Originally Posted by RayA75

Earlier, I asked "What could definitely disprove dualism?"

I am going to expand upon this, and make it a point of discussion in this thread.

Let's get something out of the way. If neurology goes on to show how the human mind can conceptually think, that would probably be a huge blow to dualism. Whether or not that would definitively reject it, well, it would depend on how this find unravels.

Many would ask "If another animal reaches the level of human thought, wouldn't that disprove monism?"

No. This just includes more than us in the argument. It is true that the material developed, and the product of that development is conceptual thought. This does not mean that conceptual thought is the product of the material, as this could simply be a case of a "conditions need to be met" sort of deal. This is also why dualism is compatible with evolution.

I think a more sound argument can be made about the following question:

"Would artificial intelligence disprove dualism?"

Those who say no, would likely argue the same point made above this question, that making an artificial intelligence would simply be a "conditions met" event.

This position would insinuate that said artificial intelligence has a soul. This would be blatantly false. We can pick apart artificial intelligence, would be able to see which switch, which gate, and which plugs control which thoughts, which concepts, and which intellectual processes that humans have. These computational devices and hardware would then be all that is necessary for conceptual thought.

When we create artificial intelligence, we are responsible for every facet of its thinking. We make moot the necessity of an immaterial soul to give credence to our intelligence. We can then infer that we don't need this soul for our intelligence, and that our brain would be what the hardware is to the artificial intelligence.

Now, there needs to be another aspect to that question addressed.

"What would qualify an artificial intelligence as capable of human thought?"

The best answer to this question was given by A.M. Turing, in the aptly named Turing Test.

He gets his test from a simple party game, in which there are three parties: The judge, participant one, and participant two. Participant one would be a man, and participant two, a woman (or vice versa). The two participants would sit separated behind two screens, with the judge on the other side. The judge then goes on to have conversations with each of the participants, and then must discern which is male, and which is female.

Alan Turing went on to apply this to artificial intelligence by replacing one participant with a computer. The judge must then discern which participant is human and which is not. If the judge is not able to tell which is not, we can state beyond a reasonable doubt that the computer is capable of human intelligence. This is the Turing Test.

There are many objections to this test though, such as why this would be a test of conceptual thought. I think this is the best test of artificial intelligence we have, but not a perfect test to dismiss dualism.

In short, my answer to that question is yes; but I doubt it will ever happen.

"If another animal reaches the level of human thought, wouldn't that disprove monism?"

"Would artificial intelligence disprove dualism?"

"What would qualify an artificial intelligence as capable of human thought?"

Originally Posted by Meamme0

I'll take the scientific approach on the first bit: Let's assume, although very basic and really not as elegant, dualism means just that a soul exists and people have it.
It is a fact, I assume you already know, probably the philosophical side of this story, that you can't prove something does not exist. ( Related to the Raven Paradox )

I don't think it will. In fact, I don't think it would be relevant at all for either side. Let's say an animal will be capable of conceptual thought. It wouldn't suddenly become apparent that there is something immaterial that is the source of our intelligence. It really would not be any different.

No, as you said, we know exactly what does what and why it does that, because we (humans in general) would have built it. If we really developed something capable of human intelligence, we'd know what we did and how we did it. There is nothing immaterial about that. That being said, whatever would happen, if it happens to not have a soul, it does not necessarily mean the souls in general do not exist. If it does, it will actually prove dualism.

I'm going to have to disagree on your testing methods there. I personally think the one of the most important features of real intelligence is the ability to learn. Sure, there have been bots that are able to learn things based on trial and error or by lots and lots of user input. But the ability to properly be able to learn things will certainly make it a lot more autonome, one of the qualities I think is important for artificial intelligence. The Turing test would only be able to test for the actual knowledge, not the ability to learn. To compare it to math: It can check the value of a function, but not it's derivative, while I think both are important.

So the Turing test would be able to help determine the quality of the artificial intelligence, but not on its own. I do not have enough knowledge of those kind of tests to tell you what would complement the Turing test, but something that would test the ability to use information to create new information is desired.

Ray: Different aspect of the whole soul approach: Do you think the soul is transcedental or immanent? I think that if I would believe in a soul I'd go for both, that it's something that is not really in this world, but also is on one level.