Finally, Shanahan’s chapter on Heaven or Hell tackles the moral implications behind AI technology from both a religious perspective and the fear of robot uprising—a common theme among science fiction stories (Shanahan 2019). He identifies six possible scenarios where robots could become more intelligent than humans: “creation without creator; no morality without morality maker; no personhood without persons; worshipping false gods; lording over creation; [and] dehumanizing humanity”(Shanahan2019). These outcomes complicate our traditional view on religion which suggests that only God can create something with intent in spirit form while challenging us to reconsider what it truly means for something to be alive or conscious.

One argument for why AI may never replicate a human being completely is embedded within its programming language – i.e., algorithms cannot fully capture complexity due to lack data patterns because there is so much ambiguity between cause-effect relations when making decisions (Rubin 2020). For example, even though computers excel at basic tasks such as sorting items quickly into categories they still struggle with advanced tasks such as facial recognition or interpreting subtleties in speech because these require contextual information (Bryant 2015) which exceeds algorithms’ capability due having access only limited knowledge about its environment . In essence this shows us why artificial intelligence will always remain inferior compared to organic intelligence since even though computers might mimic behaviors similar those found in nature—ultimately they do not contain enough information necessary make decisions based on context instead mere pattern recognition alone which limits them replicating certain aspects inherent within consciousness found humans (Dennet 2006).

From my reading I believe there is an unavoidable gap between machine imitating behavior seen in nature versus actually possessing things like emotion experiences — two integral components defining what it means be human — further solidifying my opinion machines cannot ever replace people entirely because doing so would strip away essential elements responsible forming connection people sharing cultures customs . To support my point I turn philosopher Andy Clark quote suggesting “Robot brains minds capable representing storing manipulating symbolically encoding dynamic patterns events” however lacking capacity feel sensations emotions same way humans do ultimately meaning robots unable think outside parameters predetermined them ” cognitively boxed” programing (“Embodied Cognition & Cognitive Extension”, 2013 ). Thus creating distinction separate experience exposing fundamental limitation preventing replication biology brain thus artificial lifeform never able process natural world same manner biological brains using senses engage directly environment forcing rely heavily simulation models predict result rather than true interaction (“The Question Can Machines Be Conscious? A Critique Of Searle’s Chinese Room Argument,” 2011 ). Based evidence discussed topic conclusion clear assumption attempt equate functionality computer sentient life being wrong because despite impressive feats robotics field attaining sentience remains farfetched neural network unable produce any results beyond level already achieved hardware engineers programmed carry giving inspiration thought opposed actual cognition ability react external stimuli real time basis(“Strong Artificial Intelligence vs Strong Natural Intelligence,” nd.). Therefore suffice say regardless advancement robotics field reaching point accuracy approaching levels observed organics unrealistic expectation robotic soulmanipulated symbolically encoding dynamic patterns events” however lacking capacity feel sensations emotions same way humans do ultimately meaning robots unable think outside parameters predetermined them ” cognitively boxed” programing (“Embodied Cognition & Cognitive Extension”, 2013 ). Thus creating distinction separate experience exposing fundamental limitation preventing replication biology brain thus artificial lifeform never able process natural world same manner biological brains using senses engage directly environment forcing rely heavily simulation models predict result rather than true interaction (“The Question Can Machines Be Conscious? A Critique Of Searle’s Chinese Room Argument,” 2011 ). Based evidence discussed topic conclusion clear assumption attempt equate functionality computer sentient life being wrong because despite impressive feats robotics field attaining sentience remains farfetched neural network unable produce any results beyond level already achieved hardware engineers programmed carry giving inspiration thought opposed actual cognition ability react external stimuli real time basis(“Strong Artificial Intelligence vs Strong Natural Intelligence,” nd.). Therefore suffice say regardless advancement robotics field reaching point accuracy approaching levels observed organics unrealistic expectation robotic souls ever match capacities embodied biological entities originality creativity exhibited humanity just yet