Humans vs robots

[jhalpin100]

The soul is immaterial. It is spirit.

Peace,
Ed

Ok, so I’m curious now how this dovetails with your remark in another post

“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.”

Are you giving an opinion here?

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

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?

Descartes was an idiot in my opinion. What reason did he have to doubt that it was his hand he was looking at? Constructing word games doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

I used to see this on bathroom walls in the 70’s

“If God is all powerful He can make a rock He can’t pick up. But if He’s all powerful He can pick it up”.

This is an example of the same kind of thing. As one of my professors commented, it’s a sophisticated kind of nonsense. The ability to construct sentences that don’t make any sense isn’t an indication that one realizes anything.

Sorry, I’m a little out of sorts today.

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

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?

Sorry, I guess I didn’t do my part here and answer your question. What I would prefer is something I can understand.

So far I’ve been told a number of things which turn out to not only be simple opinion, but undefined opinion. I’m being told that simply replacing memories aren’t enough because we need .

I guess I’m up against one of those things that simply isn’t defined by the church. I understand that, and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on those who disagree with me. I guess I just have my opinion and others have theirs. C’est la vie.

Thanks, and I’m sorry if I spoiled the fellowship here.

Joe

 

[Benadam]

Sorry, I guess I didn’t do my part here and answer your question. What I would prefer is something I can understand.

So far I’ve been told a number of things which turn out to not only be simple opinion, but undefined opinion. I’m being told that simply replacing memories aren’t enough because we need .

I guess I’m up against one of those things that simply isn’t defined by the church. I understand that, and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on those who disagree with me. I guess I just have my opinion and others have theirs. C’est la vie.

Thanks, and I’m sorry if I spoiled the fellowship here.

Joe

Ever wonder how the ability to grasp eternal realities happened ? Did flesh evolve some corporeal organ that enabled our mind to perceive a dimension of reality that no other animal flesh in our world ever could before and no other can be imagined.

Death is the eternal reality that profoundly effects our state of becoming. It’s the reality that we peer through, like a window pane, to see the eternal realm. A duration without succession, beginning or end. secondarily changelessness characterizes the eternal state,. Changelessness isn’t of this realm but the eternal relm.

What organs make that ability operative in the life of this particular animal?

Eternal realities become primary beliefs when accepted which then construct a vision of reality. We are very alone amongst the animals in this respect.

Did the evolution of flesh form an organic system with the additional complexity required for the the operation of the higher faculties that make us moral agents?

If so how did it do that and why? if that ability didn’t exist in the realm of matter before, but does now, where did it come from ?

Can you see the possibility that it wasn’t created in the realm of matter? We find no organic process that distinguishes us from other animals to inform us why they don’t have this ability and we do.

No evidence of it’s organic operation that allows us to point and say; that’s the organic process that endows the conscious awareness that elevates the human animal above all others.

The possibility that our physiology doesn’t guarantee it’s operation since we can’t distinguish if it is operating through organic processes.

We can p(name removed by moderator)oint the organic processes attached to the power to remember , also the power to see. But the power to become aware of eternal reality deepens our perception, constructs a new meaning of reality, reconstructs our own meaning , meaning that distinguishes us among all living matter we know of. There is no organic process we can point to operating the power to apprehend eternal realities. Nothing different eneogh in us not seen in animals making it’s organic operation evident.

That is the evidence that it originates outside of matter. Outside of matter it’s cause exists. Evidence that alters what we mean and so the experience of being what we are. So what is causing us to form and experience the state of becoming to it’s fullest has no apparent material origin. See this as evidence of the soul?

 

[tonyrey]

Descartes was an idiot in my opinion. What reason did he have to doubt that it was his hand he was looking at? Constructing word games doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

You regard Descartes as an idiot because you take it for granted the physical world exists! How do you know? Can you prove it? Or is it just your opinion? Or is it because everyone you meet believes it and everything you read takes it for granted? That still does not constitute proof.

If you’re a sceptic you should take your scepticism to its logical conclusion - as Descartes did. He wasn’t as stupid as you think. He realized that we infer the existence of the physical world from our perceptions. Our starting point is “our” stream of thoughts, images, sensations and feelings not physical objects. Even “I” and “we” are inferences. David Hume could find no “I”, only a “bundle of impressions”.

Do you regard that as a satisfactory explanation of reality? Not if you accept the principle of economy. The simplest explanation is not a multitude of mental events but a mind in which they occur and inhere. And a mind or self is the only possible explanation of self-control. And not only self-control but also responsibility. If you can think of another explanation I shall be very interested to hear it

As this is a philosophy forum I’m tackling your question from a non-theological angle and consider “soul”, “spirit”, “mind”, “self” and “person” as synonyms (more or less - probably less than more!) for an intangible entity. Whatever it is, it is an ultimate reality with which we are intimately acquainted and unlike the brain it is purposeful in the full sense of the term

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The soul is immaterial. It is spirit.

Peace,
Ed

Isn’t computer software like the soul, in that it is immaterial?

 

[Leela]

Isn’t computer software like the soul, in that it is immaterial?

I always liked the hardware/software analogy. We don’t need to think of the mind as a property of a brain or an extention of the properties of the brain any more than we need to think of a program as a property of a computer. Obviously thoughts are correlated with electrical impules in the brain as programs are correlated with switches and voltages in computers, but there is no need to think of one reducing to the other. In fact, it just does’t work to try to do so. You’ll never find a program by taking apart a computer, and you’ll never find a thought by disecting a brain.

If you want to think of intellect as just a property of a physical body, you’d have to think that the information needed to create New York city is somehow contained within human DNA.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Descartes was an idiot in my opinion. What reason did he have to doubt that it was his hand he was looking at? Constructing word games doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

I used to see this on bathroom walls in the 70’s

“If God is all powerful He can make a rock He can’t pick up. But if He’s all powerful He can pick it up”.

This is an example of the same kind of thing. As one of my professors commented, it’s a sophisticated kind of nonsense. The ability to construct sentences that don’t make any sense isn’t an indication that one realizes anything.

Sorry, I’m a little out of sorts today.

Joe

No need to apologize, Joe; i find your reply intriguing! It raises the question: How does one know when an idea is absurd? Let’s compare the two ideas and see if they suffer from the same absurdity:

(1a) “I think, therefore i am.”

(2a) “If God is all powerful He can make a rock He can’t pick up. But if He’s all powerful He can pick it up.”

Perhaps what makes (2a) absurd is not the rock, but the action of creating the rock. Another way of phrasing (2a) might be this:

(2b) “Would God make something that, or someone who, is beyond His or Her power to control?”

Do you think (2b) is an absurd question? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[jhalpin100]

Ever wonder how the ability to grasp eternal realities happened ? Did flesh evolve some corporeal organ that enabled our mind to perceive a dimension of reality that no other animal flesh in our world ever could before and no other can be imagined.

This assumes that the ability to grasp eternal realities did, in fact, happen. I don’t know that did happen. At any rate, how would we know if it did? What would it take to know something like that?

Death is the eternal reality that profoundly effects our state of becoming. It’s the reality that we peer through, like a window pane, to see the eternal realm. A duration without succession, beginning or end. secondarily changelessness characterizes the eternal state,. Changelessness isn’t of this realm but the eternal relm.

What organs make that ability operative in the life of this particular animal?

Death effects our state of becoming? I’m not following that, sorry. Did you mean “affects”? If you meant what you posted, I’d very much like to know what you meant.

Eternal realities become primary beliefs when accepted which then construct a vision of reality. We are very alone amongst the animals in this respect.

How could we know that? That sounds like a claim that we actually can define what the difference between a human and an animal (or I assume a robot) is.

Did the evolution of flesh form an organic system with the additional complexity required for the the operation of the higher faculties that make us moral agents?

If so how did it do that and why? if that ability didn’t exist in the realm of matter before, but does now, where did it come from ?

Can you see the possibility that it wasn’t created in the realm of matter? We find no organic process that distinguishes us from other animals to inform us why they don’t have this ability and we do.

No evidence of it’s organic operation that allows us to point and say; that’s the organic process that endows the conscious awareness that elevates the human animal above all others.

The possibility that our physiology doesn’t guarantee it’s operation since we can’t distinguish if it is operating through organic processes.

We can p(name removed by moderator)oint the organic processes attached to the power to remember , also the power to see. But the power to become aware of eternal reality deepens our perception, constructs a new meaning of reality, reconstructs our own meaning , meaning that distinguishes us among all living matter we know of. There is no organic process we can point to operating the power to apprehend eternal realities. Nothing different eneogh in us not seen in animals making it’s organic operation evident.

That is the evidence that it originates outside of matter. Outside of matter it’s cause exists. Evidence that alters what we mean and so the experience of being what we are. So what is causing us to form and experience the state of becoming to it’s fullest has no apparent material origin. See this as evidence of the soul?

I’m sorry, but this is drifting in to the Eric Von Daniken school of inquiry. Asking questions isn’t the same as giving answers.

Pointing out that we can’t answer a question doesn’t answer the question. That we don’t know that there is an organic process involved isn’t proof (or even an indication scientifically) that there is something else involved.

Personally, I think there is more to us than meets the eye. I’m just not sure what that involves. In my mind it may be nothing more than our dependence on God, who remembers the hairs on our head.

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

No need to apologize, Joe; i find your reply intriguing! It raises the question: How does one know when an idea is absurd? Let’s compare the two ideas and see if they suffer from the same absurdity:

(1a) “I think, therefore i am.”

(2a) “If God is all powerful He can make a rock He can’t pick up. But if He’s all powerful He can pick it up.”

Perhaps what makes (2a) absurd is not the rock, but the action of creating the rock. Another way of phrasing (2a) might be this:

(2b) “Would God make something that, or someone who, is beyond His or Her power to control?”

Do you think (2b) is an absurd question? If so, why? If not, why not?

One knows that an idea is absurd because it doesn’t make sense.

In the case of Descartes, what reason did he have to doubt that he was looking at his hand? Yes, yes, I’m aware of the “but what if he was on drugs and didn’t know it” kind of response. However what I’m pointing at is a very specific question: what are valid reasons for doubting an assertion?

If you have a history of taking drugs, or if you know you’re the target of a foreign intelligence service, or for whatever other reason you know that there’s a possibility drugs are involved, then maybe you have a reason for suspecting that it’s nor really your hand you’re looking at.

Descartes was just playing a philosophical game. He was exploring the boundaries of epistemology, and went too far without realizing it. Nobody actually lives their life wondering if the hand they see belongs to them. They don’t do that because it’s stupid to hold your hand up in front of your face and then wonder if that’s really your hand.

So, to answer your question (2a) I have no idea what or why God does what He does. I think He’s given us certain ways to think about things, but what He’s given us doesn’t (at least as far as I can see now) answer everything.

 

[jhalpin100]

No need to apologize, Joe; i find your reply intriguing! It raises the question: How does one know when an idea is absurd? Let’s compare the two ideas and see if they suffer from the same absurdity:

(1a) “I think, therefore i am.”

(2a) “If God is all powerful He can make a rock He can’t pick up. But if He’s all powerful He can pick it up.”

Perhaps what makes (2a) absurd is not the rock, but the action of creating the rock. Another way of phrasing (2a) might be this:

(2b) “Would God make something that, or someone who, is beyond His or Her power to control?”

Do you think (2b) is an absurd question? If so, why? If not, why not?

Sorry, I hit the send button too quickly.

In answer to (2b) I’ll just point out the rebellion of the angels in heaven, and the rebellion of humans on earth. God has created beings which, while I don’t say are beyond His control, do oppose His will. I guess that means no, at least insofar as He takes free will seriously.

I’m not sure what that has to do with whether the resurrection involves replacing our memories though.

Joe

 

[jhalpin100]

No need to apologize, Joe; i find your reply intriguing! It raises the question: How does one know when an idea is absurd? Let’s compare the two ideas and see if they suffer from the same absurdity:

(1a) “I think, therefore i am.”

(2a) “If God is all powerful He can make a rock He can’t pick up. But if He’s all powerful He can pick it up.”

Perhaps what makes (2a) absurd is not the rock, but the action of creating the rock. Another way of phrasing (2a) might be this:

Ok, I’m really not feeling well today and that’s obviously affecting my reading skills, so I’ll just make one more response and then I’m going to go back to bed.

What makes (2a) absurd is that it’s a self contradiction. It makes “all powerful” mean two different things at the same time in the same respect. It’s the kind of thing that belongs on bathroom wall.

“I think therefore I am” is stupid because there’s no need to ask the question whether I am or not. He would have done better in my opinion by asking what I should do about the fact that I am.

Joe

 

[edwest2]

Ok, so I’m curious now how this dovetails with your remark in another post

“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.”

Are you giving an opinion here?

Joe

No. This is not an opinion. This statement is based on Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Isn’t computer software like the soul, in that it is immaterial?

Computer software cannot be compared to anything spiritual.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I always liked the hardware/software analogy. We don’t need to think of the mind as a property of a brain or an extention of the properties of the brain any more than we need to think of a program as a property of a computer. Obviously thoughts are correlated with electrical impules in the brain as programs are correlated with switches and voltages in computers, but there is no need to think of one reducing to the other. In fact, it just does’t work to try to do so. You’ll never find a program by taking apart a computer, and you’ll never find a thought by disecting a brain.

If you want to think of intellect as just a property of a physical body, you’d have to think that the information needed to create New York city is somehow contained within human DNA.

The information to create is in DNA? How do you figure? Creative ideas are immaterial. As a professional writer, I have no idea where it comes from but I get ideas.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

The information to create is in DNA? How do you figure? Creative ideas are immaterial. As a professional writer, I have no idea where it comes from but I get ideas.

We aren’t disagreeing. I think it is absurd to think of mind as an extension of matter. Either I haven’t made myself clear enough or you’ve just misread.

 

[jhalpin100]

You regard Descartes as an idiot because you take it for granted the physical world exists! How do you know? Can you prove it? Or is it just your opinion? Or is it because everyone you meet believes it and everything you read takes it for granted? That still does not constitute proof.

I regard him as an idiot because he asked a stupid question. It’s not that I take it for granted that the physical world exists, it’s that there is no reason to doubt that it does.

The fact that he came up with a conclusion like “if I’m thinking I must be here” only shows the pointlessness of his argument in the first place. Why does he become a genius for asking a question any cleaning lady could answer?

If you’re a sceptic you should take your scepticism to its logical conclusion - as Descartes did. He wasn’t as stupid as you think. He realized that we infer the existence of the physical world from our perceptions.

We don’t infer the existence of the physical world. We’re part of it and we simply live. The biggest reason I dislike Descartes is that he convinced people that the obvious is profound, and in doing so lead them down a path where they pursue the obvious in neglect of the real.

I take that as a criticism of myself as well. There are very simple things, about which I have no doubt, that I wind up neglecting in favor of things I can’t do anything about. For example, until I learn to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before your God”, I really have no business wondering about whether my cousin could or will be restored. Still, here I am. I guess that’s why the Bible is such a big book.

Joe

 

[tonyrey]

I regard him as an idiot because he asked a stupid question. It’s not that I take it for granted that the physical world exists, it’s that there is no reason to doubt that it does. The fact that he came up with a conclusion like “if I’m thinking I must be here” only shows the pointlessness of his argument in the first place. Why does he become a genius for asking a question any cleaning lady could answer?

The fact that you despise Descartes merely reveals your own lack of insight. It’s a flagrant self-contradiction to say “It’s not that I take it for granted that the physical world exists, it’s that there is no reason to doubt that it does.” You take it for granted there is no reason to doubt that the physical world exists! How do you know it exists? What evidence or reason can you produce to prove it exists? If you say it’s not necessary to prove it exists you are taking it for granted. If you can’t produce any evidence or reason for your “knowledge” that it exists you are being irrational. It amounts to saying “I am infallible with regard to the existence of the physical world and no one can prove I’m wrong”.

We don’t infer the existence of the physical world. We’re part of it and we simply live. The biggest reason I dislike Descartes is that he convinced people that the obvious is profound, and in doing so lead them down a path where they pursue the obvious in neglect of the real

You’re still unable to accept the fact that we don’t have direct knowledge of things. All we have is the evidence of our senses : shapes, colours, tastes, sounds and tactile sensations we interpret as qualities of things. But the evidence of the senses is notoriously deceptive. No two people interpret them in exactly the same way. Sometimes we misinterpret them altogether. Sometimes we imagine things. Sometimes we’re dreaming or daydreaming. How can you prove we’re not dreaming now? It’s no good saying “I know I’m not dreaming” because you could be saying that in a dream! The whole of life could be a dream: La vida es sueno.

I don’t believe that for one moment. Like you I believe things exist. Unlike you I know we can’t prove it. It’s a belief we’ve had since we were kids. If you disagree, produce one jot of incontestable evidence. What you fail to recognize is that knowledge is not circular but linear. It must be based on something; otherwise it exists in a void. It is based on assumptions - like the assumption there are things stimulating our senses. It is putting the cart before the horse to say we believe we exist because things exist… What are the first things you’re aware of when you wake up and are still half asleep? Your ideas, feelings and sensations. Like everyone else you’re trapped within your mind and you can’t experience another person’s inner life directly. We’re all in the egocentric predicament whether we like it or not. Too bad!

But there’s a ray of hope:

I take that as a criticism of myself as well. There are very simple things, about which I have no doubt, that I wind up neglecting in favor of things I can’t do anything about. For example, until I learn to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before your God”, I really have no business wondering about whether my cousin could or will be restored. Still, here I am. I guess that’s why the Bible is such a big book.

I’ve been rather harsh on you… but you did call poor old Descartes an idiot

 

[Benadam]

This assumes that the ability to grasp eternal realities did, in fact, happen. I don’t know that did happen. At any rate, how would we know if it did? What would it take to know something like that?

Death effects our state of becoming? I’m not following that, sorry. Did you mean “affects”? If you meant what you posted, I’d very much like to know what you meant.

How could we know that? That sounds like a claim that we actually can define what the difference between a human and an animal (or I assume a robot) is.

I’m sorry, but this is drifting in to the Eric Von Daniken school of inquiry. Asking questions isn’t the same as giving answers.

Pointing out that we can’t answer a question doesn’t answer the question. That we don’t know that there is an organic process involved isn’t proof (or even an indication scientifically) that there is something else involved.

Personally, I think there is more to us than meets the eye. I’m just not sure what that involves. In my mind it may be nothing more than our dependence on God, who remembers the hairs on our head.

Joe

The question isn’t unanswered for me and claiming that another is forthcoming doesn’t offer a reasonable objection to believe it isn’t true. If the possibility that the answer presented is denied, at this point, it seems to me to expose the possibility that a prefered answer is desired more than a true one.

 

[jhalpin100]

The fact that you despise Descartes merely reveals your own lack of insight.

Sorry, when did I say I despised him? Are you sure you’re responding to the guy you think you are (no pun intended).

It’s a flagrant self-contradiction to say “It’s not that I take it for granted that the physical world exists, it’s that there is no reason to doubt that it does.” You take it for granted there is no reason to doubt that the physical world exists! How do you know it exists? What evidence or reason can you produce to prove it exists? If you say it’s not necessary to prove it exists you are taking it for granted. If you can’t produce any evidence or reason for your “knowledge” that it exists you are being irrational. It amounts to saying “I am infallible with regard to the existence of the physical world and no one can prove I’m wrong”.

I have no idea who you’re talking about or what you think you’re saying.

Do you live your life wondering if you exist? I’m pretty sure you don’t, because there isn’t any reason to do so, unless you’re playing a philosophical game. Hold your hand up in front of your face and tell me you really don’t know if that’s your hand or not.

Look, I don’t think I’ve been abducted by aliens, I don’t wonder about whether or not I have, because I don’t have any reason to do so. Does that make me irrational? Should I have to cough up proof that I haven’t been abducted by aliens in order to say I have no reason to think I have?

…]

Like you I believe things exist. Unlike you I know we can’t prove it.

…]

I think now you have me confused with someone else, or you haven’t read what I’ve been saying in this thread.

I’ve been rather harsh on you… but you did call poor old Descartes an idiot

Yeah, poor Descartes.