> His hero meets with a water spirit. She recounts how the tribes offer her human sacrifice, a young man and a young woman, every year, which is a waste because she's not a cannibal, though the costumes are pretty. He meets her gaze and realizes she has no soul. At least, no rational soul, and therefore no conscience.
With your three definitions of soul -- vegetative, sensitive, and rational -- I wonder, how would one determine if an obviously nonhuman being that was capable of speech and of sapient thought (as the nixie from 'Three Hearts and Three Lions' was) possessed a rational soul or just a sensitive one?
While it's not quite the same thing, this relates to a story idea I've been toying with set in late 1930's America where a sapient nonhuman that appears like an anthropomorphic animal gets rewarded with 'honorary human' status after saving the lives of some human children. Since otherwise, she wouldn't have any rights at all.
After all, are Wookies human? No, no more than humans are Wookies.
And what we mean by that is that there is no common origin point. If we discovered that Wookies were genetically engineered human, we would call them human. If we discovered that humans were genetically engineered Wookies, we would call them Wookies.
But when there was first contact with the Americas, we had no idea how those folks over there could have a common origin with these folks over here.
The Pope issued a bull redefining human after two Zunis convinced him of the sincerity of their conversion. The redefinition was "capable of being converted."
Wasn't the Roman Catholic Church arguing about 'What precisely is "human" and how do we recognize it when we find it' as far back as St. Augustine and accounts of the cynocephali?
> His hero meets with a water spirit. She recounts how the tribes offer her human sacrifice, a young man and a young woman, every year, which is a waste because she's not a cannibal, though the costumes are pretty. He meets her gaze and realizes she has no soul. At least, no rational soul, and therefore no conscience.
But apparently she still has an aesthetic sense.
Well, animals are known to prettify things when courting.
Animals have also been known to express kindness, even to those of a different species.
At cost to themselves?
Sometimes, yes.
Occasional actions do not indicate the level of thought required.
With your three definitions of soul -- vegetative, sensitive, and rational -- I wonder, how would one determine if an obviously nonhuman being that was capable of speech and of sapient thought (as the nixie from 'Three Hearts and Three Lions' was) possessed a rational soul or just a sensitive one?
While it's not quite the same thing, this relates to a story idea I've been toying with set in late 1930's America where a sapient nonhuman that appears like an anthropomorphic animal gets rewarded with 'honorary human' status after saving the lives of some human children. Since otherwise, she wouldn't have any rights at all.
Is the being capable of Theoretical and Practical Reasoning?
Practical is the more important, since it's conscience.
Ok, let's mention the elephant in the room:
Do LLMs have souls, and how would one tell?
Probably the same way we would judge anyone else.
Well, in practice our judging method amounts to "is it human?"
Ah -- consider the Americas!
After all, are Wookies human? No, no more than humans are Wookies.
And what we mean by that is that there is no common origin point. If we discovered that Wookies were genetically engineered human, we would call them human. If we discovered that humans were genetically engineered Wookies, we would call them Wookies.
But when there was first contact with the Americas, we had no idea how those folks over there could have a common origin with these folks over here.
The Pope issued a bull redefining human after two Zunis convinced him of the sincerity of their conversion. The redefinition was "capable of being converted."
Wasn't the Roman Catholic Church arguing about 'What precisely is "human" and how do we recognize it when we find it' as far back as St. Augustine and accounts of the cynocephali?