Originally posted by sonship
Well, you do have the problem that all this would have to be worked out by, guess what? Intelligent Design.

I see you and Fetchmyjunk wish to have two separate discussions at once. There are two issues here:
1. Is the brain nothing more than a complex computer?
2. Can a complex computer evolve?
Kelly says no to 1. You and Fetchmyjunk wish to argue no to 2, but do so when responding to the question of 1.
All the while going completely off track from the question of the thread which is whether or not morality can evolve, for which we have :
3. Is morality a property of, or outcome of brains?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Suppose a computer program were to be written that faithfully simulated a human brain down to whatever scale is necessary to capture all the essential features if necessary tracking individual molecules with ~10^26 or so particles in the simulation). The simulated brain has inputs from a simulated environment. Would the simulation be capable of thought ...[text shortened]... all rodents - so this is a practical question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_simulation

Well, then we would find out if all that is required is parts and nothing else then wouldn't
we? As I pointed out earlier even our computers can be put together with all the proper
parts, connected as they should be, and without the proper software they are useless.

Does life or thoughts require some spark or not, to boot the hardware? We may have
bow to Mary Shelley's story of the Frankenstein monster if she had it right even if she
wrote about the wrong power source in her story for that answer. Her story has a ring of
truth if we could just find the required power source to boot a dead brain or one we built I
suppose.

Since we see people who die with all the proper material in place as far as their body
chemicals are concern, something other than the physical make up is in play wouldn't you
agree?. All the parts are there they just stop working, did something leave the body?

To mimic a hand movement can be duplicated easly, we can build a artificial heart, there
isn't to much about life we cannot fiddle with and produce something close. I think that
ends with thoughts, the ability to reason, to justify actions, to be self-aware, what
combination of tissue causes that to occur?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Since we see people who die with all the proper material in place as far as their body
chemicals are concern, something other than the physical make up is in play wouldn't you
agree?

Sounds great until you realise that just ain't so.
People die precisely because there is something physically wrong with them. People never just die from spiritual problems.
Sure you can claim that all the chemicals are still there, but they are not in the right places and place is important.

Take any computer and try cutting a couple of the wires on the motherboard. It will die. All the chemicals and 'proper material' is still there. Its just in the wrong places. Does this prove that computers have souls too? If not, then you have to equally admit that your attempt at showing the same for humans if flawed - but also that you don't believe your own arguments - if you did then you would now believe computers have souls.

Originally posted by KellyJay
To mimic a hand movement can be duplicated easly, we can build a artificial heart, there
isn't to much about life we cannot fiddle with and produce something close. I think that
ends with thoughts, the ability to reason, to justify actions, to be self-aware, what
combination of tissue causes that to occur?

Actually it is a scientific fact that thoughts can be fiddled with. It has been done.
In fact, I challenge you to drink a bottle of whiskey and see for yourself. Come back when you have tried that and tell us again that thoughts cannot be fiddled with. I think find you will that itsth posthible to fidle width thots.

Originally posted by divegeester

No that is not correct; the punishments for breaking the laws also changed under the new covenant. It became no longer required to stone a woman for adultery for example.

No. Death was still required for sinning including adultery. But in the new covenant the DYING was done by the Son of God in replacement of the adulterer.

You cannot seriously say that God's attitude changed about the actual sin of adultery.
But the adulterer and other sinners are told to look to Jesus Christ and believe in Him.

So in your opinion, which was morally correct: to stone a woman for adultery, or not to stone a woman for adultery?

God's attitude towards the sins that He hates has not changed. Now in John 8 Jesus did not tell the people NOT to stone the woman. No, He told them that whoever was qualified by themselves being without SIN should cast the first stone.

This is different divegeester. They of their own consciences were convicted that none of them could righteously judged that woman. From the older ones who had lived a sinful life longer to the younger impetuous ones, they all shrunk away.

I would say that this was not Jesus commanding that the stoning not take place. This is Jesus exposing that none of them was worthy, qualified, clean enough in themselves to execute the stoning.

" And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?

And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go and from now on sin no more." (John 8:10,11)

And therefore how do your explain you claim of an "unchanging moral standard"?

Jesus didn't say "My Father has changed. Now He thinks adultery is OK."
Jesus didn't say "My Father has changed. Thou shalt not stone the adulterer."

Jesus did say -

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (v.7)

In the whole crowd only one sinless One was there - Jesus Himself. And He chose to forgive the woman and speak an empowering word to her to go and sin no more.

God's attitude towards the sin of adultery has not changed since the giving of the ten commandments. There is a Redeemer now instead of a theocratic nation carrying out executions.

Someone still DIED for our sins.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What part of this don't you get? I can move stones or pieces of wood on strings and do
math, but reasoning and justification is a thought process in action. Computers do not
reason they simply do the math!

The only place I'm aware of that this happens is in a mind. The goal posts are not being
moved they are clearly being identified and defined. So wh ...[text shortened]... ined with and
without something more than earthy material being thrown together to form a body.

You said: "Computers do not reason they simply do the math!

"The only place I'm aware of that this happens is in a mind. The goal posts are not being moved they are clearly being identified and defined."

I reply: I distinguish between reasoning and thinking. Thinking implies awareness; which is something we have no good reason to think machines have. Reasoning doesn't require awareness. Maybe we differ on this, but because of my way of thinking about this, it feel like the goalposts moved. I would not have replied to your question if you'd said thinking instead of reasoning.

You know the original meaning of "computer" was in the 1640's, a human who did computations, it was first applied to a machine in 1897. I imagine some people groused, "Machines can't compute!!!"

Originally posted by JS357
You said: "Computers do not reason they simply do the math!

"The only place I'm aware of that this happens is in a mind. The goal posts are not being moved they are clearly being identified and defined."

I reply: I distinguish between reasoning and thinking. Thinking implies awareness; which is something we have no good reason to think machines have. Rea ...[text shortened]... s first applied to a machine in 1897. I imagine some people groused, "Machines can't compute!!!"

Listen I can move colored pieces off wood on a string and do math, I can use my solar
powered hand held calculator as well, and no one I'm aware of things or claims that
thought is taking place by either device. I can take two different bags of rocks and put
them on a scale to see which side tips lower than the other for a comparison, that too is
not confused with thoughts, thinking, or reasoning. Making a judgment call, figuring things
out in the mind (reasoning) is different than all of the things I just spoke about.

Holding a thought and coming up with (thinking) a reasoned response is different than a
math problem being solved by a computer. Being aware is part of the process for rational
thinking, why would a being avoid repeatedly putting its hand in a fire if it wasn't aware of
self on some level to avoid pain and suffering? If the pain and suffering were not part of
the process than anything that could and would cause harm and death would never be
avoided.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen I can move colored pieces off wood on a string and do math, I can use my solar
powered hand held calculator as well, and no one I'm aware of things or claims that
thought is taking place by either device. I can take two different bags of rocks and put
them on a scale to see which side tips lower than the other for a comparison, that too is
not co ...[text shortened]... of
the process than anything that could and would cause harm and death would never be
avoided.

It just may turn out that some some machines do what arguably (fer sher!!) call reasoning. But I would not say they are thinking.

http://histscifi.com/essays/dick/thinking.html

Originally posted by JS357
It just may turn out that some some machines do what arguably (fer sher!!) call reasoning. But I would not say they are thinking.

http://histscifi.com/essays/dick/thinking.html

Yes, this is the salient point. If an entity appears to be a normally functioning human then who are any of us to say they are not human? To solve this problem theists posit a soul. The problem for them is the lack of an explanatory gap between thinking and thinking necessarily requiring a God given soul.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, this is the salient point. If an entity appears to be a normally functioning human then who are any of us to say they are not human? To solve this problem theists posit a soul. The problem for them is the lack of an explanatory gap between thinking and thinking necessarily requiring a God given soul.

So you are of the opinion the mind's ability to think and reason is just a matter of proper hardware setup and nothing more?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are of the opinion the mind's ability to think and reason is just a matter of proper hardware setup and nothing more?

"The mind's ability..."

Seems like a set up. Can we keep it at "The entity's ability..." until there is need of a mind/body issue? Right now, this isn't obvious.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I could easily do so, but I won't because you haven't explained why doing so would be reason to talk again. Your logic is flawed and you know it. Finding a perfectly rectangular rock isn't going to help your case.

A brick is designed to be a perfect rectangle for the specific purpose of being used to build something. That is why a brick is designed and different to a rock that was formed by random erosion for no specific function. So where is your perfectly rectangular rock? Can random erosion form a perfectly rectangular rock?

Originally posted by JS357
"The mind's ability..."

Seems like a set up. Can we keep it at "The entity's ability..." until there is need of a mind/body issue? Right now, this isn't obvious.

I was saying mind to avoid the word brain, but entity is fine. This just a matter of putting all
the building blocks together to form something that can think, reason, and have moral ideas?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
A brick is designed to be a perfect rectangle for the specific purpose of being used to build something. That is why a brick is designed and different to a rock that was formed by random erosion for no specific function. So where is your perfectly rectangular rock? Can random erosion form a perfectly rectangular rock?

Yes.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes.

If you have evidence of one feel free to share it.