Would A.I (Artificial Inteligence) Have A Soul?

[nancy_dalrymple]

Breeding something, which you are speaking of, and creating are two different things. We do not give an animal or plant life; we merely set the conditions so that life might occur. The soul is something that only the Creator can give or make; us having babies, for instance, is not due to any God-like status of our own, but rather God’s generous gift of allowing us to participate as instruments in His divine life and creative power. WHAT ABOUT TEST TUBE BABY’S? Nancy

A human has an immortal soul, and an angel doesn’t necessarily have a soul in the way we speak of them. St. Thomas Aquinas spoke at length about this, but in short: the substance that is the soul is incomplete without the bodily form.

A soul, then, is something that requires a body to be complete (hooray for the resurrection of the body); an angel does not require a body, able to exist entirely in a spiritual form (though, on certain occasions, assuming a bodily form to be visible to man).

 

[JLongoria]

Hmm I have to disagree, we are certainly on the path to create life from basic elements. We are much father past then just simple breeding of animals and plants. Does that mean that the life we do create does not have a soul?

As someone currently working in biochemical research, I’ll have to inform you that you’re wrong. We are no where near being able to create life from the basic elements; we can create amino acids and carbohydrates, and we can even make proteins and simple chains of DNA. Even the cell cultures we make is a form of breeding; and if what we make does have a soul, it is not because we made it. It is because the Almighty has allowed us to participate in His creative powers as a gift, as that is His right alone.

But the fundamental functioning unit of all organisms is too complex to be synthesized. The prokaryotic cell, though simpler than those belonging to the higher organisms, is still on a mind boggling order of complexity.

Watch the “Super Speed Version”

They had us watch that in my undergraduate biochemistry and cell biology courses to ensure that we understood that “this is way more complicated that man could have ever imagined”. We have not been able to synthesize life, for life and death are in the hands of the Lord, our God.

Do you think that there are people that realy do not have a soul? Walking around and we dont know and they dont know,or mabe they gave their souls to the devil? Love of Christ Nancy

No. All men have souls, immediately created at the point of conception by God. Because they possess this soul, they are a person created in the image of God, fully entitled to the fullness of human dignity as God has willed it.

I beleive everything has a soul(body) human,(life) but we do not become a 1stPeter:1:20 until water Baptism. A living soul (body) all think,smell,taste,have all the same characteristics up until Baptism. In Hebrews :13:17 your soul becomes more (name removed by moderator)ortant and who watches for your souls? So they can clone and make all the life they want but without Baptism ,you are just a human,not destined for to much but able to make others hurt and fall. This is an excellent question Love of Christ Nancy Ps also able to love to but I can see why Jesus wanted all to be Baptized,it is so very important.It is the key to salvation.

I would have to disagree. Under your definition, a fetus is not considered a person, and thus has no right to live; this is in clear opposition to the teachings of the Sacred Magesterium.

God came to save us, even before baptism; Christ worked wonders on and through people who were not baptized. We should refuse to believe that, before the institution of the baptism by Spirit and water, humans are not persons, which seems to be what you are suggesting here.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Hey John,

The soul is not necessarily something that has been used exclusively for humans. An interesting point was made in the Catholic Medical Association’s quarterly journal concerning souls.

They introduced a definition of the soul that works fairly well, I think.

The soul is that which makes a living being continue on being that living being; in other words, it is the integrative, organizing principle that helps a biological organism continue persisting as that organism. Thus, when a human dies the rational soul has left the body, as the ability to maintain the human body has been permanently lost (they were using it to determine whole brain death as a morally legitimate criteria for brain death).

The point is animals also have souls; they have an integrative, organizing principle that allows them to persist until the time of death.

This leads us inevitably to the next question, which is what happens to the soul at death. St. Aquinas has an interesting conclusion as to why the human soul continues persisting while the animal soul does not, but I’ll let you go look for it .

Also look up GENISIS:2:7 Man is a living Soul(body) Flesh. But God gives him a spirit and it goes back to him (God) after death ECC:12:6-7 Thank You Nancy

 

[JLongoria]

Also look up GENISIS:2:7 Man is a living Soul(body) Flesh. But God gives him a spirit and it goes back to him (God) after death ECC:12:6-7 Thank You Nancy

I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being
Genesis 2:7

The definition of the soul being used, that it is the internal, integrative principle of a biological organism, is exactly what Genesis 2:7 is saying. Thus, the soul is given by God to make an body a living being; anything that lives, lives because God has given it a soul.

Your reference to Ecclesiastes is speaking about natural death, where the rational soul has left the physical body; this, however, is not what God created man for. Which is why the Church, on authority of Christ and His Apostles, has made it clear for over two thousand years that body and soul would be brought back together at the end of this age.

Christ, in His unending love, brings us back to the beginning of things, when man walked with God in perfect friendship, the being of man united entirely in body and soul as God created him.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

As someone currently working in biochemical research, I’ll have to inform you that you’re wrong. We are no where near being able to create life from the basic elements; we can create amino acids and carbohydrates, and we can even make proteins and simple chains of DNA. Even the cell cultures we make is a form of breeding; and if what we make does have a soul, it is not because we made it. It is because the Almighty has allowed us to participate in His creative powers as a gift, as that is His right alone.

But the fundamental functioning unit of all organisms is too complex to be synthesized. The prokaryotic cell, though simpler than those belonging to the higher organisms, is still on a mind boggling order of complexity.

Watch the “Super Speed Version”

They had us watch that in my undergraduate biochemistry and cell biology courses to ensure that we understood that “this is way more complicated that man could have ever imagined”. We have not been able to synthesize life, for life and death are in the hands of the Lord, our God.

No. All men have souls, immediately created at the point of conception by God. Because they possess this soul, they are a person created in the image of God, fully entitled to the fullness of human dignity as God has willed it.

I would have to disagree. Under your definition, a fetus is not considered a person, and thus has no right to live; this is in clear opposition to the teachings of the Sacred Magesterium.

God came to save us, even before baptism; Christ worked wonders on and through people who were not baptized. We should refuse to believe that, before the institution of the baptism by Spirit and water, humans are not persons, which seems to be what you are suggesting here.

Of course a fetus is a person and i am against abortion and the destroying of any life.and stem cell research to, and i beleive they were baptised before Christ because John the Baptist did before christ because it was a custom back then,but when Christ came it was a commandment,for all who beleived on Christ to be baptised into the death of Christ. Then the laying on of hands for the Holy Spirit to come. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being
Genesis 2:7

The definition of the soul being used, that it is the internal, integrative principle of a biological organism, is exactly what Genesis 2:7 is saying. Thus, the soul is given by God to make an body a living being; anything that lives, lives because God has given it a soul.

Your reference to Ecclesiastes is speaking about natural death, where the rational soul has left the physical body; this, however, is not what God created man for. Which is why the Church, on authority of Christ and His Apostles, has made it clear for over two thousand years that body and soul would be brought back together at the end of this age.

Christ, in His unending love, brings us back to the beginning of things, when man walked with God in perfect friendship, the being of man united entirely in body and soul as God created him.

See where you and i differ is in ONE word.I always do the KJV 1611 If we all used the same bible mabe we’d all be on the same page:shrug: look it up it’s written down Love of Christ Nancy

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

PS guy’s did you ever look up the word artificial?(instead of) the Beast is like Christ (anti) instead of. If it didn’t come from God then you realy need to think this one out(instead of) The tricks of satan is all artifical or anti not of GOD.Love of Christ Nancy Dont be fooled.

 

[JLongoria]

See where you and i differ is in ONE word.I always do the KJV 1611 If we all used the same bible mabe we’d all be on the same page:shrug: look it up it’s written down Love of Christ Nancy

Indeed! Unfortunately for the body of Christ, many broke away from the true Church in pursuit of heretical notions and “personal interpretations”.

I use the Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition, and it also reads “living soul”, while the New American Bible reads “living being”. In fact, from the Latin Vulgate reads animam viventem, which is translated as “living soul” as well. Which is completely and utterly besides the point.

Anything that is a living being possesses a soul and a body. At the point of death, the soul leaves the body to await being reunited by God at the end of all things.

The Church has always taught that in man is a union between body and soul; it has casted out heresies that would say otherwise. When a mother gives birth to a child, she does not give birth to an empty shell that is waiting to be baptized; she gives birth to a person, a gift from God, with the fullness of human dignity.

The person of Christ was at the moment of conception fully God and fully man existing in one nature; He did not have to wait for baptism in order to receive His human soul.

Only a very poor, dangerous understanding of one’s faith would lead one to say such a thing as, “a person is not a person until the moment of baptism”. You say you believe in the personhood of a fetus and an infant, but this is incompatible with what you are saying about when a person becomes a person. What you are saying only logically implies that a baby has no personhood, because personhood is defined as possessing a human soul; I pray that you please reconsider your views, as this is an affront to the teachings of the Church, and to the heart and dignity of man everywhere.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Indeed! Unfortunately for the body of Christ, many broke away from the true Church in pursuit of heretical notions and “personal interpretations”.

I use the Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition, and it also reads “living soul”, while the New American Bible reads “living being”. In fact, from the Latin Vulgate reads animam viventem, which is translated as “living soul” as well. Which is completely and utterly besides the point.

Anything that is a living being possesses a soul and a body. At the point of death, the soul leaves the body to await being reunited by God at the end of all things.

The Church has always taught that in man is a union between body and soul; it has casted out heresies that would say otherwise. When a mother gives birth to a child, she does not give birth to an empty shell that is waiting to be baptized; she gives birth to a person, a gift from God, with the fullness of human dignity.

The person of Christ was at the moment of conception fully God and fully man existing in one nature; He did not have to wait for baptism in order to receive His human soul.

Only a very poor, dangerous understanding of one’s faith would lead one to say such a thing as, “a person is not a person until the moment of baptism”. You say you believe in the personhood of a fetus and an infant, but this is incompatible with what you are saying about when a person becomes a person. What you are saying only logically implies that a baby has no personhood, because personhood is defined as possessing a human soul; I pray that you please reconsider your views, as this is an affront to the teachings of the Church, and to the heart and dignity of man everywhere.

I THINK YOUR RADING ME WRONG FOR YOU EVEN SAID IT IS IN THE KJV.THE PERSON’S SOUL IS HIS BODY AND THE BREATH OF LIFE IS GODS AND GOES BACK TO WHERE IT CAME,BUT YOU DONT BELEIVE THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD CONTRIDICT YOUR TEACHINGS,ECC:12 VERSE 6 AND 7 BEFORE ADAM WAS ALIVE GOD BREATH HIS BREATH INTO HIM AND HE BECAME A LIVING SOUL. HIS BODY CAME TO LIFE.ALL LIFE COMES FROM GOD.HE WAS A GOOD OLD SOUL (PERSON) NOW HE IS A SPIRIT. WE RESTLE NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD BUT AGAINST THE SPIRIT.THE SPIRIT IS WILLING BUT THE FLESH(SOUL) IS WEAK. LOVE OF Christ Nancy PS Baby’s have intellagence before it’s born. The spirit i was talking was the Holy spirit of God,it can come at baptism to.God was at the Baptism of Christ Well done etc.

 

[JLongoria]

The flesh was not made weak, nor the soul made weak, by God.

As God had made us, we were supposed to be a perfect union of body and soul, just as God is the perfect union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Original sin, however, confused this; it would have naturally destined the soul for death as it resulted in a loss of that original sanctifying grace. Yet God, in His mercy and love for us, set us apart to be saved. This promise came to fulfillment in Christ Jesus. Since God created us as separate beings that share in His divine life, God calls us back to this original friendship with Him through His Son.

We are not imprisoned souls just waiting to be returned to God, as you seem to be suggesting. We are humans, a union of body and soul, in the process of being perfected through the life, death, and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[greylorn]

A human does not have a soul because he possesses intelligence; he has a soul because he has the potential to possess intelligence. A mentally handicapped person, and even a fetus, possesses a soul (and thus full entitlement to human dignity and rights) because both possess an inherently human potential for reason and for maintaining their bodily integrity.

I don’t see how you reach your “if, and only if” conclusion. It seems like you’re starting from the premise that machines can possess a sort of soul, and then constructing a definition around it.

But a soul is not something that man can create, no more than man has been able to synthesize life from the most basic of elements. I can take a mixture of amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids, and I promise you that nothing will arise from it. With this in mind, it only makes sense to say that the soul is an internal, integrative, organizing principle of an organism based on our thousands of years of experience with thoroughly living things.

It is something thoroughly natural and biological; something more ancient and mysterious than any cold, futuristic machine that we can imagine. It is something we can speak about because it is part of our experiential past, present, and - assuming the world does not implode in the next few minutes - future.

The thing with a machine is that it does not possess the ability to integrate itself on it’s own; leave all the necessary parts for a machine in close proximity to itself and it will not, I assure you, compose itself in to a fully functioning machine.

The body of any organism, however, from the moment of conception has the ability to sustain itself; it can take the necessary elements from its nutrient source and integrate them in to the form of that particular organism.

I read that pile of words looking for a definition of soul, and was disappointed. You did allege that it was biological. That should help, since biological parts are identifiable. On what page of Grey’s Anatomy shall I find the soul?

 

[JLongoria]

Dear friend, truth often leads to disappointment for those whom it stands firmly against.

You won’t turn any page in any science book and find “the soul”, because it is not something that can be quantitatively analyzed; I would argue that it can be qualitatively, but that is another topic for another day.

And just so we’re clear, this is what the soul is being defined as (in a clearer manner): “the integrative, integrating principle of a biological organism that makes the organism what it is”.

The soul is not biological itself, rather it is the thing that (among other things) sustains and directs the growth of the body and integrates all the parts. When a young boy is growing up, he does not turn in to a cat or dog, or even a chimpanzee; why does he not do this? Surely, he could at least become monkey like (and hilariously, they often act like them), since every person enjoys throwing around the fact that we share greater than 99% of our DNA with a chimpanzee. Why does any animal go on being that particular animal, and not some monstrous chimeric creature, since we all do share a certain portion of the same DNA? We even share a great many of the same proteins and
enzymes, so it’s not as if it would be impossible for a man to become a horse.

The answer is obvious enough if we reject the sillyness and morbidity of materialism.

As much as it pains me to say this, being someone that enjoys the natural sciences, biology is far from being any sort of “hard” science like chemistry or physics; and chemistry and physics do a shoddy job at explaining away why anything exists at all, instead rather being resigned to saying that things can exist.

There is a part of biology that everyone is willing to accept as a hard science, when it is more like a philosophy; yet everyone is willing to accept its presented truths as real things without any sort of realizing of the fact that these ideas are completely and utterly immaterial (nevermind the fact that these are far from the only possible conclusions one can draw from the minimal evidence that is possessed).

So the interest of the fairness that you have shown me, show me a lump of “evolution” and measure it out for me if you will; I will wait patiently while you collect your sample. Since I am fairly sure, based on past experience, that you can’t go measure out a sample of “evolution”, I can presume to say it is something that does not exist by your logic.

Yet the idea of “change” in organisms continues on, giving credence to the idea that there is something at work to cause this change; which is why one should find no qualm in accepting evolution as the mechanism of God’s creative powers throughout the history of existence. Seeing then that - even in the biological sciences - immaterial principles can be accepted as pretty good jabs at the truth, I am not sure how you so quickly discount the soul in light of the fact that there exists a thing called man, and despite the allegedly cold logic of the universe in which all things degrade, he continues on existing as man and nothing else for a time as far as we can see.

It is contrary to the nature of any organism to accept death; it is almost as if it were carved in to the psyche of all living beings to resist it. One would think that if we developed in a universe destined for ultimate demise and destruction, most living creatures would not be bothered with trivial things such as death. Man should have no reason to build monuments, to love his children and wife, to pursue anything at all.

Yet pursue these things he does, even from the earliest of times.

You are free, however, to go on living in that purely materialistic existence where life and the universe becomes increasingly smaller as it is explained away; in that universe, there is no such thing as love or beauty or the soul, as those are immaterial things with meaning existing at the back of material things. Any attempt at saying, “well, I believe in love and beauty”, is the unprincipled exception to escape the suicidal, meaningless conclusion of that drab, unliving material existence.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Dear friend, truth often leads to disappointment for those whom it stands firmly against.

You won’t turn any page in any science book and find “the soul”, because it is not something that can be quantitatively analyzed; I would argue that it can be qualitatively, but that is another topic for another day.

And just so we’re clear, this is what the soul is being defined as (in a clearer manner): “the integrative, integrating principle of a biological organism that makes the organism what it is”.

The soul is not biological itself, rather it is the thing that (among other things) sustains and directs the growth of the body and integrates all the parts. When a young boy is growing up, he does not turn in to a cat or dog, or even a chimpanzee; why does he not do this? Surely, he could at least become monkey like (and hilariously, they often act like them), since every person enjoys throwing around the fact that we share greater than 99% of our DNA with a chimpanzee. Why does any animal go on being that particular animal, and not some monstrous chimeric creature, since we all do share a certain portion of the same DNA? We even share a great many of the same proteins and
enzymes, so it’s not as if it would be impossible for a man to become a horse.

The answer is obvious enough if we reject the sillyness and morbidity of materialism.

As much as it pains me to say this, being someone that enjoys the natural sciences, biology is far from being any sort of “hard” science like chemistry or physics; and chemistry and physics do a shoddy job at explaining away why anything exists at all, instead rather being resigned to saying that things can exist.

There is a part of biology that everyone is willing to accept as a hard science, when it is more like a philosophy; yet everyone is willing to accept its presented truths as real things without any sort of realizing of the fact that these ideas are completely and utterly immaterial (nevermind the fact that these are far from the only possible conclusions one can draw from the minimal evidence that is possessed).

So the interest of the fairness that you have shown me, show me a lump of “evolution” and measure it out for me if you will; I will wait patiently while you collect your sample. Since I am fairly sure, based on past experience, that you can’t go measure out a sample of “evolution”, I can presume to say it is something that does not exist by your logic.

Yet the idea of “change” in organisms continues on, giving credence to the idea that there is something at work to cause this change; which is why one should find no qualm in accepting evolution as the mechanism of God’s creative powers throughout the history of existence. Seeing then that - even in the biological sciences - immaterial principles can be accepted as pretty good jabs at the truth, I am not sure how you so quickly discount the soul in light of the fact that there exists a thing called man, and despite the allegedly cold logic of the universe in which all things degrade, he continues on existing as man and nothing else for a time as far as we can see.

It is contrary to the nature of any organism to accept death; it is almost as if it were carved in to the psyche of all living beings to resist it. One would think that if we developed in a universe destined for ultimate demise and destruction, most living creatures would not be bothered with trivial things such as death. Man should have no reason to build monuments, to love his children and wife, to pursue anything at all.

Yet pursue these things he does, even from the earliest of times.

You are free, however, to go on living in that purely materialistic existence where life and the universe becomes increasingly smaller as it is explained away; in that universe, there is no such thing as love or beauty or the soul, as those are immaterial things with meaning existing at the back of material things. Any attempt at saying, “well, I believe in love and beauty”, is the unprincipled exception to escape the suicidal, meaningless conclusion of that drab, unliving material existence.

What book are you getting this out of? Plato? Words that confuse the mind are of no hope and are a lost cause,can you be more lay? Love of Christ Nancy

 

[JLongoria]

Confusing the mind? I apologize if the posts are lengthy, but incoherent they are not.

So far, what I have written is rooted in Thomism, the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church. In 1879, Pope Leo XIII said some very interesting things about St. Aquinas, none of which were bad, in the encylical Aeterni Patris. Now as for the post you are responding to, I am refuting materialism as being any sort of acceptable way of seeing things as they really are. If you are upset with that, and still profess the Christian faith, then I have not the slightest idea what to say to you, haha. Never have two ideologies in this world besides materialism and Christianity been so diametrically opposed.

 

[greylorn]

A human does not have a soul because he possesses intelligence; he has a soul because he has the potential to possess intelligence. A mentally handicapped person, and even a fetus, possesses a soul (and thus full entitlement to human dignity and rights) because both possess an inherently human potential for reason and for maintaining their bodily integrity.

I don’t see how you reach your “if, and only if” conclusion. It seems like you’re starting from the premise that machines can possess a sort of soul, and then constructing a definition around it.

My original query was:
"greylorn:

According to belief, all humans have souls. Some humans have extremely sub-normal intelligence, and cannot even be taught to defecate into a receptacle. Yet, according to belief, they have souls. It would seem a reasonable extrapolation to conclude that A.I. programs such as the “Big Blue” software which beat a human chess master, would also possess a soul----

if, and only if, the notion of “soul” was coherently and intelligently defined in such a manner that its existence could be either verified or disproved.

Lacking such a definition, the question about A.I. devices having a soul seems irrelevant.

Kindly note that the point of my post was summarized in the penultimate paragraph about the need for a definition of soul. This was not a conclusion, but an attempt to bring this conversation into the real world in which words are supposed to have meanings.

You mount a courageous argument about the properties of an unidentified entity. I simply proposed that people who make statements about the soul ought to know what the soul actually is. In effect, I’m requesting basic intellectual honesty.

But a soul is not something that man can create, no more than man has been able to synthesize life from the most basic of elements. I can take a mixture of amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids, and I promise you that nothing will arise from it. With this in mind, it only makes sense to say that the soul is an internal, integrative, organizing principle of an organism based on our thousands of years of experience with thoroughly living things.

I am certain that if you mix some proto-molecules together, your promise that nothing will come of it will be fulfilled. However, someday, competent biochemists will synthesize life without your assistance.

They will be able to do this because biological life is definable. We do not know enough about the internal structure of cells to reproduce them today. We (the microbiologists, anyway) are learning.

I further propose that the eventual synthesis of cells from scratch will happen only when scientists take the approach, ‘If I was God, how would I assemble a viable cell from all this gunk?’ They may also require the services of someone trained in a specialty which does not yet exist, a micro-psychic, someone capable of selectively moving molecules.

This won’t be happening right off.

It is something thoroughly natural and biological; something more ancient and mysterious than any cold, futuristic machine that we can imagine. It is something we can speak about because it is part of our experiential past, present, and - assuming the world does not implode in the next few minutes - future.

That’s all very poetic. Like most poetry it doesn’t mean anything. How about simply defining what you mean by soul? If the soul is meaningless, your poetry does neither good nor harm, and perhaps helps believers feel good about believing in something unidentified. If the soul is meaningful (in other words, if the soul actually is something), a definition would promote clear discourse about it.

But I’ll wager that you cannot produce a useful definition of soul. You yourself don’t have an experiential past that tells you about the soul— you only have words in religious books. You don’t have a working definition of the soul itself. Yet you believe in it, and even stranger, that you know something about it. Well, okay— that’s what belief is about.

But when you proselytize your beliefs, it is fair to ask what exactly they happen to be. What is the soul? What does it do? What is its relationship to the human body, brain, mind and heart? Why does it exist? What is its purpose? What is its fate?

Perhaps you can draw on your legacy of experiential past to answer these simple questions. Then the participants could engage in a real and potentially useful discussion.

The thing with a machine is that it does not possess the ability to integrate itself on it’s own; leave all the necessary parts for a machine in close proximity to itself and it will not, I assure you, compose itself in to a fully functioning machine.

The body of any organism, however, from the moment of conception has the ability to sustain itself; it can take the necessary elements from its nutrient source and integrate them in to the form of that particular organism.

The initial part of your statement is correct, but only insofar as it applies to simple machines. Our machines have moved from the six basic Greek machines to more complex devices. Visit an electric motor manufacturing plant someday. It will contain some interesting large machines which eat copper, steel, and carbon, and emit fully functional motors. Computers are built by computer-controlled machines. Things are moving along. The “Terminator” movie scenario is moving closer to science, further from fiction.

In general, a machine is a device which does what it was designed to do, with or without intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. The tomato seeds I just planted are wonderful little machines which will produce tomatoes for me without any thought on my part. I assume that they were designed by God, or His suitably designated biological engineers, but I do not believe that God or his engineers need to throw any biomolecular switches to make them sprout.

Tomato seeds are little machines which seem to integrate themselves quite nicely… so nicely that the seeds growing today are those produced from last year’s plants. They are organisms— machines so brilliantly engineered that they can reproduce themselves from material contained in their environment.

Unless you claim that organisms do not actually function on their own, but that each requires the specific facilitation by God in order to eat, hunt, reproduce, etc., then organisms are machines. Definitely more sophisticated than the wheel and axle, definitely (IMO) created, but still just machines.

So, after and please, * only after* you’ve gotten to the real point, which is defining the soul, do share more of your knowledge about machines.

 

[greylorn]

JL–

After my previous post I found this from a subsequent post of yours. I hope to forestall the inevitable, that you will be inclined to substitute your “definition” of soul for a functional reply to my query,
Your quote:

And just so we’re clear, this is what the soul is being defined as (in a clearer manner): “the integrative, integrating principle of a biological organism that makes the organism what it is”.

The soul is not biological itself, rather it is the thing that (among other things) sustains and directs the growth of the body and integrates all the parts. (Etc. etc.)

Your definition teeters on the edge of tautology. It is vague, non-description, non-specific, and not functional. It is a better definition of DNA than it is of soul.

It suggests that all organisms have a soul,

In an earlier post your refer to experience, traditions, or some such throwback as providing our sources of knowledge about the soul. These traditions specifically denoted the soul as something unique to man.

Your definition would imbue a soul in every bacterium in your own boogers. Try again, please.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

As a sometime researcher in AI, we can’t even be sure that an AI has a mind, let alone a soul. Does it have a mind, or is it merely an artificial construct that mimics a mind perfectly? Does it have emotions, or does it merely appear to have them? And is there any difference between a 100% perfect mimic and something genuine?

Consider the axe that executed Charles II in the Tower of London. As the years have gone by, the handle rotted, so it was replaced. But it’s still the same axe. Then the head rusted, so it too was replaced. But it’s still the same original axe.

Consider our bodies, where living cells are turned over and replaced about every 7 years (I grossly over-simplify). We’re not quite the same person when we wake up in the morning as when we went to bed. Some cells have died and been replaced by others, and our neuronal configuration in the brain is different. We learn, we dream, we remember and forget. Yet we’re still the same person.

But that’s flesh and blood. Consider the following, a thought-experiment first proposed by Hofstadter, though I forget whether in Goedel, Escher, Bach, or The Mind’s Eye.

A man is stricken by a terrible degenerative disease that will cause his body to decay, starting with the brain. But medical science has made great strides, and can predict which cells will die before they do. And those cells can be replaced by prosthetic cells, made of silicon rather than flesh.

So every week, he goes into the hospital. They insert the new cells to run in parallel with the dying ones, and make sure that they have exactly the same functions. As the dying cells die, the prosthetic cells take over, doing exactly the same things as the original.

The patient feels exactly the same - and why not? The prosthetic and original behave in exactly the same way, so he’s not aware of when the prosthetic takes the whole load.

After many, many years, his whole brain has been replaced. Yet the continuity of his being is uninterrupted.

Later the same technique is used on other body parts, until his entire body has been replaced.

Is he the same person? Does he have a soul?

I’m not sure this question can be answered by rational thought alone. Until one can come up with an objective test to prove the existence or otherwise of a soul, one not relying on faith, then I think the question is unanswerable.

 

[greylorn]

As a sometime researcher in AI, we can’t even be sure that an AI has a mind, let alone a soul. Does it have a mind, or is it merely an artificial construct that mimics a mind perfectly? Does it have emotions, or does it merely appear to have them? And is there any difference between a 100% perfect mimic and something genuine?

As I noted earlier, conversations about soul are irrelevant without a definition of soul. The same goes for “mind.”

And, whose mind might AI perfectly mimic? The mind of Joe Blow, who cannot pass a taste test identifying his favorite beer, or the mind of Robert Oppenheimer?

Consider the axe that executed Charles II in the Tower of London. As the years have gone by, the handle rotted, so it was replaced. But it’s still the same axe. Then the head rusted, so it too was replaced. But it’s still the same original axe.

Was that a test?

I do not know what definitions of reality you follow, but even my Buddhist neighbor who is visited weekly by young wanna-be’s from a nearby monastery, and who’s hung out with Tibetan lamas, says that when the wedge is replaced, it is a modified axe. When the handle is replaced, it is a repaired axe. When the head is replaced, it is a different axe. But John has a degree in physics, so what does he know?

John does acknowledge that one can say it is the same axe, and so what? If a tree falls on the head of a philosopher to dumb to move aside, does anyone care? Great stuff, Zen.

Consider our bodies, where living cells are turned over and replaced about every 7 years (I grossly over-simplify). We’re not quite the same person when we wake up in the morning as when we went to bed. Some cells have died and been replaced by others, and our neuronal configuration in the brain is different. We learn, we dream, we remember and forget. Yet we’re still the same person.

Your definition of “same person” warrants rethinking. My body contains not one of the cells it owned at birth. I have titanium hips, a plastic wrist, and a screwed-together foot. Clearly not the same physical person before the aftermarket parts as afterward. Not the same mentally either; pain changes the mind.

I perform some of my pre-surgical functions, but not as effectively. I am not the “same,” although outside observers rarely recognize that. I suspect that your use of the word “same” is that of someone who does not make precise distinctions, or someone attached to a pattern of thought which commonly blurs distinctions.

That’s okay. But note that people who do not make distinctions also do not make contributions.

But that’s flesh and blood. Consider the following, a thought-experiment first proposed by Hofstadter, though I forget whether in Goedel, Escher, Bach, or The Mind’s Eye.

It was from “Mind’s Eye.” which included two chapters from my novel.

The experiment might have been proposed by one of the other writers who Doug quoted, rather than by Hofstadter himself. You’ll want to check before attributing the quote, so as to give credit to the creator of the ideas, rather than to their reiterator.

A man is stricken by a terrible degenerative disease that will cause his body to decay, starting with the brain. But medical science has made great strides, and can predict which cells will die before they do. And those cells can be replaced by prosthetic cells, made of silicon rather than flesh.

So every week, he goes into the hospital. They insert the new cells to run in parallel with the dying ones, and make sure that they have exactly the same functions. As the dying cells die, the prosthetic cells take over, doing exactly the same things as the original.

The patient feels exactly the same - and why not? The prosthetic and original behave in exactly the same way, so he’s not aware of when the prosthetic takes the whole load.

After many, many years, his whole brain has been replaced. Yet the continuity of his being is uninterrupted.

Later the same technique is used on other body parts, until his entire body has been replaced.

Is he the same person? Does he have a soul?

You are clearly someone who does not repair his/her own vehicle.

Consider an automobile in the context of its function. Suppose your fuel pump breaks down. Since the fuel pump provides an essential function (unlike the heater or A/C unit) the car stops running. So you replace the fuel pump. Do you have the same car? I think so, but some philosopher might develop a silly Ph.d thesis arguing the question.

I drive a 1978 Honda which has been totaled twice. Rhonda is running on her second engine, third transmission, fourth clutch, and more miscellaneous parts than we care about, all covered by pieces of metallic skin taken from scrapyard wrecks. She is not the same car I bought brand new, a quarter-million miles ago, although her name and VIN remain unchanged. What’s important is not that she’s the same, but that she performs the same functions.

I’m not sure this question can be answered by rational thought alone. Until one can come up with an objective test to prove the existence or otherwise of a soul, one not relying on faith, then I think the question is unanswerable.

Any answer to this thread’s question depends upon the definition of soul, which is among the most poorly understood and most widely misused words in the English language.

If the soul is defined in the context of things which we can measure, it can be detected in that context. For example, if the soul has any definable relationship to the human body/brain system, it can be detected in the context of changes effected by soul to its human “owner.” The problem is similar to that of detecting a black hole, which by definition cannot be directly observed, but which will affect its environment.

As best I can determine, the Catholic Church and other Judeo-Christian religions have chosen a definition of soul which is too vague to work as a standard for any form of definitive testing. Other philosophies are more specific. Mine, for example, defines soul in the context of basic thermodynamics. My understanding is that classical Buddhism originated with a definition of soul which could be easily tested and verified if one chose to do so, but that definition has fallen into the pit of religious ignorance which holds a number of interesting concepts. .

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I have an unusual and possibly unique view on the matter - please see

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5012328#post5012328

for an explanation of the interesting medical issues I’ve faced… and that those with either 5ARD or 17BHDD Syndrome face too. Though they go in the opposite direction, as it were. Neurological changes during the process are profound, and somewhat disorientating, as you can imagine.

Although I have to say…that it left me feeling like a new woman.

 

[Lavio_Pareschi]

Would A.I have a soul? If not, why not?

Hi,
Most replied based on current AI status. Of course, current AI knowledge and experiences are far from building something really “human like” as in Hollywood films. Thus, for such “primate thinking machines”, the sould idea/issue is not applicable.

However, as knowledge of brain functioning advances we can suppose and imagine that, one day, it will be possible to build a human like brain, using just organic cells as it is built, or other kind of inorganic technology capable to achieve the same functioning result.

Notice that such “brain” would be, yes, a image of our brain functioning.
This is the reason I liked one of the replies that did an analogy with God image creation.
Now, connect it to some kind of “body” capable to interact with external world using (name removed by moderator)ut/output sensors and… it will learn the same way, feel things in a similar way etc etc.

And THEN the question arises strong: would such “android” have a soul?
I have no clue …

Let’s remind Blade Runner…

Ok ok… we still need to discover how the interaction between matter-world and spiritual-world (probably worlds in superior dimensions - not parallel as some scifi movies display) work to proceed. What a pity we do not know.
For now, we have FAITH ! Faith in Jesus and ethernal God.