"Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!" (2015)

Originally posted by sonship
It is simply dehumanizing.

Only because you choose to think of it that way.

Actually, I don't know that human brain is faster than a roaches for one.
Correct. I should not have implied that it was. It isn't. It is however bigger and the result is more complex processing. The intelligence of animals - humans included - has a direct correlation with neuron count. The more neurons you have the more intelligent you are. So I shouldn't have said 'faster', I should have said 'more intelligent'. But I was thinking of current computers as an analogy where we consider speed to be the measure of success.

Ether way, to think that only a faster and more efficient brain would have prevented these abominable acts is unlikely.
I certainly never suggested nor implied that a faster or more intelligent brain is more moral. In fact I am very concerned that we will create super human intelligence in computers which is amoral - to our detriment.

Your "simple" answer as to why humans are on a higher order (so to speak) than cock roaches just because we can think faster denies critical aspects of human moral and spiritual character.
Maybe so. A cockroach is really a very very simple example of a brain. Nevertheless you would probably find parallels between human moral behavior and the behavior of roaches if you looked - and even more so if you looked at more social insects such as bees and ants.

So you think "We can processes FASTER! " is the only thing that distinguishes a man from a roach ?
No, I do not. But greater brain size is the main reason for there being differences.

i have no problem seeing a river is more than the water molecules.
But you appear to feel that noting that it is made of water molecules somehow strips it of its beauty as a river. I do not.

This seems not too relevant.
It sounds like a Zen koan question.
It is relevant because you seem to claim that understanding how something works (the brain) strips it of its higher order properties. So knowing how a sunset works should make it less beautiful in your eyes. I am trying to ascertain whether that is an accurate representation of what you are claiming and if not, what are you claiming? What do you actually mean when you say knowing how the brain works dehumanizes us?

Jumping from that to a self aware and conscious ego introspective hunk of machinery is superstitious leap of "faith".
It is if you jump without knowledge. Your mistake is to assume I am as ignorant of the topic as you are. I am not.

I liked the HAL 9000 in "2001 A Space Odyssey". But it is now 2015 A D and we're not close to "someONE" like that complete with circuitry and memory storage.
How do you know how close we are or not? You are clearly not qualified to make that judgement given your clear ignorance of the subject. That is not an insult by the way, merely a statement that you do not follow the relevant science / computer programming progress and could not possibly make an accurate prediction as to how far we have or haven't got.

You dream of a machine with self aware first person introspection - a conscious creation of mankind. Is it really going to be conscious or just imitate humans like recorded voice on an auto call ?
Really conscious.

Would you like your great grand children to marry a machine ?
I don't think so. Is it relevant? If I would not, would that affect whether or not we will be able to make conscious computers by then? Why do you keep resorting to what you think are distasteful concepts? They have no bearing on the matter whatsoever as I am sure you realize.

In the realm of thinking aren't you exalting speed and efficiency as the only important "simple" factor defining a human being ?
No, I am not. As I said above, I should not have used the speed analogy but rather focused on complexity. And even then, I realize that complexity and even intelligence isn't everything. Humans have a significant amount hardwired into our brains via evolution that a raw artificial intelligence would not have.
Still, you seem to be the one that wants to strip down humans and wants me to strip down humans - I certainly do not and have not intentionally indicted that I do. I admit that my speed comment may have been easily interpreted that way but it is not my view.
I made a number of other comments to the contrary which you appear to have ignored.

Originally posted by twhitehead

', I should have said 'more intelligent'. But I was thinking of current computers as an analogy where we consider speed to be the measure of success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are more things which distinguish us from insects besides greater intelligence.


I certainly never suggested nor implied that a faster or more intelligent brain is more moral.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your answer to what made us of more value than the cock roach was according to you "Simple." So then you admit that it is not so simple.


In fact I am very concerned that we will create super human intelligence in computers which is amoral - to our detriment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging from the track record of hackers, thieves, pornography marketeers, and other deviant and criminal activity, you can bet that the tampering with such technology would be used for such low things. That is if creating consciousness could be done.

A better soldier, a better woman, or a better thief would be high on the list of priorities. Man's sinful nature will be transferred over to his machines if he could.

But not whole so, if it were possible.


A cockroach is really a very very simple example of a brain. Nevertheless you would probably find parallels between human moral behavior and the behavior of roaches if you looked - and even more so if you looked at more social insects such as bees and ants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some parallels - yes.
Just as there may be some rough parallels between the function of a eye and a camera or the brain and a parallel processor.

Some parallels don't lead me to extrapolate immediately that a conscious mind can be manufactured.
But greater brain size is the main reason for there being differences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larger brains though is not necessarily more intelligent.

As you might imagine, larger animals have larger brains. However, this does not mean that animals with larger brains are smarter than animals with smaller brains. For example, a larger brain is necessary to control larger muscles in larger animals and a larger brain is necessary to process more sensory information from the skin in larger animals - this has nothing to do with intelligence.

Brain Weight (grams) Species
6,000 Elephant
1,300-1,400 Adult Human

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/brainsize.html

i have no problem seeing a river is more than the water molecules.
But you appear to feel that noting that it is made of water molecules somehow strips it of its beauty as a river. I do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think i discussed the "beauty" of rivers at all.
Maybe you are alluding to something I said about music or appreciation for something over something else. That was in reference to your claim that thoughts could be stored like computer information in the brain.


I am trying to ascertain whether that is an accurate representation of what you are claiming and if not, what are you claiming?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you actually mean when you say knowing how the brain works dehumanizes us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your fond of computers and mathematics. You implied that the functions of the mind can be reduced to the kind of manipulation a computer does on numbers. I said you were reducing a human being to just a number crunching machine.

Einstein said that the man who could not look up at the universe with a sense of wonder was as good as dead. I think he realized humanity amounted to more than just solving equations, which he was very good at.

He played violin on the side. Though music is also very mathematical it touches something deeper in man's emotions.

Your somewhat flippant replies equating what computers can do with what we are I think devalues part of our total humanity.

It is if you jump without knowledge. Your mistake is to assume I am as ignorant of the topic as you are. I am not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me, Mr. Tech Wizard but I haven't been overwhelmed by even your statements about computer operations yet. And you're hope in the invention of self aware conscious machines is goofy. Sorry to say. But you're provoking me with your arrogance.

Suggestions that I didn't understand compilers or assembly language were amusing.


How do you know how close we are or not? You are clearly not qualified to make that judgement given your clear ignorance of the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't watch your videos yet.
You didn't watch the ones I suggested.
So I look at you as being ignorant about neuroscience and the soul.

J P Moreland Phd. has four earned degrees including - Chemistry, Philosophy, and Theology (not sure of the other).

Dr. Moreland has a few in depth lectures on the human soul on YouTube:

1.) "What's Consciousness ... and Evidence for the Existence of the Soul"

YouTube

2.) "Neuroscience and the Soul - Full Interview with J P Moreland"

YouTube

3.) "The Soul: Does it Exist?" Interview with J P Moreland " (Greg Koukle from Stand To Reason is the interviewer )

YouTube

If you didn't digest some of these lectures I consider you ignorant on the subject.

That is not an insult by the way, merely a statement that you do not follow the relevant science / computer programming progress and could not possibly make an accurate prediction as to how far we have or haven't got.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That all the hype out there I do not know, I will grant you.
I will catch up on latest claims and what some writers assert MAY mean.

Just because some hype is written up saying this or that was done doesn't mean we are on the dawn of creating a conscious person.

You dream of a machine with self aware first person introspection - a conscious creation of mankind. Is it really going to be conscious or just imitate humans like recorded voice on an auto call ?

tw: Really conscious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can answer me a few questions:

1.) Does the mind - or events within it weigh anything ? How many grams does the average mental even weigh ?

2.) If I imagine the color blue, should we be able to locate the blue color stored in my brain ?

3.) If I think about the fact that I was thinking about the color blue, how would that be stored in chemical code in my brain ? Would there be a blue color in that location as well ?

4.) I can think about pain but not experience pain.
In the two locations where the experience and the THOUGHT about the experience are stored in the brain, what is the difference ?

One event is the actual pain.
The other is me thinking about that pain yet without having it.

5.) Beliefs can be true or false. Matter cannot be true or false.

What is the difference between the storage of a true belief and a false belief ? Is there some kind of little chemical flag indicating which belief is true as opposed to which is false ?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The distressing thing about you religious folks is this: NOTHING done by man is EVER good enough. We will probably cure cancer within the next 100 years if we last that long as a civilization but to you, no big deal, it couldn't possibly be as great as what your god allegedly already did.

We could have colonies on Mars and maybe in a thousand years, colo ...[text shortened]... e last 1000 years.

Calculus, Whoopie, god knew about that when he created the universe, etc.

You said yourself that man is stupid, so you should not be surprised that it agrees with your mythology, numbnuts. 😏

Originally posted by sonship
There are more things which distinguish us from insects besides greater intelligence.

I agree. For example I have 10 toes and they do not. But I think what you are referring to is things like morality and spirituality. However, those are largely a result of the greater intelligence, and partly a result of our particular evolution. I am sure you would also like to suggest that we are superior to insects, and on that count I would claim just two things:
1. Any genuine superiority is entirely a result of our greater intelligence.
2. Any imagined superiority is entirely a result of us being human and not insect.
To clarify, if we discovered an alien species with intelligence equal to us, if we do not think of them as equal to us then it is because we are human and not them. They presumably would think of themselves as superior because they are not human.

Your answer to what made us of more value than the cock roach was according to you "Simple." So then you admit that it is not so simple.
Yes, communication over the internet is not easy. Don't put to much weight on one single word and try to look at the whole context and all the other things I have said.

Judging from the track record of hackers, thieves, pornography marketeers, and other deviant and criminal activity, you can bet that the tampering with such technology would be used for such low things. That is if creating consciousness could be done.
I agree. But what is your point? You seem to be saying "because someone is going to misuse it, it cant be done!" I don't see the logic. That is like saying that nuclear weapons could not possibly be developed because they are so dangerous and terrorists might get hold of them. Therefore nuclear power is a myth and will never happen!

Some parallels don't lead me to extrapolate immediately that a conscious mind can be manufactured.
Agreed. And I have not claimed so.

Larger brains though is not necessarily more intelligent.
No, not necessarily. It is however a general trend that brains with more neurons are more intelligent. The correlation is not perfect as there are other factors involved.

As you might imagine, larger animals have larger brains.
Yes, I am well aware of that. Brain size is not equivalent to neruon count. Many large animals such as elephants and whales have larger neurons not more neurons.
Learn more here:
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=e

Also check this list of neuron count rather than brain size/mass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
be sure to check the list for Cerebral cortex neurons.

I don't think i discussed the "beauty" of rivers at all.
I know. Nevertheless it is worth discussing as logic should apply equally to all things. If knowing how the brain works dehumanises us then knowing how a river works should deriver it.

Your fond of computers and mathematics. You implied that the functions of the mind can be reduced to the kind of manipulation a computer does on numbers. I said you were reducing a human being to just a number crunching machine.
Then you misunderstood me. The functions of the mind are a result of a kind of manipulation of numbers similar to what a computer does. I do not think that 'reduces' what the mind or what a computer does. When I play a great computer game at the basic level it is all a manipulation of binary bits. That doesn't take away from the complexity of the computer game which is clearly more than the sum of its parts.
You on the other hand seem to feel that any computer software is worthless because it is based on a manipulation of numbers. I disagree.

Your somewhat flippant replies equating what computers can do with what we are I think devalues part of our total humanity.
I think where we differ is in our respect for what computers can do. When I point out similarities between the two I am not devaluing humanity as you believe. You are reading into what I say things that you believe about computers and I do not. This goes back to earlier arguments you made in the thread about how information is more than the physical components, yet you fail to see that this applies to computers too.

Excuse me, Mr. Tech Wizard but I haven't been overwhelmed by even your statements about computer operations yet.
Irrelevant. Whether you have been overwhelmed or not, I am more knowledgeable than you about how the mind works and your assumption that I am not is wrong.

And you're hope in the invention of self aware conscious machines is goofy.
You are not in a position to make that judgement.

But you're provoking me with your arrogance.
It is not arrogance. I know more about the topic than you do. That is a fact not arrogance. You cannot honestly make conclusions about how I have reasoned about something when you do not know what I know about the topic.

I didn't watch your videos yet.
You didn't watch the ones I suggested.
Its entirely up to you. But if you want to understand how the brain works then they will certainly get you started. The most recent one I posted will certainly give you an idea as to how how close we are to replicating how the brain works in software.

So I look at you as being ignorant about neuroscience and the soul.
What a stupid conclusion.

I have conditions for watching YouTube videos. Will you agree to them?
1. That you understand their contents reasonably well.
2. That you are willing to discuss the contents.
3. That if I find problems with the contents and clearly show that they are genuine problems you are willing to admit those problems.

If you didn't digest some of these lectures I consider you ignorant on the subject.
Well then you are a fool. Note that I made no such illogical deductions about you. I did not consider you ignorant of the relevant science based on the fact that you didn't watch my favourite YouTube videos on the subject. (I suspect that is what you are attempting to imply by your ridiculous statements above).

Just because some hype is written up saying this or that was done doesn't mean we are on the dawn of creating a conscious person.
The YouTube videos I pointed to are not 'some hype written up saying this or that'. They are talks about how the brain processes information. We were discussing how the brain processes information and I felt they were relevant. You clearly felt that there was only one possible way to process information and that was how computers do it. I was demonstrating that the brain does it differently from a typical computer both in the way data is stored and the way data is processed. I have also not claimed that they alone prove that we are on the dawn of creating a concious person as you imply.

You can answer me a few questions:
1.) Does the mind - or events within it weigh anything ?
No. No more than you can weigh this post.

2.) If I imagine the color blue, should we be able to locate the blue color stored in my brain ?
We should be able to located the representation of your imagining the colour blue stored in your brain. It will not look blue under the microscope. It will look like a number of active neurons in a specific pattern that represents 'blue'. And it can already be done to some degree ie we could accurately detect when you were thinking of the colour blue and when you were not by observing patterns of brain activity. You can buy the equipment to do it today:
https://emotiv.com/
Also watch:
https://emotiv.com/upload/support/226212382.mp4

3.) If I think about the fact that I was thinking about the color blue, how would that be stored in chemical code in my brain ? Would there be a blue color in that location as well ?
I do not know the exact details. Again, you would not see 'blue' under a microscope any more than you will see 'blue' if you look at the hard disc or RAM chip where this post is stored.

4.) I can think about pain but not experience pain.
In the two locations where the experience and the THOUGHT about the experience are stored in the brain, what is the difference ?
I don't know all the details. I am sure there are some shared neurons that are involved in both experiences - as well as some that are unique to each event.

5.) Beliefs can be true or false. Matter cannot be true or false.
What is the difference between the storage of a true belief and a false belief ? Is there some kind of little chemical flag indicating which belief is true as opposed to which is false ?
No, there is no difference. This thread is stored in your computers memory. Do you think that the true statements in this thread are stored in different way from the false statements?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Original post by phillip beer (on 01 Jun '04 16:34) Thread 11214 (7 Pages)
Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!

"It is the oldest of questions. Do we have an eternal soul or do we die and that is it. What is the nature of our consciousness?"

Note: Recently found this eleven year old thread while searching for something els ...[text shortened]... quite awhile yet is still relevant to many other threads on this spirituality forum. Your insights?

Everything which begins to exist must have a cause. You [your body and soul] had a beginning [the day you were born] as did your parents [the day they were born]. Your site membership had a beginning [the date you chose to join]; as did this online spirituality forum; as did Red Hot Pawn itself. Its proprietor, Russ, had a beginning [the day he was born]. His parents and grandparents and earliest ancestral line all had beginnings [the day each of them was born]. The geographic location of the births of all human beings is somewhere on the face of planet earth which itself had a beginning. The universe which encompasses planet earth had a beginning. If the beginning of the universe was some kind of X-Factor or Big Bang, then that also had a beginning before time began. Before time began, the angelic creation had a beginning. God? If so, what caused God to exist? I believe Sovereign God in three Coequal and Coeternal Persons [God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit] always existed and that there never was a point in eternity past when They did not exist. Who or what do you personally belive is the initial or first cause of all subsequent beginnings?

Originally posted by twhitehead

1. Any genuine superiority is entirely a result of our greater intelligence.
2. Any imagined superiority is entirely a result of us being human and not insect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are assuming a causation - higher intellegence causes ie. moral and spiritual makeup. The relationship may not all be a matter of causation.

Moral and spiritual being exist in man because man is made in the image of God Who is a moral and spiritual being. Higher intelligence goes along with such.

It is probably more than just intelligence which is responsible for the conscience of the moral world. But superior intelligence accompany the component setting us apart from lower creatures.

To clarify, if we discovered an alien species with intelligence equal to us, if we do not think of them as equal to us then it is because we are human and not them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty hypothetical.
But in the spiritual world there are more intelligent creations.
They can be morally bankrupt and dedicated to the overthrow of God and the deception of mankind.


They presumably would think of themselves as superior because they are not human.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other human beings have considered themselves both morally superior and more intelligent. In fact some Europeans and Americans taught that black people did not have souls.

Abolitionists successfully touched enough counsciences concerning this. They did so mainly by stressing the Bible's revelation that man in general was created in the image of God. Man therefore has a divinely ordained dignity - all men.

Yes, communication over the internet is not easy. Don't put to much weight on one single word and try to look at the whole context and all the other things I have said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vica versa.

me:
Judging from the track record of hackers, thieves, pornography marketeers, and other deviant and criminal activity, you can bet that the tampering with such technology would be used for such low things. That is if creating consciousness could be done.

tw: I agree. But what is your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything we could do, do not mean everything we should do.
Over optimism is being warned against. And that is even if we COULD do what you suggest, which I think we cannot.

You seem to be saying "because someone is going to misuse it, it cant be done!" I don't see the logic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's interesting. I often see that kind of logic employed by atheists when the subject is following Jesus Christ. That is a fear of misuse belief in God so it cannot be done.


That is like saying that nuclear weapons could not possibly be developed because they are so dangerous and terrorists might get hold of them. Therefore nuclear power is a myth and will never happen!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, not really. Einstein was well aware of the dangers of nuclear power. But the rise of the Nazis compelled him to warn an American president - ie. " just in case they do it (nuclear bomb) we better do it first " [paraphrased]

The pressures of sinfulness in mankind often (not always) urge him on to develop a better weapon. If what you propose could be done, a better fighting weapon would be probably on the top of the agenda. And in our society it is the military that has the financial power to throw at inventions.

Anyway, if I sound like a naysayer, I don't sound much different from the atheists on this Forum who use history say it proves God is not real. IE. Richard Dawkins, Christopher HItchens, Sam Harris wannabes.

The extrapolation that nuclear power proves we can do anything including create conscious minds is unwarranted optimism.

me:
Some parallels don't lead me to extrapolate immediately that a conscious mind can be manufactured.

tw: Agreed. And I have not claimed so. [/b]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that repeated pointing out things about computers carries that implication. ie. "We did this or that in computers. So ... we should be able and already practiclly have, with the human mind."

That's the general implication. Maybe you are backing away from that attitude now, until latter.


https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=e
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks interesting. But regardless of the size of the brain, thoughts cannot all be located IN the brain but they are in the MIND.

Sending electric sparks to a region of the brain and seeing the eyeballs move jerkingly around is far from locating spatially a belief in a certain worldview.

In spite of your disclaimer, I expect that all your talking about computer storage and memory carries the implication that there is not much difference.

Also check this list of neuron count rather than brain size/mass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
be sure to check the list for Cerebral cortex neurons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's probably very interesting.
Neuron activity in the brain shows something is going on while my immaterial MIND is having mental states.

Laying out millions of neurons, whatever their size, I will not accept as being someone's mind or someone's soul. Its not going to happen.


If knowing how the brain works dehumanises us then knowing how a river works should deriver it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knowing some things about how the brain works does not necessarily dehumanize a human being. Saying that the human soul is just these physical neurons and their electro-chemical activity and no more, does dehumanize us.

If you don't think so, you just go along with saying we can make conscious minds, create souls, engineer spirituality just like we can build a parallel processor, and see what kind of world you'll arrive in.

I think George Orwell or Aldous Huxley have a few warnings you might consider.
me:
Your fond of computers and mathematics. You implied that the functions of the mind can be reduced to the kind of manipulation a computer does on numbers. I said you were reducing a human being to just a number crunching machine.

tw: Then you misunderstood me. The functions of the mind are a result of a kind of manipulation of numbers similar to what a computer does. I do not think that 'reduces' what the mind or what a computer does. When I play a great computer game at the basic level it is all a manipulation of binary bits. That doesn't take away from the complexity of the computer game which is clearly more than the sum of its parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In spite of these occasional disclaimers, the general tone of your talk has been we should be able to engineer conscious personality.

Why else the enthusiasm about physical storage of human memories ? The closer you get to reducing the human mind to how a computer works the faster you'll be able to play God to create souls.


You on the other hand seem to feel that any computer software is worthless
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dishonest of you. I never said computer hardware or software was worthless. I'm using some now as we speak.

Why jump from me saying we are not just an ALU to a software is worthless ? That's false accusation meant to bias the readers to think I am anti - technology. I am not anti- technology but I do warn against us playing God to try to create self aware minds and moral consciousness like manufacturing PCs.

because it is based on a manipulation of numbers. I disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are disagreeing with something I never said. If I understand your sentence you claim that I argue that any computer software is worthless.

That's a ridiculous leap in your debate.

me:
Your somewhat flippant replies equating what computers can do with what we are I think devalues part of our total humanity.

tw: I think where we differ is in our respect for what computers can do. When I point out similarities between the two I am not devaluing humanity as you believe. You are reading into what I say things that you believe about computers and I do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't mean to misuderstand you. But I think I have a sober appreciation for what the lattest computers can do. And I have a realistic appreciation that we are made in the image of God.

There is no need to completely disrespect one concept to uphold the other. Each truth its own place. I do suspect that in the future computers will be able to do more and faster. I have no problem with that as chips get smaller and faster circuitry is developed.

Making consciouis androids I choose to keep in the realm of Science Fiction. In fact finding in Florida a fountain of youth as the explorers searched for, I also would keep in the realm of mythology or changing a lump of lead into a lump of gold (not a few atoms but a lump) I would also keep in the realm of wis...

Making consciouis androids I choose to keep in the realm of Science Fiction. In fact finding in Florida a fountain of youth as the explorers searched for, I also would keep in the realm of mythology or changing a lump of lead into a lump of gold (not a few atoms but a lump) I would also keep in the realm of wishful Sci FI or mythology.

tw:
This goes back to earlier arguments you made in the thread about how information is more than the physical components, yet you fail to see that this applies to computers too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not fail to realize that the invention of, interpretation of the information in computers needs MINDS. If 11011010 does not mean something in someone's MIND the physical storage of it means nothing really.

Devising the system - a matter of mind.
Coding the system - a matter of mind.
Writing, storing, manipulating, and retrieving what those numbers mean and can represent are all matter abstractly residing in human minds.

And I believe the mathematics truth of numbers is in the mind of God. Human minds nor the mind of our Creator are material.

Since we were created in the image of God much of us corresponds to God's being. The immaterial, self aware, conscious soul with mind is a corresponding aspect between us and God.


Irrelevant. Whether you have been overwhelmed or not, I am more knowledgeable than you about how the mind works and your assumption that I am not is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You linked me to some websites. You needlessly explain how high level language and compilers are related. I knew that and wrote a compiler.

The mind has states. Like water can have states, so the mind can have states.

1.) Sensations
2.) Thoughts
3.) Beliefs
4.) Desires
5.) Acts of Will

These are states of the MIND. These states are not physical entities. There is no SHAPE to my desire. There is no WEIGHT to my belief.

You may argue that there is also no weight to the information that 10110010 may represent the one's sorrow over a divorce or something emotional. That is true that the meaning that number to a programmer and user has no physical material properties.

The meaning is not really in the machine but in human minds.
So what have you really done to show the immaterial essence of computer information ? It seems to me that you simply prove that its immaterial essence exists in immaterial MINDS.

But that goes to argue that the human soul is immaterial.

If our human soul is immaterial it is plausible that its Creator Who created us in His image is also immaterial.

It is also believable that God cared enough to give us revelation that He is our Creator and Savior. Everyone needs love. God discribes His love for man as the love of a Husband for a wife:

New American Standard Bible

"For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth." (Isaiah 54:5)

Our Maker longs for us in love as a Husband. He speaks revelation in terms which man can understand. For we understand the love of a man for a woman.

The unique Man in this universe is our Creator. And He is also the God of the Bible, the God of Israel who became a man in Jesus Christ.

This does not dehumanize man but uplifts and recognizes the dignity that we are inherently created with. But to deny our Maker can only lead to dehumanization by one route or the other. It is an eventual inescapable outcome to devalue human beings when you deny God and deny that we are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26,27).

I like technology. I was a computer guy writing applications in SAS (Statistical Analysis System) for decades. I did Performance Evaluation and Capacity Planning for companies with IBM computers. That is locating bottlenecks slowing down the processing, making models for what-if analysis with software tools like BEST/1 and CRYSTAL. These were programs which created queuing theory models simulating either the operation of the computer's internals or the performance of application language processing.

In time I'd be glad to look at any web discussion on data processing you suggest. But the love of God in Christ is higher truth explaining our inherent dignity and meaning - spirit - soul - and body.

" ... in all these things we more than conquer through Him who loved us.

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:37-39)

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Does the bible support your definition of the soul?

Yes.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.

Originally posted by sonship
You are assuming a causation - higher intellegence causes ie. moral and spiritual makeup.

Yes and no. I think sophisticated morality and spirituality require intelligence but it is not necessarily the case that they will always result in an entity with high intelligence. In fact I strongly suspect that the first intelligent computers will have no morality whatsoever unless we go to great lengths to build it in. Morality is largely a result of evolution and is hard-wired in to some degree. There is a strong correlation between morality and communal lifestyle to be observed in the animal kingdom. In fact I have been meaning to point out that many human behaviours can be explained through evolution but make no sense in light of intelligent design.

Moral and spiritual being exist in man because man is made in the image of God Who is a moral and spiritual being. Higher intelligence goes along with such.
Then why does morality also exist in animals? And why are humans often immoral? Both questions are well explained by evolution but difficult to explain via the God hypothesis.

Pretty hypothetical.
Yes. But still worth discussing.

Other human beings have considered themselves both morally superior and more intelligent. In fact some Europeans and Americans taught that black people did not have souls.
Exactly my point.

Abolitionists successfully touched enough counsciences concerning this. They did so mainly by stressing the Bible's revelation that man in general was created in the image of God. Man therefore has a divinely ordained dignity - all men.
I have not studied the abolition movement, but in my own experience with racism, the usual successful argument against racism is to point out that all races are essentially equal in intelligence and are all human. We have a strong tendency to give almost no moral worth to anything we don't identify with as being 'one of us'. As for religion, there have been as many people using religion (including Christianity) to justify racism as those using it to argue against it. In my experience most people are not influence by their religion but rather adjust their religion to suit their views.

Everything we could do, do not mean everything we should do.
Agree.

Over optimism is being warned against.
No, that is not a valid conclusion. The optimism I have is that it could be done and not that it should be done. You are trying to suggest that because maybe it shouldn't be done then it can't be done. Bad logic.

We could have a whole other discussion about whether we should create concious computers.

That's interesting. I often see that kind of logic employed by atheists when the subject is following Jesus Christ. That is a fear of misuse belief in God so it cannot be done.
I do not employ such logic nor have I seen it employed as far as I recall. If it was, it was bad logic. I must point out here that if you see someone using bad logic it doesn't make it OK for you to use it too, nor does it make the logic any better.

The pressures of sinfulness in mankind often (not always) urge him on to develop a better weapon.
Pressures of sinfulness? May I take it then that you are a pacifist and do not believe in self defence?

Anyway, if I sound like a naysayer, I don't sound much different from the atheists on this Forum who use history say it proves God is not real. IE. Richard Dawkins, Christopher HItchens, Sam Harris wannabes.
Once again, copying people you think are wrong does not somehow make you right. In fact it seems to be singularly foolish thing to do.

The extrapolation that nuclear power proves we can do anything including create conscious minds is unwarranted optimism.
Yes it is. Good thing I never made any such extrapolation.

It seems that repeated pointing out things about computers carries that implication. ie. "We did this or that in computers. So ... we should be able and already practiclly have, with the human mind."
There is some implication there, but not as you suggested was implied.

It looks interesting. But regardless of the size of the brain, thoughts cannot all be located IN the brain but they are in the MIND.
Nevertheless, my point stands. There is a clear relationship between number of neurons and intelligence.
Are the effects of a running computer programs located IN the computer? If so then I would say that thoughts too are IN the brain.

Sending electric sparks to a region of the brain and seeing the eyeballs move jerkingly around is far from locating spatially a belief in a certain worldview.
I have already pointed out that belief in a world view can be changed by changing the physical brain - and it happens quite frequently in accidents involving the brain as well as medicine involving the brain. I myself am currently on medicine (folic acid and B12) that has a noticeable effect on how I think. Alcohol too has a noticeable effect.

Laying out millions of neurons, whatever their size, I will not accept as being someone's mind or someone's soul. Its not going to happen.
That is just a reflection of your stubbornness, nothing else.

Knowing some things about how the brain works does not necessarily dehumanize a human being. Saying that the human soul is just these physical neurons and their electro-chemical activity and no more, does dehumanize us.
Well, I don't think I ever said that. If I did, I was wrong.

If you don't think so, you just go along with saying we can make conscious minds, create souls, engineer spirituality just like we can build a parallel processor, and see what kind of world you'll arrive in.
Now you are introducing something that doesn't follow. Even if I think we are more than merely electro-chemical activity, that doesn't rule out being able to create a concious mind. I have already stated that computers are more than just electrical activity - yet we were able to make them.

In spite of these occasional disclaimers, the general tone of your talk has been we should be able to engineer conscious personality.
Yes. I still maintain that. The problem is that you are making unwarranted extrapolations from there and attributing beliefs to me that I do not hold. It simply does not follow from "I think we can make conciousness" to "I think we are nothing more than electro-chemical activity".

The closer you get to reducing the human mind to how a computer works the faster you'll be able to play God to create souls.
You are confusing 'how something works' with 'what it does'. Knowing how something works does not 'reduce' it.

Dishonest of you. I never said computer hardware or software was worthless. I'm using some now as we speak.
Its just a logical conclusion from what you have said. You said that understanding how something works 'reduces' it to nothing more than the physical processes. Clearly since we know how a computer works you must either:
1. Claim that our knowledge reduces it to electrical activity and decomputerises it and you see no value in software any more.
2. Your equivalent claim about the brain is false and you were wrong.
3. Explain why you don't have to choose between 1. or 2.

Making consciouis androids I choose to keep in the realm of Science Fiction.
It isn't a matter of choice. Its a matter of fact. Either we will be able to do it or we will not whatever you choose will have no effect on the outcome.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.

"If so, what caused God to exist? I believe Sovereign God in three Coequal and Coeternal Persons [God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit] always existed and that there never was a point in eternity past when They did not exist. Who or what do you personally belive is the initial or first cause of all subsequent beginnings?" Please reply to my italicized question. After all this is a spirituality not a science forum. Thank you.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"If so, what caused God to exist? I believe Sovereign God in three Coequal and Coeternal Persons [God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit] always existed and that there never was a point in eternity past when They did not exist. Who or what do you personally belive is the initial or first cause of all subsequent beginnings?" Please reply to my italicized question. After all this is a spirituality not a science forum. Thank you.

You presume that there WAS a first cause.

That is not a given.

Science currently indicates that uncaused events can occur.
And if the universe has existed forever in some form, then there would be no first
cause even if all events have a cause.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You presume that there WAS a first cause.

That is not a given.

Science currently indicates that uncaused events can occur.
And if the universe has existed forever in some form, then there would be no first
cause even if all events have a cause.

"Science currently indicates that uncaused events can occur." - googlefudge

Examples?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"If so, what caused God to exist? I believe Sovereign God in three Coequal and Coeternal Persons [God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit] always existed and that there never was a point in eternity past when They did not exist. Who or what do you personally belive is the initial or first cause of all subsequent beginnings?" Please reply to my italicized question. After all this is a spirituality not a science forum. Thank you.

I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true. Now you ask me to answer a question that relies on the premise I challenged and claimed is not true. Sorry, not going to happen. Reread my post till you understand it, then rephrase your question.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is the search for causes.

Uniformity and human experience compels scientists to make an inference to the best explanation concerning the available evidence.

If you can name something which begins to exist that does not have a cause for it, what is it ? I mean what is it that began to exist without a cause ?