Comments
Reference Information
The Complete Works of Aristotle
Chapter: "On Plants"
Edited by Jonathan Barnes
Princeton University Press
Summary
In this work Aristotle* attempts to answer the question of the existence of life and a soul in plants. The author begins by examining the characteristics of plans in comparison to animals. Additionally, the author references the theories of several others. Ultimately, the author concludes that plants must have some portion of a soul. Ample coverage of the physical difference between various plants is provided. Furthermore, a detailed account of plant development is described. After much detailed analysis of the life of plants, the author seems to conclude that plants posses at least a partial soul.
Discussion
If we examine the machines of today in the way that Aristotle examined plants, we too can formulate hypotheses concerning their possible classification as living. It seems that many of us would easily classify the machine as inanimate and nonliving. However, as more complex intelligence is able to be mimicked in the machine the illusion may make such a classification more difficult. For many years roboticist have programmed robots to mimic the biology of simple creatures, like insects. It turns out that many of the behaviors which seem intelligent or at least guided in these creatures, are simply the emergent result of simple reactions to stimuli. A robot, like a Braitenberg vehicle, is able to seek reward or avoid punishment by for example following a light seeking behavior. Though simple and reactive, it is a small step toward the illusion of something intelligent. Will a machine ever be said to contain a soul? I don’t think so. But they will eventually provide rich enough feedback that we will raise such a question.
I think the whole notion of a "partial soul" is pretty silly to me. In my opinion, it either has a soul or doesn't. How one defines a soul however is up for debate.
ReplyDeleteA computer and a human share similar characteristics:
both require power, both attempt to achieve balance, both respond to external stimuli (heat), both send electrical signals, etc. Like you say, I don't think machines have souls.
Yes, silly would be an excellent term to describe this notion of a computer containing a soul. Zack, I like how you broke that down in your discussion. There might be a day when we QUESTION if computers are equivalent to humans, but the simple fact is that they never will be.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is not if a computer can have a soul, but what exactly is a soul? If a soul was a clear idea with an absolute definition, determining a computer's ability to obtain a soul would be elementary. The same holds true for life. Give me a clear definition of 'life', and I'll tell you whether or not my laptop is alive.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but don't they seek reward/punishment only because we tell them to? When they are able to define their own rewards, that will truly be a big step forward.
ReplyDelete