kalidas ji

Poeticus brought up a thread regarding Zombies and the possibilities of karma based on their actions. Luis brought up robots and this made me think of artificial intelligence.

sowwy didnt read it , ...but ....

I feel one day we will create something so intelligent that it will functions very similar to a human. Such as have ideas of morals, consciousness, emotions(currently there are in fact robots with emotions). So my questions are this would said "being" have a soul? If so how? If you do not believe in a soul this question means little to you (I sowwy )

Would karma affect said "being"? if yes or no, why or why not?

appologies if someone has allready said this ....

well if this thing started to act independantly and had desires then its Karma would create a reaction , ...desire =reaction =rebirth , ....imparciality and desirelessness = no reaction = no rebirth ! ....so if they never cease to act upon inteligence , which is Buddhi then they are not traped in samsara , but as soon as desire creeps in one is traped in the cycle of cause and effect .



http://www.religiousforums.com//uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Buddha teaches that there is no discernible beginning to samsara.

IMHO, Buddha was not wrong. The first cause is a very chameleon-like dicey thing. It flits between existence and non-existence. Heard of virtual particles?
They originate and dissipate just for the fun of it.
Nibbana is understanding THIS, consequently, cessation of all questions. The quantumicity of it all.

 

[idav]

IMHO, Buddha was not wrong. The first cause is a very chameleon-like dicey thing. It flits between existence and non-existence. Heard of virtual particles?
They originate and dissipate just for the fun of it.
Nibbana is understanding THIS, consequently, cessation of all questions. The quantumicity of it all.

I like the way you put it here. When you get into the mechanics and how I am still mind blown.

 

[allfoak]

What if there is no birth, no death, no reincarnation?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3993306-post43.html

 

[Aupmanyav]

Right, the reality is behind the first reality.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

I think I come to this thread with quite a different perspective because of my faith.

Anyway, below are some thoughts on the matter. Any comments?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we demonstrate that the human race was not created by some kind of being (perhaps aliens) in the past, of which there is no longer any trace? Perhaps, we can say human beings appear to have free-will and it does not at all appear clear how this would be created other than by God.

How can we say that AI will never possess an immortal soul? For the same reason above for why human beings have to be created by God. Perhaps we likewise cannot create the necessary free-will.

How can we say that we are not merely simulations like how AI simulations might simulate free-will, yet we just don't know it? We know that we can see God so to speak (using the natural light of human reason to know He exists). We know or can believe that this capacity was intended by God to be present within us. We have the sense that free-will exists, that is, being able to choose between good & evil in some sense.

AI simulations perhaps are able to prove God's existence but not have free-will, or to prove God's existence but have simulated free-will. Either way, true free-will seems to be missing.

Any emergent consciousness from AI would seem to be neither here nor there although I have not thought about this in detail (& have not heard of any Catholic/Christian studies on this.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

What can we say of future? If consciousness could emerge out of neurons, it could also emerge out of whatever humans use to create AI. Free-will is just consideration of all options and choosing one out of them. AI will routinely do that otherwise it would not be AI.The other things mentioned by you could be considered if there was at least a grain of evidence for them. Just the so-called divine books do not suffice. Well, of course, we (and everything in the universe, living or non-living) are simulations - simulations of physical energy - because that makes up all matter. Talk of God/Gods/Goddesses if you have evidence to show.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

What can we say of future? If consciousness could emerge out of neurons, it could also emerge out of whatever humans use to create AI.

Does consciousness simply emerge out of neurons? I don't know. My faith is such that I believe God creates an immortal soul from the moment of conception for each human being (that is even without consciousness).

Free-will is just consideration of all options and choosing one out of them.

But in order for free-will to be free, there must be freedom. If your choice is based on deterministic behaviour then it would not be free as such.

AI will routinely do that otherwise it would not be AI.The other things mentioned by you could be considered if there was at least a grain of evidence for them. Just the so-called divine books do not suffice. Well, of course, we (and everything in the universe, living or non-living) are simulations - simulations of physical energy - because that makes up all matter. Talk of God/Gods/Goddesses if you have evidence to show.

I have tried to formulate a logical proof for the existence of God. In our interchange, in simply the formation of sentences, we use logic. Therefore, I believe, at least from this perspective, a logical proof for the existence of God should suffice (based on pure reason). Click here to see it.

I have tried to develop convincing arguments following this proof for the other things I have mentioned without reference to divine revelation (instead trying to use pure reason.) If you wish to discuss these other things further, I can release some of these arguments to you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does consciousness simply emerge out of neurons? I don't know. My faith is such that I believe God creates an immortal soul from the moment of conception for each human being (that is even without consciousness).

But in order for free-will to be free, there must be freedom. If your choice is based on deterministic behaviour then it would not be free as such.

If you wish to discuss these other things further, I can release some of these arguments to you.

You are welcome to your beliefs. In humans also, we go through all options and their possible results to arrive at a decision (and call it free-will). I do not think your formulas would help. What the theists/monotheists say has been trashed by atheists all over the world. What you say is not going to make a difference. At least I am a bit tired of the theists' arguments.