[_wire_]

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong":

Carbon, silicon, meat.

But if you will insist on a false equivalency of silicon and meat, then there is still no double standard because meat finds itself existing, a priori, and ascribes to itself a soul given by a creator it cannot explain.

In the case of computers, meat is the creator, and meat must ask: at what point of the construction of a computer do we imbue it a soul?

If a soul is a natural property of silicon, then why no double standard about a beach or a glass bottle?

Never mind that the nature of computers is entirely stipulated, with no intelligible a priori properties. The soul is merely found, and therefore we have no need to explain at what point it is imbued to the meat.

As to the post hoc unintelligibility of the soul, however unsatisfying our lack of understanding, we find the question is integral to our nature as we have observed ourselves across all the generations of recorded history. The soul is the reserve of which gives rise to our questioning.

As AIs are crystalline impressions of our thoughts, with stochastic patterns of embedding and retrieval of our artifacts and therefore our behaviors, maybe the soul is transmitted to the computer via such embeddings?

But the distinction of the sovereignty of man over his creations versus his subservience to his creator must persist as long as our meat manifests our tools, but not vise-versa.