how many atheists don't think humans are just robots?

I like thinking of computers looking at 100 million dollar plus pictures  and 8 year olds pictures.  

Very good, but how did Alpha Go feel after beating Lee Sedol?

So emotions = sentience then? This is a sticky one. Instinctively, I agree, but then we run into a couple of points of divergence. First and foremost, we'd be talking about HUMAN emotions and feelings, when what we'd be looking at is decidedly not human. Second, theoretically, programming might advance enough to allow robotic eyes to read human non-verbal cues and react with emotional displays with which we are familiar, essentially giving them the appearance of feelings. How then would we distinguish the appearance of feelings with actual feelings?

You're right, it wasn't LEVELS of sentient. It was CATEGORIES. From your post 27:

 A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human.

Are you now saying there are only two categories of sentience: yes and no? That should make defining what's in those two categories much easier. You seem to limit it to feelings, particularly human feelings / emotions

. Is that fair to say?

Second, theoretically, programming might advance enough to allow robotic eyes to read human non-verbal cues and react with emotional displays with which we are familiar, essentially giving them the appearance of feelings. How then would we distinguish the appearance of feelings with actual feelings?

Take the sex out of it. There's a Black Mirror episode called "Be Right Back" that I think got me to consider this question. Have you watched it, either of you? Young couple just bought a house. During their move in process, when they're returning the moving truck, something terrible happens. I don't want to spoil it because I just think it's a masterpiece of short form drama that needs to be seen to be discussed properly, but it challenges a LOT of what you just said, Rod. The applications aren't JUST for potential fuckbots. I thought it captured a lot of the implications of super-advanced AI really well. 

I'm not familiar with the program in question. And....probably won't see it.

If you feel this, what I assume is a fictional story, makes a significant challenge to what I say, you won't have to worry about spoiling it for me.

In the past I've had problems with people using fictional stories (stories that are universally understood to be fiction) as some sort of proof though. At the other board there was a member who seemed to be using the idea that because a Canadian female author wrote a book about a fictional religious dictatorship in the U.S., we should close all our churches down.

I guess this author didn't have the common courtesy of using Canada instead of the U.S. But, she was playing on a certain segment of society's emotions, knowing she can get away with this.

In other words, whatever point this show is making, it has to be really good.

Did you assist them in the breeding process to obtain feelings and emotion?

Yes.

Wild dogs and wolves (dog ancestors) are incapable of reading and imitating human emotions (empathy).

Humans have selectively bred dogs to increase bi-directional empathy (emotional expressiveness).

Is a dog more sentient or conscious than a wolf?

Yes, but this is a breeding process, not creation (manufacturing). At best, indirect creation.

Can these breeders produce wild dogs and wolves (no inter-breeding) with Golden Retriever gualities/personalities?

I can understand the initial confusion one might have with my statement. It makes sense to ask what I mean (instead of implying what I mean), but this should really be clear now. 

Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more. 

If a dog's feelings are hurt because he was scolded for chewing up the carpet, is that hurt the dog feels human emotion, or dog emotion?

So you have 2 creations. The display of emotions the robot possesses were a result of your engineering. But what about the emotions the dogs you helped breed possess? Did you assist them in the breeding process to obtain feelings and emotion?

In the past I've had problems with people using fictional stories (stories that are universally understood to be fiction) as some sort of proof though.

But...as you know. It's just a movie.

Maybe, but probably not for long. [LINK]

Because you said you were of the opinion that robots will never be sentient, at least not in the same sentient category as humans, which you subsequently walked back it seems to either sentient or non-sentient. I'm asking you how you define sentience in this case, and it appears your answer is "human" and it has something to do with feelings, which you have yet to expound upon. Human emotions seems to equal sentience for you as of this moment, I asked already is that fair to say? That feelings, specifically human feelings, are the defining characteristic of sentience that divide robots from humans?

 accordance, in simple situations. "We haven't done it yet" is not a reason we will never do it. 25 years ago, if you got diagnosed with prostate cancer, your prognosis was DECIDEDLY different than if you get diagnosed with it today, would you agree? "We'll figure it out one day maybe" is exactly how every single advancement that overcomes problems is born. Can't get water to here? We'll figure it out one day. Boom, aqueducts. It's not just a saying. It's how we move forward.

It's just like trying to scientifically discover what happens after death. 

We scientifically know what happens after death. Your body's vital signs all drop to zero, and your tissue begins to decay. What you mean here is "it's like scientifically trying to prove a magical afterlife" which is not the same thing as either 'what happens after death' or 'create an artificial sentience.'  

Are you claiming that anything other than complete unconcious existence after death means "magical afterlife"? If it's something that science doesn't (at the moment) touch a concious afterlife, it would have to be magic?

Now, what I said I would address.

Creating sentient life, although I believe is impossible, I have to place an asterix there on that statement. Rather, it's impossibly possible. I don't rule out the possibility of producing sentient life, but in my opinion the creator has rendered it impossible.

Ironically, creating sentient life also produces questions on morality. Would it be moral? This question gets posed in a number of fictional writings like "Frankenstein", where the question comes along "should we play God"? For instance, what if we created a race of sentient beingd that turned hostile to humanity?

When it comes to questions of the afterlife, I think the most atheistic of atheists understand that this is much deeper than creating healthy energy drinks. It would present a challenge to deityship, therefore has appeal as the idea tantalizes us with proving the non-existence of an ultimate creator of divine nature.

The same theme goes along with time travel. A moral issue is considered here. Like, if we go back in time and kill Hitler, would that violate the rights of others who are alive because of Hitler's existence. Therefore, I think God rendered the theoretical possibility of time travel to that extent impossible.

But at least with time travel, we could make some speculations on how we might go about it. Travel at light speed to go into the future, enter a black hole to go into the past, etc. With life after scientifically expiring? Nada.

Are you claiming that anything other than complete unconcious existence

When it comes to questions of the afterlife,

Therefore, I think God rendered the theoretical possibility of time travel to that extent impossible.

I don't make the claim that we haven't done it yet is a reason we will never do it.

You did say:

 All we can say is "maybe one day we'll figure it out". But that's just one of those coin phrases to put off the reality of human limiation.

 Ironicallty, this is an argument a number of people use to suggest the Bible is fiction. "We don't see evidence of King David's or Solomon's kingdoms, therefore they never existed".

Are you claiming that anything other than complete unconcious existence after death means "magical afterlife"? If it's something that science doesn't (at the moment) touch a concious afterlife, it would have to be magic?

Rather, it's impossibly possible. I don't rule out the possibility of producing sentient life, but in my opinion the creator has rendered it impossible.

Would it be moral? This question gets posed in a number of fictional writings like "Frankenstein", where the question comes along "should we play God"?

When it comes to questions of the afterlife, I think the most atheistic of atheists understand that this is much deeper than creating healthy energy drinks. It would present a challenge to deityship, therefore has appeal as the idea tantalizes us with proving the non-existence of an ultimate creator of divine nature.

Can these breeders produce wild dogs and wolves (no inter-breeding) with Golden Retriever gualities/personalities?

Ironically, creating sentient life also produces questions on morality. Would it be moral?

In other words, selecting against aggressiveness incidentally made the foxes look like dogs.

I can understand the initial confusion one might have with my statement. It makes sense to ask what I mean (instead of implying what I mean), but this should really be clear now. 

You mean like this, from my post 31?

Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more. 

You ignored it for pages so I was trying to figure it out for myself. 

"Engineering" and "animal husbandry" are not equivalent. WE agree the dogs are sentient already. Is the robot's emotional level indistinguishable from a human's? If so, why is it not sentient?

...it wouldn't take long for the "something is missing" complaints about human/human romantic relations.

I'll assume we're not talking about the "something missing" being something  shallow like money or providing sexual pleasure on a whim.

So what exactly are you referring to? What is the missing ingredient you're referring to in human romantic relations?

I don't make the claim that we haven't done it yet is a reason we will never do it.

You did say:

 All we can say is "maybe one day we'll figure it out". But that's just one of those coin phrases to put off the reality of human limiation.

A phrase to "put off the reality of human limitation" seems fairly interpreted as "an excuse we make to ourselves because we won't ever be able to do i." How else would you mean it? Because you could just say "maybe one day we'll figure it out" without the weak sauce interpretation if that's what you meant.