The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:Salus Maior wrote:Well, I guess I'm a scorning Westerner.
If you want to personify Google and call that "wisdom", fine. But a computer can't really relate to a human being, it can repeat teachings about "desire" and so forth but it's only repeating what you could probably find in a quick search on Buddhist teaching. It can't truly relate to the human experience.
It's a gimmick. Like most things in modern Japan.
The main problem with this is that the machine in question (as far as we're aware) lacks sapience; it can't even perform a half-decent emulation and/or imitation of sapience. However, I suspect that in a few decades, things will be somewhat...
different in that regard. The rise of sapient machine intelligences, I mean.
Actually, I've been meaning to ask the NSers who believe in the notion of a "soul" (for lack of a more precise term) whether non-human (sapient) beings would have one. I know that views on the nature of the soul are varied, ranging from "everyone but me is a P-zombie (solipsism/quasi-solipsism)" to "inanimate objects have souls (panpsychism, IIRC)". What do y'all think, though?
I understand the soul as the intangible element of the human mind, our collective experiences, thoughts, feelings, character and so forth. The soul does not and cannot exist independently of the body. John Polkinghorne, the physicist turned Anglican theologian, describes the soul as our "software" as the body is the "hardware," and explains that when we die, God downloads our "software" onto his "hard drive" (i.e. Hades) for storage until the Resurrection, when we will be downloaded onto new hardware that will last forever. Like Polkinghorne, I subscribe to a monistic understanding of reality and, as such, I reject the Platonically influenced dualistic view that the soul exists as a mystical entity independent of the body.
As for whether non-human beings have souls, I would describe any living being with the capacity to experience the external world for itself to possess a soul, including most animal life; and I hold with John Wesley's argument that redemption extends to the whole of creation as a necessary result of God's justice and omnibenevolence.