Wednesday, January 19, 2011

On Computers

Comments
Luke Roberts
Stephen Morrow

Reference Information 
The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation
Aristotle




Summary
Aristotle
The paper discusses whether or not plants have souls. The argument of nutrition leads Aristotle to belive that plants have a soul. He believes that due to the desire for nutrients, they must also have motivation and feel happiness as well as sadness. The paper goes one by one through the different characteristics which it may or may not posses. Examples are whether or not a plant sleeps which Aristotle believes do not or whether plants have a sex or a combination of the two. After much comparison and contrast, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that plant have only partial soul opposed to the full soul as found in animals and humans according to their logic. This puts plants at the bottom of the soul hierarchy followed by animals and then by Humans how posses rationale and logic.




Discussion
Do Tamagotchies have souls?
I see this paper as a parallel to the potential question of "Do computers have souls?" or something similar. I am fairly confident that computers are not alive and therefore should not be treated as such. This brings to mind the movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Computers do not have souls, nor are they alive. They are merely tools to be used. Even if AI reached its peak and we were able to make agents that simulated emotions, motivation, desires, it is still a machine (a highly advanced one) and that is it. I don't remember PETA fighting for Tamagotchi rights.
Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. Cindy SkachJanuary 19, 2011 at 11:32 PM

    I agree with you. I also think that if Aristotle were to come back today and use the same logic he did with the plants, he probably would find some reason to believe they have a soul just as he did with plants.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Derek LandiniJanuary 20, 2011 at 12:55 AM

    That is an interesting observation. I have a hard time taking an author and making him see things my way. I too wonder what Aristotle would say about computers today and about AI wondering if he could provide logic similar to Mr. Searle about if computers have souls or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aaron_KirkesJanuary 20, 2011 at 5:34 AM

    I think it would be interesting to see what Aristotle's thoughts on computers would be today. I agree with you when you say a computer is a tool for us to use and even highly advanced computers will still be a tool. I wonder what his opinion on Tamigachis would be, ha.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Luke RobertsJanuary 20, 2011 at 9:25 AM

    I am not sure I agree with you completely on your conclusion. Of course computers do not have souls and currently they cannot come near to our learning capacity, but the future could hold strange things. Us humans could be used simply as tools as well. If simulations of emotion/motivation/etc. were done far enough to affect the computer in the ways it does us then it practically becomes emulation. I think ethics in this area will change as computer power increases

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stuart J.January 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM

    I'm fairly certain that if computers got advanced enough where someone questioned if they had a soul, someone would start standing up for their rights. There also is a Tamagotchi Rights Facebook group.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PapeJanuary 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    I agree,
    Aristotle made the argument that plants have a soul but that doesn't seem to deter people from killing trees. If computers have a sould would they have to protected under the law?

    ReplyDelete
  7. felipeJanuary 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

    I think your correct in the fact that people use their own emotions into this to give machines a soul if they are similar to a human. Just because the machine is highly advanced and resembles a person has no impact on the fact it is still a machine.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)