Artificial Intelligence and the Soul

[GEddie]

It is possible that two persons share one body! Truth is often stranger than fiction. Some people seem to have more than one personality anyway…

These anomalies have no bearing on artificial Intelligence and the soul. Exceptions to a rule do not necessarily prove that it is false. They merely reveal that the rule is a simplistic interpretation of reality - like materialism.

I wouldn’t say that multiple personality disorder is an example of 2 persons in one body. That certainly flies in the face of the Biblical understanding of person, which includes the body.

It is far more likely, since in MPD only one “persona” has use of the body at a time, that these “personae” are generated by the body’s single mind in various situations as a survival mechanism. Our imaginative mind is more than capable of it.

Or, alternately, it is a spiritual manifestation of some kind.

The “personality” is given more importance than it has, IMNAAHO. The personality is not the mind nor the person. It is simply the expressed surface the mind presents to others.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Sample]

I’m interested in ferreting out what these souls are and what they can and can’t do. The implicit implication, if one believes that individual souls are infused by Yahweh at conception, is that two souls can fuse into one when unborn children fuse into one child.

Or, can one person have two souls? These are questions science is forcing theology to contemplate. I look forward to the replies.

 

[tonyrey]

I wouldn’t say that multiple personality disorder is an example of 2 persons in one body. That certainly flies in the face of the Biblical understanding of person, which includes the body.

It is far more likely, since in MPD only one “persona” has use of the body at a time, that these “personae” are generated by the body’s single mind in various situations as a survival mechanism. Our imaginative mind is more than capable of it.

Or, alternately, it is a spiritual manifestation of some kind.

The “personality” is given more importance than it has, IMNAAHO. The personality is not the mind nor the person. It is simply the expressed surface the mind presents to others.

ICXC NIKA

I specified “seem” deliberately to underline the frequently deceptive nature of appearances. That is why speculation about extremely rare anomalies is fruitless because it leads precisely nowhere.

The very fact that the vast majority of babies are normal reveals the desperate lengths to which materialists will go to “disprove” the existence of the soul with the sole aim of achieving their soul-destroying ambition - and plunge everyone into the dark hole of oblivion!

“Abandon all hope you have the misfortune to be born!”

That is the message materialists are determined to convey because they probably lack free will as the result of their obsession with artificial intelligence at the expense of real intelligence!

There seems no reason why a person cannot lose their free will (and their soul) if they keep choosing to reject it. If we look a gift horse in the mouth we don’t deserve to have it…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m interested in ferreting out what these souls are and what they can and can’t do.

“ferreting” is the most appropriate term because their aim is to kill! Here we have a sample of the urge to destroy…

The implicit implication…

The “implicit implication” is a pleonasm - which suggests a fixation on “two in one”!

if one believes that individual souls are infused by Yahweh at conception, is that two souls can fuse into one when unborn children fuse into one child.

1. That is one (seemingly unlikely) possibility.
2. Another is that two souls co-exist in harmony like spiritual twins (a delightful and inspiring possibility).
3. The third (which you obviously favour) is that no one has a soul - and that we are biological robots.

Or, can one person have two souls? These are questions science is forcing theology to contemplate. I look forward to the replies.

We all know why! It’s a pity you haven’t achieved your destructive goal…

 

[GEddie]

“ferreting” is the most appropriate term because their aim is to kill! Here we have a sample of the urge to destroy…
The “implicit implication” is a pleonasm - which suggests a fixation on “two in one”!1. That is one (seemingly unlikely) possibility.

1. Another is that two souls co-exist in harmony like spiritual twins (a delightful and inspiring possibility).
2. The third (which you obviously favour) is that no one has a soul - and that we are biological robots.

We all know why! It’s a pity you haven’t achieved your destructive goal…

The problem with (2) is that a human soul does not simply ride the body to the death bed or grave; it operates the body and lives life therein, in fact, becomes almost inseparable from the body.

If two souls ever share a body, only one has use thereof, since there is no evidence apart from anomalies and disorders that a human body ever is “timeshared” between two souls. Indeed, this suggests that one soul goes through eternity without the use of a body.

So (2) is highly problematic.

I’d suggest the alternative (4):

God, being altogether sovereign over each human being’s formation, and being fully in charge of the 2 embryos that are going to merge, allows only one soul to form over them. (That may indeed be what causes them to merge.). In the end there is one soul, one body, as always.

Since soul can never be scientifically detected, (4) is as good a scenario as any.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

I think that it implies that one’s biology is an influencing factor. But unless it is being said that there are no other factors of influence I think that “determined” without some other qualifier such as “partially” may be too strong.

I think this was the intended meaning but no doubt I shall be corrected if I’m mistaken.