Humans vs robots

[NTOT]

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 "
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

At the final Resurrection, ones soul will not be placed into a new body, it will be reunited with it’s own glorious and perfected body. No, memories are not a person. Man is a creature composed of body and soul. The body alone is not man, the soul alone is not man.

 

[HelenaMT]

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?

The catechism says nothing about the soul in relation to memories,and does little to explain anything specific about what the soul actually is-it says that it is created by God for each individual, and that it lives on after death. That implies that the soul is more than just what brain patterns could be recorded on some physical medium, that it is an actual entity, by virtue of it being created by God before we had any memories at all, and that it lives on after our bodies and brains have been destroyed.

Unless you entertain the notion that a brain tape could be a soul trapped in a physical medium that can then be transferred into a different body. I wouldn’t rule that out, but what if it were erased? Does that mean the soul can be destroyed by such a simple physical means?

That seems to contradict the catechism’s idea of an immortal soul.

My opinion is that the soul, if it exists, is an entity that resides in our physical bodies and has something to do with influencing our choices in life, the little part of us that reigns in our baser instincts and helps us fight our biological and environmental programming when they push us towards sin. I also believe that the soul might somehow store our memories outside of the brain, so that they are intact for Purgatory, or Hell, or the Resurrection or whatever happens at the end. That is, when I believe in the soul at all.

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.

Yes, all you will get are opinions. I myself have never come across a solid definition of what the soul is or what part it plays in our existence. There have been a few threads on this forum discussing this problem. All anyone can really do is try to reasonably speculate.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

JH:

Loved Battle Star Galactica! Like all good science fiction, it dealt with sensitive subject matter of the current culture. Subjects like religiously-motivated war, terrorism, torture, suicide bombings, bigotry, and the like were all explored in depth in the TV series. As was the subject of cloning. The cylons that had human form were not robots, they were genetically enhanced clones. What would the future be like if a person could have hundreds of copies of herself? Interesting things to ponder about a technology we already have available to us.

Regarding the concept of downloading. The real question behind it is this: Does God destroy anyone He makes, or is the soul immortal? The concept of downloading is one in which the memories of a clone that dies are stored apart from a soul and then restored to the clone once it is brought to life. In other words, the soul of the cylon (if there was one) ceases to exist. This is an idea that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, but it denies that God creates us immortal in spirit. It makes God out to have little value for human life–creating it and snuffing it out at a whim. There are some people who take great care to never harm any living creature. Does that mean that they are of better moral character than the God who made them?

 

[jhalpin100]

The catechism says nothing about the soul in relation to memories,and does little to explain anything specific about what the soul actually is-it says that it is created by God for each individual, and that it lives on after death. That implies that the soul is more than just what brain patterns could be recorded on some physical medium, that it is an actual entity, by virtue of it being created by God before we had any memories at all, and that it lives on after our bodies and brains have been destroyed.

…]

Yes, all you will get are opinions. I myself have never come across a solid definition of what the soul is or what part it plays in our existence. There have been a few threads on this forum discussing this problem. All anyone can really do is try to reasonably speculate.

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty. This is really what I’m wondering about.

It seems to me that, as you say, what makes humans different is that they are created in the image of God. I don’t think anyone knows what that means though, because every definition I’ve ever seen begs the question by answering it with a term which itself requires a definition.

Reasonable people can reasonably conclude after reading the Bible, that there is no supernatural part of humans. “You are dust and to dust you shall return” is what God told Adam.

The catechism uses terms which can’t (or are not) defined without appealing to other terms which must be defined, etc. I’m willing to be corrected on that because I’m not a scholar of the catechism.

It doesn’t pose any problem for me to say that the soul is the consciousness of a person. But I’ve been known to overlook some things in the past If our opinions are what we have, I can live with that.

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

JH:
Regarding the concept of downloading. The real question behind it is this: Does God destroy anyone He makes, or is the soul immortal?

I don’t understand the dichotomy you’re proposing. Why is it one or the other?

The concept of downloading is one in which the memories of a clone that dies are stored apart from a soul and then restored to the clone once it is brought to life. In other words, the soul of the cylon (if there was one) ceases to exist.

I’m not sure where you got that. I don’t think it’s from the series. Again, where do you find this dichotomy between memories and souls?

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

At the final Resurrection, ones soul will not be placed into a new body, it will be reunited with it’s own glorious and perfected body. No, memories are not a person. Man is a creature composed of body and soul. The body alone is not man, the soul alone is not man.

Pardon my if I’m blunt, but this is nonsense. Think about all the people who have been burnt, buried at sea and their remains eaten by fish, etc, etc,

Lots of people won’t have a place in the new world with your scenario, including Abraham, he’s been gone so long he’s probably been potatoes many times over by now.

Joe

 

[Benadam]

Pardon my if I’m blunt, but this is nonsense. Think about all the people who have been burnt, buried at sea and their remains eaten by fish, etc, etc,

Lots of people won’t have a place in the new world with your scenario, including Abraham, he’s been gone so long he’s probably been potatoes many times over by now.

Joe

I’m not an expert on this but I can offer my understanding. I’m hoping I can at least contribute to this discussion constructively.

The soul is the final cause of the body. The powers of the soul require a material ‘helpmeet’ if you will… Dog soul causes dog flesh The powers of a dog’s soul are manifest through corporeal organs. There are no powers of the dog’s soul that are not operated through corporeal organs. Hence it is generated by material.

The powers of the human soul distinct from other animals can’t be traced to corporeal organs in regards of their operation. This is a Thomistic proof of the human soul’s origin from above.

A reversal in thought is required by most people to understand how the soul relates to the body according to theology based on St thomas Aquinas. The soul doesn’t really leave the body at death. The body becomes unable to be animated by it. The body no longer participates in the state of existence it shares with the soul.The soul participates in space and time in as much as it is united to the body. The body participates in the state the soul exists. The soul exists in a state not in a place as we imagine it. Life exists in two realms and being human requires that the soul experiences space and time through the body and the body experiences the spiritual state through the soul.

As it’s final cause the soul defines the pattern of the body. As a whole the soul and body experience being human. Because of that intimate union human life has shaped both as one being. The soul is the final cause of the body and that is why the body is materialized through the soul when God unites heaven and earth…

 

[jhalpin100]

I’m not an expert on this but I can offer my understanding. I’m hoping I can at least contribute to this discussion constructively.

The soul is the final cause of the body. The powers of the soul require a material ‘helpmeet’ if you will… Dog soul causes dog flesh The powers of a dog’s soul are manifest through corporeal organs. There are no powers of the dog’s soul that are not operated through corporeal organs. Hence it is generated by material.

The powers of the human soul distinct from other animals can’t be traced to corporeal organs in regards of their operation. This is a Thomistic proof of the human soul’s origin from above.

… ]

I’m sorry but I have no idea what any of this means. I’m not familiar with Aquinas, and simply don’t know what to think about this. If you could explain what it mean that might be helpful. As it is, I don’t have a clue what the rest of this means.

Could you explain in terms a simpleton like me can understand?

Joe

 

[Benadam]

I’m sorry but I have no idea what any of this means. I’m not familiar with Aquinas, and simply don’t know what to think about this. If you could explain what it mean that might be helpful. As it is, I don’t have a clue what the rest of this means.

Could you explain in terms a simpleton like me can understand?

Joe

Most people think of the body as the cause of the soul. That the abilities humans have that animals don’t is because we have a body that is more complex. Our flesh is somehow distinct categorically from animals therefore our soul is too.

Theologically the reverse is true.

The abilities humans have is because we are souls with powers that souls of other animals don’t have and ‘if’ our bodies are distinct from animal bodies in like manner it is caused to be by means of the human soul.

Most think of the body as the cause of the soul when theologically the soul is the cause of the body.

 

[jhalpin100]

You said

“At the final Resurrection, ones soul will not be placed into a new body, it will be reunited with it’s own glorious and perfected body. No, memories are not a person. Man is a creature composed of body and soul. The body alone is not man, the soul alone is not man.”

How is a “glorious and perfected body” not a “new body”?

Joe

 

[Benadam]

You said

“At the final Resurrection, ones soul will not be placed into a new body, it will be reunited with it’s own glorious and perfected body. No, memories are not a person. Man is a creature composed of body and soul. The body alone is not man, the soul alone is not man.”

How is a “glorious and perfected body” not a “new body”?

Joe

The atoms and cells of my body are not the same atoms and cells that my body was made of 7 years ago. I have a different body in that sense. But the body I have is the body my soul causes. True now true at the resurrection.

 

[jhalpin100]

The atoms and cells of my body are not the same atoms and cells that my body was made of 7 years ago. I have a different body in that sense. But the body I have is the body my soul causes. True now true at the resurrection.

What does that mean? How does the soul cause a body?

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

Most people think of the body as the cause of the soul. That the abilities humans have that animals don’t is because we have a body that is more complex. Our flesh is somehow distinct categorically from animals therefore our soul is too.

The word “somehow” deflates the explanation.

Theologically the reverse is true.

The abilities humans have is because we are souls with powers that souls of other animals don’t have and ‘if’ our bodies are distinct from animal bodies in like manner it is caused to be by means of the human soul.

Most think of the body as the cause of the soul when theologically the soul is the cause of the body.

Ok, I’ll ask again, what does this mean?

Suppose I said something like “This is wrong because the soul is a barid retriform of a fungilist” ? Would you just accept that because I stated it like I knew what I was talking about?

Joe

 

[Benadam]

The word “somehow” deflates the explanation.

I don’t know the definition of the word ‘barid’ or ‘retriform’ nor ‘fungilist’. I didn’t
use uncommon words like those so I don’t see the comparison.

I don’t know how to bwe more plain. Reading your posts I thought you could benefit from a more theological approach to conceptualize the soul. it is studied as a philosophical/theological construct after all. That is the gist of what I was trying to convey to you.

 

[Benadam]

What does that mean? How does the soul cause a body?

Joe

The soul is the ‘principle of life’ for the body. Principle= actuating or originating force

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t understand the dichotomy you’re proposing. Why is it one or the other?

Descartes reasoned, “I think, therefore I am.” The opposite, i believe, is also true: “If i cease to think, i cease to be.” Can a mind cease to think, and yet continue to exist? If it can, then what other criteria would you prefer to demonstrating a mind’s existence? If not, “I think, therefore I am?” Then what would you prefer to this?

 

[edwest2]

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

The soul is immaterial. It is spirit.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty. This is really what I’m wondering about.

It seems to me that, as you say, what makes humans different is that they are created in the image of God. I don’t think anyone knows what that means though, because every definition I’ve ever seen begs the question by answering it with a term which itself requires a definition.

Reasonable people can reasonably conclude after reading the Bible, that there is no supernatural part of humans. “You are dust and to dust you shall return” is what God told Adam.

The catechism uses terms which can’t (or are not) defined without appealing to other terms which must be defined, etc. I’m willing to be corrected on that because I’m not a scholar of the catechism.

It doesn’t pose any problem for me to say that the soul is the consciousness of a person. But I’ve been known to overlook some things in the past If our opinions are what we have, I can live with that.

Joe

Opinions should be ignored. Each one of us is an individual with an individual soul. Each one of is willed by God. Each one of us, body and soul, will appear at the final judgement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jhalpin100]

I don’t know the definition of the word ‘barid’ or ‘retriform’ nor ‘fungilist’. I didn’t use uncommon words like those so I don’t see the comparison.

The comparison is this:

If you use a term to explain another term, but the term you use as explanation requires an explanation itself, then you have not made an explanation. My use of an uncommon (actually made up) term was to demonstrate the fact that you can’t explain something by referencing something else which itself requires an explanation.

I don’t know how to bwe more plain. Reading your posts I thought you could benefit from a more theological approach to conceptualize the soul. it is studied as a philosophical/theological construct after all. That is the gist of what I was trying to convey to you.

I could certainly benefit by understanding things I don’t understand (can’t we all?). I’m sorry if my frustration is leaking through into my posts here.

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

The soul is the ‘principle of life’ for the body. Principle= actuating or originating force

So the soul is the actuating or originating force.

1. Which is it, actuating or originating?
2. How do you know?

Joe