Human or not?

[jmcrae]

Hold on. All these witnesses and all their testimonies are contained in the Bible.

The Bible is a group of writings that were collected together during the 4th century. The fact that they are all contained in the same collection doesn’t mean that they were all written at the same time or by the same person. The fact that everything that was written on the same subject is placed in the same library just means exactly that, and no more. There are many collections of books that are gathered together because they share something in common, but the original authors often didn’t even know each other, or ever meet.

Nowhere else. I responded to David, who said that evidence for Christianity is not restricted to the Bible, it is also attested to by a chain of eye-witness testimonials handed down across 2000 years.

That’s true. Many of the songs and prayers that we sing at Mass have been passed down from the time of the Apostles. The Kyrie, for example, comes down to us unchanged from when the Church spoke Greek.

Can you substantiate that? People did not write down anything for decades, because they took Jesus’s prediction seriously, where he said that not everyone will die before they will see the kingdom of heaven arrive on Earth.

But if Jesus didn’t really exist, then why were they expecting Him to return?

I certainly would not. But many Muslim suicide-bombers would and did. In what way does that attest to the validity of their belief system?

They also don’t claim to be personal eye-witnesses of Mohammed’s Angel.

The Apostles claimed to be personal eye-witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not a case of people dying for something they heard from someone else; the Apostles died for what they claimed to have seen for themselves. If they were making it all up - if Jesus never actually existed - why would they die for it?

 

[ateista]

How is different from theological axioms. Our spiritual nature is as much a part of the real world as our flesh and blood.

Sorry, I have no “spiritual” part, I only have a mind which is the electro-chemical activity of my brain.

 

[mangy_dog]

Sorry, I have no “spiritual” part, I only have a mind which is the electro-chemical activity of my brain.

Ateo.

I’ve always mused (with sadness) at how an atheist denies the personal God that sustains all life and creation with His word.

Atheists are like…walking, talking oximorons. “I deny the possibility of the very God that sustains my life so that I can go on denying Him”.

 

[davidv]

Sorry, I have no “spiritual” part, I only have a mind which is the electro-chemical activity of my brain.

Then I would have to conclude that you are not human. Just some computer running an AI program to entertain its programmer.

 

[ateista]

The Bible is a group of writings that were collected together during the 4th century. The fact that they are all contained in the same collection doesn’t mean that they were all written at the same time or by the same person. The fact that everything that was written on the same subject is placed in the same library just means exactly that, and no more. There are many collections of books that are gathered together because they share something in common, but the original authors often didn’t even know each other, or ever meet.

Yes. And let’s not forget it that the selection was made by human beings, and that the Bible is the most exhaustively edited book of all times.

Yes, the Bible contains many historical events, affirmed by other sources. What follows from this? Nothing especially. If I would study a book full of mathematical theorems, of which one would be incorrect, the veracity of the rest cannot be projected unto the faulty one, can it?

But if Jesus didn’t really exist, then why were they expecting Him to return?

I did not say that there was no historical figure called Jesus.

They also don’t claim to be personal eye-witnesses of Mohammed’s Angel.

So? Claims are dime a dozen.

The Apostles claimed to be personal eye-witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not a case of people dying for something they heard from someone else; the Apostles died for what they claimed to have seen for themselves. If they were making it all up - if Jesus never actually existed - why would they die for it?

Who knows? People are willing to die for many ideals. By the way, where was the deaths of the apostles recorded? They were not significant people, who merited the attention of the notoriously precise Roman and Jewish historians.

Jesus is not mentioned either. He probably was a very nice, charismatic figure, who collected a small number of followers, who preached somewhat unorthodox new ideas. When he claimed that he was the king of the Jews, he was executed - which is pretty sad.

 

[ateista]

Then I would have to conclude that you are not human. Just some computer running an AI program to entertain its programmer.

Excellent. So there is no difference that you can detect between a human and a well designed, self-modifying computer program.

This is my opinion, too.

 

[ateista]

Ateo.

I’ve always mused (with sadness) at how an atheist denies the personal God that sustains all life and creation with His word.

Atheists are like…walking, talking oximorons. “I deny the possibility of the very God that sustains my life so that I can go on denying Him”.

Well, at least you did not say: “Atheists are like…walking, talking morons.” That is a step in the right direction, I suppose.

By the way, I realize, that there might be a God. All he has to do is manifest himself to me, and I will accept his existence.

 

[mangy_dog]

Excellent. So there is no difference that you can detect between a human and a well designed, self-modifying computer program.

This is my opinion, too.

“…with luciferian eloquence the trap was sprung, temporarily stunning David at the thought of agreeing with what he knew was not only wrong but indefensible…”

 

[drmcpike]

You misunderstood what I said: the axioms of mathematics are abstractions of the real world. One can deny (not simply be be unaware of) these axioms if he is willing to deny all the evidence of the real world. And that would be insanity.

I’m afraid that just as in the real world there are dragons, in the real world it is not always true that 1+1=2.

Anyway, I’m not clear what you are saying here. You think that 1+1=2 is an empirical claim? Isn’t the point of calling it axiomatic that it is a priori (however you happen to interpret the a priori), and not an abstraction from the real world? Or do you subscribe to some kind of Platonic or medieval-type theory of abstraction of real universals (in which case I’d like to hear the details)??

(By the way, are you choosing to ignore most of my questions just because you don’t have pat answers for them? Please don’t leave me to wallow in my own superiority complex, I was hoping for constructive dialogue.)

 

[davidv]

Excellent. So there is no difference that you can detect between a human and a well designed, self-modifying computer program.

This is my opinion, too.

But you put words in my mouth. I did not say that I could not detect a difference. I would postulate that I would see no evidence of self-giving love from a computer program.

 

[ateista]

But you put words in my mouth. I did not say that I could not detect a difference. I would postulate that I would see no evidence of self-giving love from a computer program.

Ah. but that is precisely the point. You cannot examine the workings of the mind (or soul) by opening up the skull. All you have is the observation of the activities of your opponent. You must draw conclusions from that.

Incidentally, your remarks just brought back a science fiction story I read a long time ago. Its title was “Android”, and its main character was so well designed, that even he did not know he was not a human being. His “instructions” were to emulate a human being, and at the end of the story he volitionally scarifices himself for the “real humans”, when he learns that he is a “mere” artificial human. Naturally, this is just a story.

But it makes you wonder, where does emulation stop and reality begin?

 

[ateista]

I’m afraid that just as in the real world there are dragons, in the real world it is not always true that 1+1=2.

Can you show me instances of them? And please, do not bring up the Boolean algebra, where 1 + 1 = 1 (or true and true is true).

Anyway, I’m not clear what you are saying here. You think that 1+1=2 is an empirical claim? Isn’t the point of calling it axiomatic that it is a priori (however you happen to interpret the a priori), and not an abstraction from the real world?

It started as an empirical observation, all right. Some prehistoric human recognized that two apples are more than one apple. The conceptual breakthrough was that he could understand that eating two apples is more satisfying than eating one apple.

It took a long time before humans were able to reach the level of abstraction, and understand that 2 is always more than 1. I don’t want to go too deep into this subject, but the abstract concept of enumeration definitely started with observation of the real world.

(By the way, are you choosing to ignore most of my questions just because you don’t have pat answers for them? Please don’t leave me to wallow in my own superiority complex, I was hoping for constructive dialogue.)

Simply because I do not percieve them as pertinent to this thread. I only wanted to talk about the differences (if any) between humans and other intelligent beings.

What is true about the Bible, is not relevant to this discussion. I cannot control what anyone is posting here (not my job), but at least I can pick and choose which posts I reflect on. Do not read anything more into the selection process.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah. but that is precisely the point. You cannot examine the workings of the mind (or soul) by opening up the skull. All you have is the observation of the activities of your opponent. You must draw conclusions from that.

Incidentally, your remarks just brought back a science fiction story I read a long time ago. Its title was “Android”, and its main character was so well designed, that even he did not know he was not a human being. His “instructions” were to emulate a human being, and at the end of the story he volitionally scarifices himself for the “real humans”, when he learns that he is a “mere” artificial human. Naturally, this is just a story.

Naturally. Isaac Asimov didn’t believe in the existence of a spiritual soul, either. A real robot or android will never be self-aware, whatever else it may do or be.

 

[Benadam]

But it makes you wonder, where does emulation stop and reality begin?

When something can come from nothing.

 

[ateista]

Naturally. Isaac Asimov didn’t believe in the existence of a spiritual soul, either. A real robot or android will never be self-aware, whatever else it may do or be.

We don’t know that… I believe it can be, you do not. Only time will tell. I hope we shall be both alive when it happens.

 

[Benadam]

ateista, I think the difference will be the ability to experience as a human. I have a diificult time even imagining nonliving matter experiencing at all no matter how precise it can be made to imitate living matter. How is true experience differentiated from something accurately imitating that experiences response to reality?

 

[ateista]

ateista, I think the difference will be the ability to experience as a human. I have a diificult time even imagining nonliving matter experiencing at all no matter how precise it can be made to imitate living matter. How is true experience differentiated from something accurately imitating that experiences response to reality?

Yes, I sure can see your quandry.

But I will restate my position: you cannot open someone else’s skull and see that being suffering, or experiencing joy… we have only one guideline: we observe and compare to our own experiences.

We know when we feel pain and we know we experience joy, and we know the signs. If the other being (or person) exhibits similar signs, we have to conclude that they actually experience the same feelings as we do.

This could be countered that a good actor can emulate all these signs, and still feel nothing “within”. But the question remains: how do we know that? It would be “dangerous” to assume that the other party simply “emulates” those feelings, and merely displays the signs to “fool” us.

Much better to follow the “duck principle”: if the other party acts as if in pain, he is in pain, if he exhibits the signs of being joyful, he is joyful.

 

[Benadam]

Yes, I sure can see your quandry.

But I will restate my position: you cannot open someone else’s skull and see that being suffering, or experiencing joy… we have only one guideline: we observe and compare to our own experiences.

We know when we feel pain and we know we experience joy, and we know the signs. If the other being (or person) exhibits similar signs, we have to conclude that they actually experience the same feelings as we do.

This could be countered that a good actor can emulate all these signs, and still feel nothing “within”. But the question remains: how do we know that? It would be “dangerous” to assume that the other party simply “emulates” those feelings, and merely displays the signs to “fool” us.

Much better to follow the “duck principle”: if the other party acts as if in pain, he is in pain, if he exhibits the signs of being joyful, he is joyful.

But, none of these examples apply to your question. When does an emulation become a reality.

To know a thing fully one has to be that thing. To know frogness fully one has to be a frog.

I can’t think of an example reality offers for a foundation to base the possibility that something was ever an emulation.

 

[ateista]

But, none of these examples apply to your question. When does an emulation become a reality.

Sure it does. This whole line of thought came into existence when Davidv asserted that since I have no soul therefore I must be a cleverly written computer program. For all he knows, he may be right. Maybe I just pretend to be a human, who uses human language to display thoughts and emotions, but inside I am empty, like a gramaphone, that only plays human voices, but does not understand them.

How do you find out if this is true or not? You cannot take me apart, because I would object that.

I can’t think of an example reality offers for a foundation to base the possibility that something was ever an emulation.

I think you can. Imagine an actor, who is so good, that you believe (for a short time, anyway) that he does not act, he really “is” whatever his role happens to be.
Did you see the movie: “When Harry met Sally”, and the famous scene where Sally pretends to have an orgasm in a crowded restaurant? Some people might be taken in… and believe it… until she picks up her fork and calmly starts eating again.

 

[agangbern]

The phrasing of this question or comment has a “built-in glitch”. It is indicated above, “…the body of a man as dead, and {it is no longer human]” or "…then it is alive, and [it is human]. Therein lies the “glitch”. Unless we’re looking at a dog or cat or some other animal (other than a man or woman), it is human. Being dead does not follow that we stop being human. Our body doesn’t become the body of a goat or fish. This is part of the line of “reasoning” that was used during roe v. wade, when talking about the fetus. Is it human or not? At what point is it consideted human? Nonsense. Unless the sperm donor is a horse or a dog or some other aberrant coupling…the fetus is human at all stages of conception and continues to be human even after death.

Gospa Mir.

“Being dead does not follow that we stop being human. Our body doesn’t become the body of a goat or fish.” He is therefore saying that the dead body of a human being is also a human being. Can anyone detect the confusion in that statement? There seems to be no more difference between one who is dead and one who is alive.
Look at this logic: “Human has a soul within. That dead body is human. Therefore that dead body has a soul within.” Tell me please, what rule of categorical syllogism is being violated in such logic?