The "Singularity" Solution: Why don't we just leave God up to the computers?

[Ghosty]

That certainly isn’t my argument since i clearly said that i believe for any immaterial process there has to be at least some material information to give it a foundation first for it to exist.

If you believe that material (name removed by moderator)ut causes the immaterial mind, then we definitely don’t agree, and I don’t see how such an idea could be backed up philosophically. You seem to be saying something different, however.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are simply saying that material (name removed by moderator)ut is required in order for the mind to function. If that is what you’re saying then we certainly agree. When I said that the ability was innate I wasn’t saying it was automatic. I was saying that the ability itself is not based on material (name removed by moderator)ut, though its function is. To use a computer analogy, a processor has the innate ability to run programs, but software must be installed for it to actually run anything.

The hurdle in creating A.I. that functions as a human mind would remains apparently insurmountable at this point, and I see no reason to believe it will ever be overcome. If it were simply a matter of making faster and more advanced technology then I would agree a true A.I. could be made. As it is, however, the evidence points to human-like intelligence not being merely a highly advanced computer, but actually operating on a whole other dimension (the immaterial). Trying to make an A.I. would be like trying to build a box with only two dimensions: it simply can’t be done by definition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Caldera]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are simply saying that material (name removed by moderator)ut is required in order for the mind to function. If that is what you’re saying then we certainly agree.

Yes, we agree.

If you believe that material (name removed by moderator)ut causes the immaterial mind, then we definitely don’t agree, and I don’t see how such an idea could be backed up philosophically.

While the potential immaterial mind may exist mechanically speaking, it is only driven and begins to function (exist?) with learned information. The more you learn the more it grows itself because of the database of information you store in your brain for processing.

Not everyone has the same mechanical ability, so can you prove it’s existance or does it require first some bit of information for it to even exist?

This is basically the same thing as an idle processor waiting to process complex algorithms.

 

[cpayne]

The idle processor “processes” when it receives (name removed by moderator)ut, but the mind understands. The faculty of understanding is evidence of the non-materiality of the mind. If the computer were analogous in this way to the mind, the computer wouldn’t need a programmer.

I can’t tell at this point if we are quibbling or if this is a fundamental difference in understanding the mind. My instinct is that this is a fundamental difference.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been reading bits and pieces about the so-called “Singularity”, and contradictory to the smiley face, I’m quite honestly terrified by it. What does it mean for us less-intelligent biological robots against the exponentially-intelligent computers?

Also, since the major afflictions of the world may be solved by the much more intelligent technology anyway, what meanings will our ever-extended lives have? Will traditional religion even matter in the face of eden-on-earth?

Ultimately though, given how “the singularity” seems to imply much more thoughtful, abstract-thinking calculators, why don’t we just wait fifty years for a computer to decide which religion – if any – holds the truth? Supposedly, by 2075 cheap computers will be able to contain intelligence equivalent to that of the entire human race!!!

Say: if they gained conciousness, would they be able to go to heaven? Would God give them a soul?

Once again: I’m terrified! :bigyikes:

But hoping for (name removed by moderator)ut.

Would computer intelligence be the same kind as ours? I don’t know–we will have to wait and find out. I think you are putting way too much faith in some wild and speculative writers.

Edwin

 

[Caldera]

The idle processor “processes” when it receives (name removed by moderator)ut, but the mind understands. The faculty of understanding is evidence of the non-materiality of the mind.

This is a good argument to explain why there is more to life than just the physical. The ability to “understand” for me is evidence that there is a higher power in the universe. A spirit maybe that teaches/sustains/guides us all through life in his own way and his own time?

My argument is simply for the existence of the immaterial mind of a newborn who has no sensory (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind from birth since i believe that the cause of the immaterial mind can only be triggered by some kind of information to begin with. Does it exist at birth, or is it something that starts from scratch and grows as the being is growing and learning? An infant doesnt have the same mechanical thinking ability as an adult who has lived and exercised the thought process from constant sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

It’s just an argument for the sake of argument.

 

[Aramis]

In theological terms, to humans, “at some point, God added a soul.”

The question isn’t if God can add a soul to a computer, but Will He?

 

[Ghosty]

My argument is simply for the existence of the immaterial mind of a newborn who has no sensory (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind from birth since i believe that the cause of the immaterial mind can only be triggered by some kind of information to begin with.

Well, as Catholics we believe that humans are given immaterial souls at the moment of conception, so we can’t really argue that the immaterial arises later due to material (name removed by moderator)ut. It grows in functionality, certainly, but it’s still there underlying the body from the moment conception occurs.

In short, infants don’t learn to understand by sensory exposure, they come to understand by such exposure. The power of understanding is already there, it’s just not activated without sensory (name removed by moderator)ut; it’s not a development of material (name removed by moderator)ut, though it (already existing) develops through material (name removed by moderator)ut and abstraction from it. It must already have the capability of abstracting in order for even this to occur, however, which is my point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[cpayne]

This is a good argument to explain why there is more to life than just the physical. The ability to “understand” for me is evidence that there is a higher power in the universe. A spirit maybe that teaches/sustains/guides us all through life in his own way and his own time?

My argument is simply for the existence of the immaterial mind of a newborn who has no sensory (name removed by moderator)ut of any kind from birth since i believe that the cause of the immaterial mind can only be triggered by some kind of information to begin with. Does it exist at birth, or is it something that starts from scratch and grows as the being is growing and learning? An infant doesnt have the same mechanical thinking ability as an adult who has lived and exercised the thought process from constant sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

It’s just an argument for the sake of argument.

Gotcha. :hug1:

 

[Caldera]

In theological terms, to humans, “at some point, God added a soul.”

Can i ask where this quote comes from?

---

Based on my arguments, are we really given a soul at the moment of conception, or are we mere physical entities who exist by the will of God, and who are sustained by his spirit (since God lives in everyone) as we live life while we wait for God to give us an immortal soul at some point?

 

[cpayne]

Based on my arguments, are we really given a soul at the moment of conception, or are we mere physical entities who exist by the will of God, and who are sustained by his spirit (since God lives in everyone) as we live life while we wait for God to give us an immortal soul at some point?

Hi, me again. Well, according to the teaching of the CC (derived through Aristotle with some major revamping from Aquinas and the Bible), everything that lives and develops has to have some kind of animating principle, i.e., a soul. Aquinas thought human souls passed through vegetative and animal stages before becoming fully human, but that was because he didn’t know about DNA. The “blueprint” for development is in DNA, but it has to be ignited / animated / given life by the infusion of a soul of some type. Since human DNA develops into a human, it requires a human soul. Since it starts developing at conception, the soul would be infused at that time.

 

[Aramis]

Can i ask where this quote comes from?

---

Based on my arguments, are we really given a soul at the moment of conception, or are we mere physical entities who exist by the will of God, and who are sustained by his spirit (since God lives in everyone) as we live life while we wait for God to give us an immortal soul at some point?

I can’t recall the original source. I know I have been using it for years, and so has my family (including my dad, a Deacon).

I was referring to the Species attribute of having souls. We KNOW humans have souls from conception.

But, somewhere, during evolution, God decided these particular apes needed souls. And so they obtained souls. And it was Good, right up until one of them sinned.

 

[Caldera]

We KNOW humans have souls from conception.

I very much want to believe this, and pretty much do, but you know what?

somewhere, during evolution, God decided these particular apes needed souls. And so they obtained souls.

What? All this does is make my argument an actual possibility, and hard to dismiss.

In other words, what is wrong with the possibility that all living beings have souls from the foundation of the world?

Oh wait, i know.

So, convince me that we are nothing more than physical entities awaiting an immortal soul. (this may be rhetorical )

Argument: From birth, the forced/constant sensory (name removed by moderator)ut from our surroundings is what drives our physical being w/ God alone as the actual “animator” who allows us to exist while we experience life and are given freedom to make choices, etc.

 

[cpayne]

Well, I would still argue that sensory (name removed by moderator)ut in and of itself cannot “drive” anything. A mind or soul has to exist capable of understanding the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut; otherwise, we’d be about on the same level as movie cameras with an open lens.

On the other point: If God were my soul, there wouldn’t be a “me,” there would only be God. I know this is the thought behind Hinduism, that we are all Brahman-Atman in very deep disguise, but Christianity argues for a really existing human soul, separate from the existence of God but still causally dependent upon Him. That seems much more plausible to me. I know myself pretty well, and am rather convinced I am not God in disguise as cpayne.


I re-read Post 32; maybe I’m misinterpreting what you are saying. What I am responding to is some of the implications I think I sense behind what you are saying.

 

[Ghosty]

Every living thing has a soul. It’s what makes a dead dog different from a living dog, for example. That doesn’t make a dog’s soul immaterial, and that’s the real issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Caldera]

cpayne:

Christianity argues for a really existing human soul, separate from the existence of God but still causally dependent upon Him. That seems much more plausible to me.

Well said. I can’t find a good enough reason to doubt it myself.

I know myself pretty well, and am rather convinced I am not God in disguise as cpayne.

Good thing, i’d be really mad at you for not answering my prayers!! lol

Ghosty:

Every living thing has a soul. It’s what makes a dead dog different from a living dog, for example. That doesn’t make a dog’s soul immaterial, and that’s the real issue.

That’s also part of the problem. A dog can have understanding too, though not like a human, but still. If we argue the mind is the same thing as a soul, then we rely heavily on “faith” to say we are something special simply because of the Genesis creation story. While it may actually be true, the scientific findings with evolution may eventually cause us to rethink some things.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion and for putting up with my crazy arguments. lol Have a nice weekend.

 

[Ghosty]

While it may actually be true, the scientific findings with evolution may eventually cause us to rethink some things.

We can’t stand in fear of scientific discovery. If we are true to our Faith, then we know that science will never contradict Divine Revelation. I’m not at all worried that science might “rattle” the Faith; it’s never happened, and it can’t happen. God made nature, and natural laws, so nothing we discover by natural studies will contradict what God has revealed.

We know by Faith that the human soul is unique, and by rational philosophy we can see how. Science has only backed up this understanding so far, so that’s further reason not to worry about this issue.

As for dogs having understanding, they certainly process information and make decisions based on that, but that’s not the same as juggling abstractions the way we do. That is the real disconnect between the material and immaterial soul.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

I very much want to believe this, and pretty much do, but you know what?

What? All this does is make my argument an actual possibility, and hard to dismiss.

In other words, what is wrong with the possibility that all living beings have souls from the foundation of the world?

Nothing. All that does is push back the point of adding the soul.