Humans vs robots

[jhalpin100]

For those out there who have followed Battlestar Galactica and now Caprica.

The Bible doesn’t appear to me to provide a consistent view of what any supernatural part of us might be. We commonly talk about us having “souls” but I have very little idea what that means.

So I’m wondering, suppose there isn’t any supernatural part of us. Suppose when the Bible says “Your are dust and to dust you shall return” it actually means that, and the usage of words like “soul” or “spirit” are idiomatic.

Does any of that prevent a resurrection? Does any of that rule out the idea that (even if we’re purely physical) God can remember our memories and put them in a new body in the resurrection? I’m guessing anyway that “resurrection” involves the continuity of our consciousness.

I’m being pretty loose in my terminology here because I really have no idea what I’m talking about. But I wonder sometimes, if a perfect copy of my dead cousin’s memories could be put into a new body of some kind, if it would be my cousin? Or is there something else needed for that to be the case? If so, what is that?

Joe

 

[HelenaMT]

For those out there who have followed Battlestar Galactica and now Caprica.

The Bible doesn’t appear to me to provide a consistent view of what any supernatural part of us might be. We commonly talk about us having “souls” but I have very little idea what that means.

So I’m wondering, suppose there isn’t any supernatural part of us. Suppose when the Bible says “Your are dust and to dust you shall return” it actually means that, and the usage of words like “soul” or “spirit” are idiomatic.

Does any of that prevent a resurrection? Does any of that rule out the idea that (even if we’re purely physical) God can remember our memories and put them in a new body in the resurrection? I’m guessing anyway that “resurrection” involves the continuity of our consciousness.

I’m being pretty loose in my terminology here because I really have no idea what I’m talking about. But I wonder sometimes, if a perfect copy of my dead cousin’s memories could be put into a new body of some kind, if it would be my cousin? Or is there something else needed for that to be the case? If so, what is that?

Joe

I loved Battlestar, haven’t seen Caprica yet. I don’t think the show actually took the point that the physical is all there is. There were many examples of the spiritual being real all throughout the series, and especially in the finale. That said, it didn’t offer any insight into what soul or spirit was.

I have yet to find anything in the Bible explaining the soul clearly. I guess it’s possible that God could store our characteristics and memories like a computer and play them into a newly created body later. Or that our souls are entities that have their own memory storage ability, so that they can exist with the personality and experiences that have been accumulated through life.

Whatever the answer, I think the soul, if it exists, must have some ability to influence our moral choices, since it’s the part of us that is either eternally rewarded or eternally damned. And if it has no ability to store our memories or retain our personalities, it’s hard to understand what the point of purgatory is, or any other form of continuation.

As far as someone being the same person because the same memories have been downloaded into him, I think that depends on how you see the soul.

If the soul is responsible for the actions of the body, then each body would logically have it’s own soul, either one created by God, or one already existing(if you believe in reincarnation or pre-existing souls).

Copy #1 couldn’t be held responsible for Copy #2’s sins, so it would follow that they should have different souls. And since the souls would be different, the individuals would not be the same. Think of it more like a pair of twins-same DNA, but two separate souls.

Of course, if there is nothing but the physical, the copy of your cousin would be equal to having him/her back again.

 

[jhalpin100]

I loved Battlestar, haven’t seen Caprica yet. I don’t think the show actually took the point that the physical is all there is. There were many examples of the spiritual being real all throughout the series, and especially in the finale. That said, it didn’t offer any insight into what soul or spirit was.

No I don’t think it intended to, it was posing a problem it couldn’t solve any more than we can. It’s just interesting to think about.

Incidentally, be aware that there are some pretty explicit scenes in Caprica. They do convey stuff that helps you understand what comes later, but I think they overdid things a bit.

I have yet to find anything in the Bible explaining the soul clearly. I guess it’s possible that God could store our characteristics and memories like a computer and play them into a newly created body later. Or that our souls are entities that have their own memory storage ability, so that they can exist with the personality and experiences that have been accumulated through life.

Whatever the answer, I think the soul, if it exists, must have some ability to influence our moral choices, since it’s the part of us that is either eternally rewarded or eternally damned. And if it has no ability to store our memories or retain our personalities, it’s hard to understand what the point of purgatory is, or any other form of continuation.

Why do you say that? I mean you sound as though you know what the soul is.

As far as someone being the same person because the same memories have been downloaded into him, I think that depends on how you see the soul.

If the soul is responsible for the actions of the body, then each body would logically have it’s own soul, either one created by God, or one already existing(if you believe in reincarnation or pre-existing souls).

Well I don’t believe much of anything about it, since I have no idea what it is. I guess I was looking for a couple things

1. What does the Church teach about the soul? Is there an established line of thought about it?
2. If not, why does the Church talk about souls so much? It makes me think there’s a prescribed way of thinking about them or something. I hear terms like “my immortal soul” but I don’t recall ever hearing an explanation of what that is.

When I read Genesis, it sounds to me like “Adam became a living soul” means he became a soul with the attribute of “living”. I’m not sure how to think about that. However, combine that with “you are dust and to dust you will return” and I suspect there’s something I wasn’t told in grade school.

Not saying things well tonight, sorry. I’m not feeling well.

Thanks

Joe

 

[davidv]

No I don’t think it intended to, it was posing a problem it couldn’t solve any more than we can. It’s just interesting to think about.

Incidentally, be aware that there are some pretty explicit scenes in Caprica. They do convey stuff that helps you understand what comes later, but I think they overdid things a bit.

Why do you say that? I mean you sound as though you know what the soul is.

Well I don’t believe much of anything about it, since I have no idea what it is. I guess I was looking for a couple things

1. What does the Church teach about the soul? Is there an established line of thought about it?

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and is some of the basic teachings regarding the soul.

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore *willed *by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

1. If not, why does the Church talk about souls so much? It makes me think there’s a prescribed way of thinking about them or something. I hear terms like “my immortal soul” but I don’t recall ever hearing an explanation of what that is.

When I read Genesis, it sounds to me like “Adam became a living soul” means he became a soul with the attribute of “living”. I’m not sure how to think about that. However, combine that with “you are dust and to dust you will return” and I suspect there’s something I wasn’t told in grade school.

Not saying things well tonight, sorry. I’m not feeling well.

Thanks

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and is some of the basic teachings regarding the soul.

The quote function in the forum doesn’t seem to work for me now for some reason, so pardon me if I’m a little crude with my formatting here, I’m not familiar with this forum yet.

You quote the catechism as saying:

"363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. "

So says my copy. However, when a definition puts a term in quotes like that, it leaves the meaning open. That’s what the quotes mean. They signify that the meaning of the term in quotes is not defined. Hence my question.

When it further says

“every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238”

It continues to not define what a soul is. I also don’t see what it tells us about whether a copy of my cousin’s memories count as my cousin or not if they’re put into a new body.

If that’s not what the resurrection is going to do, then what is the resurrection going to do?

Joe

 

[ricmat]

I don’t have the short answer to “what is a soul”, but there’s a book with the long answer.

If you are so inclined, you might want to read “The Science Before Science”. This book, which is heavy on both philosophy and science develops (amongst other things) the concept of a non-material soul. It approaches things from a scientific perspective, which might interest you based on your interest in sci-fi.

BTW - the trailers I’ve seen for Caprica look to me like the show is going to be hostile to religion. I do not plan on watching it.

 

[jhalpin100]

I don’t have the short answer to “what is a soul”, but there’s a book with the long answer.

If you are so inclined, you might want to read “The Science Before Science”. This book, which is heavy on both philosophy and science develops (amongst other things) the concept of a non-material soul. It approaches things from a scientific perspective, which might interest you based on your interest in sci-fi.

What does it mean to say that the concept of a non-material soul can be approached from a scientific perspective? Science can’t do non-material, it only deals with empirical stuff, by definition.

BTW - the trailers I’ve seen for Caprica look to me like the show is going to be hostile to religion. I do not plan on watching it.

It doesn’t seem that way to me, but do what you like.

Joe

 

[rangaraj1987]

T
he common perception of new technology is that it makes our lives better, simpler and more efficient. We accept new forms of technology with open arms, paying heavy costs to own them - yet they come with an even heavier price.

Advances and availabilities in communication and entertainment should bring people closer together and allow them to form a better bond with one another, improving society as a whole. In actuality, they are driving a wedge between every person in the country.

A study done by sociologists at Duke University and the UA shows the amount of confidence people place in one another is dwindling. Their data concludes the average number of people with whom Americans can confide in has decreased from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004. People, as individuals and as a nation, are receding from one another by not participating in social clubs and organizations, as well as simply not interacting with those outside their immediate circle of friends or relatives.

This large flux was unexpected by those conducting the survey.

“It’s unusual to see very large social changes like this that aren’t tied to some type of demographic shift in population,” said Miller McPherson, lead researcher and professor of sociology at Duke. The researchers could only speculate on the cause of such a dramatic change.

The progression, or rather declination of the nation’s social culture can be attributed to a slew of radical and unique changes in society fueled by the technology boom…

Even face-to-face
interactions are interrupted by technology in the form of iPods and cell phones. It is rarely considered rude to send text messages or even listen to music while speaking with someone in person.
Almost every American is now connected to another, not only in person but also through e-mail, cellular phones, text messaging, instant messaging and so on. Members of American society can access any person at any time, as long they are willing.

Technology has allowed solicitors into people’s homes and computers, they call during dinner and fill people’s e-mail inboxes with spam in attempts to convince them to refinance their mortgage or elongate their penis, safely and naturally by the way. It has encouraged consumerism to the point of competition; a veritable nation wide race with the “Joneses.” This obsession with the material has shoved our compassion to the curb, destroying our trust for one another and encouraging people to remain distant and reserved.

The ability to communicate through text and over the phone allows people to forego face-to-face meetings while still effectively communicating information. Without meeting in person, people do not have the opportunity to get to know each another and all that is achieved is a massive trading of cold data. Sometimes, people do not get to even meet their own boss.

As we communicate with abbreviated messages, giving and receiving only the meat of conversations, intimacy is lost. Without it, our loyalties and bonds disintegrate or never form, leaving people in communication with as many others as they like, but preventing any meaningful relationships from being developed.

Even face-to-face interactions are interrupted by technology in the form of iPods and cell phones. It is rarely considered rude to send text messages or even listen to music while speaking with someone in person During lunch with a friend, a person may have several conversations with other people while attempting to remain attentive to the actual person seated across from them. This lack of involvement and basic consideration usually will go ignored, perpetuating the behavior and establishing it as the norm.

With people drifting further and further apart and as this generation prepares to take the reigns of the world, the resulting society of loners will cease to function on the scale it has thus far. Matthew Brashears, a UA sociology graduate student who helped conduct the survey, predicts a “decline in civic engagement.” Government operations and democracy itself stand to suffer as people decide not to participate in organizations and government. We must relearn to engage one another - if not for our own individual happiness, then for the continuation and preservation of our way of life.​

bad credit loan re mortgage uk
Get Cash Online

 

[davidv]

The quote function in the forum doesn’t seem to work for me now for some reason, so pardon me if I’m a little crude with my formatting here, I’m not familiar with this forum yet.

You quote the catechism as saying:

"363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. "

So says my copy. However, when a definition puts a term in quotes like that, it leaves the meaning open. That’s what the quotes mean. They signify that the meaning of the term in quotes is not defined. Hence my question.

When it further says

“every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238”

It continues to not define what a soul is.

I believe that article 365 gives a simple definition of soul as the form of the body

I also don’t see what it tells us about whether a copy of my cousin’s memories count as my cousin or not if they’re put into a new body.

Given the definition in 365, I can conclude that ones memory is not the soul. So putting your cousin’s memory, if you could do so, into a new body would not resurrect your cousin.

If that’s not what the resurrection is going to do, then what is the resurrection going to do?

Joe

The resurrection rejoins our soul, which departed the body at death, to its body.

 

[ricmat]

What does it mean to say that the concept of a non-material soul can be approached from a scientific perspective? Science can’t do non-material, it only deals with empirical stuff, by definition.

Sorry, I mis-spoke there. It’s the philosophy part of the book (which does include logic) which goes in this direction.

 

[Leela]

Sorry, I mis-spoke there. It’s the philosophy part of the book (which does include logic) which goes in this direction.

Science is cool with immaterial. The laws of science themselves are immaterial. It just can’t make anything of supernatural.

 

[edwest2]

Self-proclaimed futurist Ray Kurzweil is already talking about a post-human world. A world where machines that look like human beings will appear.

If the machine can become aware of itself as an individual entity and is given decision making programming, then it may decide, as Skynet did in the Terminator movies, that man needs to be wiped out. After all, in Terminator 2, the machine says: “It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.”

There is a flaw in each of us called sin. It is the serious problem that keeps us from living in true peace. The wages of sin is death.

If it became possible to transfer someone’s brain/thoughts/personality into a robotic frame, the essential soul aspect would be gone. The person would be a sophisticated program that would need to rely on interfaces. Perhaps the person could learn by downloading but application would be more complicated. Learning about karate and knowing every move is not the same as doing it.

Sadly, I perceive the drive to develop a machine entity with self awareness as the dream of some to create their idea of a perfect being but not only that, a being untouched by God. And it is also part of that dream to create god-like beings, once again, to depose the idea of God. Yet, due to that fatal flaw, the airplane, first developed around 100 years ago, was soon entered into combat. The first cruise missile and first practical liquid fuel rocket were used in war.

Already, there are humanoid robots sophisticated enough to walk, run, climb stairs and carry weapons. Very simple robotic platforms are already deployed with basic target identification and tracking information. They are armed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jhalpin100]

I believe that article 365 gives a simple definition of soul as the form of the body
Given the definition in 365, I can conclude that ones memory is not the soul. So putting your cousin’s memory, if you could do so, into a new body would not resurrect your cousin.

The resurrection rejoins our soul, which departed the body at death, to its body.

I don’t want to be difficult, and I hope I’m not being dense. However, those pesky quotes give me a bad time when I try to understand what’s being said. When it says that the soul is the “form” of the body, I wonder why they put that word in quotes. What is the reason for that punctuation?

The glossary at the back of my copy of the Catechism says this about it

“SOUL: The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature…”

What does it mean to be the “subject of human consciousness and freedom”? Maybe it’s just my lack of being a theological scholar that keeps me from getting the point of things like this, but there it is, and here I am.

It looks very much to me like the whole section of the Catechism from 362 to 368 assumes understanding of terms that I (at least) don’t posses. I’d like to understand this better, but I don’t have the time or inclination to become a scholar of the Catechism, theology, etc. I suspect that isn’t really needed, but I’d like to understand what I can.

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

If it became possible to transfer someone’s brain/thoughts/personality into a robotic frame, the essential soul aspect would be gone. The person would be a sophisticated program that would need to rely on interfaces. Perhaps the person could learn by downloading but application would be more complicated. Learning about karate and knowing every move is not the same as doing it.

So what is “the essential soul aspect”? Why would downloading memories in another body make that gone?

 

[HelenaMT]

So what is “the essential soul aspect”? Why would downloading memories in another body make that gone?

If you take the catechism seriously where it says that God creates a person’s soul at conception, then the stored memories in a different body is not the same as the original, because when the first body died, it’s soul would have left it. It seems that this would mean that the new incarnation would have to have it’s own soul, if God chose to give it one.

 

[edwest2]

So what is “the essential soul aspect”? Why would downloading memories in another body make that gone?

The soul is a spirit and animating force. It cannot be downloaded. A robot, even a self aware robot, is not a living thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

The soul is a spirit and animating force. It cannot be downloaded. A robot, even a self aware robot, is not a living thing.

My dog is a living thing and quite spirited and animated. Does he have a soul?

 

[ricmat]

My dog is a living thing and quite spirited and animated. Does he have a soul?

The church teaches that your dog has a material soul. That means that when the dog dies, the soul dies as well. Humans, by contrast, have an immortal soul that trancends death.

 

[jhalpin100]

The soul is a spirit and animating force. It cannot be downloaded. A robot, even a self aware robot, is not a living thing.

Peace,
Ed

Where does this definition come from? How do you know it can’t be downloaded?

 

[jhalpin100]

If you take the catechism seriously where it says that God creates a person’s soul at conception, then the stored memories in a different body is not the same as the original, because when the first body died, it’s soul would have left it. It seems that this would mean that the new incarnation would have to have it’s own soul, if God chose to give it one.

Does the catechism say that stored memories in a different body are not the same as the original? If not, how does your conclusion follow from the catechism? What is the connection between the soul and memories?

I’m not trying to be difficult, but it seems that most of the answers I get are opinions which are derived from something like the catechism. If all we have are opinions, I’m fine with that, and my question is answered.