|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 12:09pm
Einfach
1,426 posts
|
Yes indeed.
Suppose I built a machine that had the properties of a human - it was comparable in abstract thought as well. Where is its soul?
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 12:19pm
MageGrayWolf
9,134 posts
|
Just so it's said abstract thought is nothing more then processes occurring in the brain. Hook someone up to a machine that monitors brain activity and we can even see the processes at work.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 12:49pm
qwerty1011
569 posts
|
Suppose I built a machine that had the properties of a human - it was comparable in abstract thought as well. Where is its soul?
It's soul is either non existent or in the part of the robot that controlled it
The same as humans
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 1:11pm
Einfach
1,426 posts
|
It's soul is either non existent or in the part of the robot that controlled it
The same as humans
Well, if the soul exists in the robot, then when am I building it do I suddenly create its soul?
And if it doesn't exist in the robot, does that mean that morality does not apply to it?
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 1:30pm
vesperbot
986 posts
|
Torino's shroud, huh? So far I don't recall any of you objecting this.
You say that like it's suppose to mean something.
Source
Some scientific data
Suppose I built a machine that had the properties of a human - it was comparable in abstract thought as well. Where is its soul?
Weird supposition, given Turing's test that no machine can pass. If you would build such a machine, however, it will have your soul as its own.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 2:05pm
MageGrayWolf
9,134 posts
|
Source
Some scientific data
Yeah I've heard of the Shroud of Turin before, what are you trying to get at? Testing on it indicates it to be a forgery and even if it was authentic I don't see how it can be claimed with any certainty to be the one used on Jesus.
Weird supposition, given Turing's test that no machine can pass. If you would build such a machine, however, it will have your soul as its own.
Seriously your arguments just seem to get more and more ridiculous.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 2:52pm
Darkroot
2,523 posts
|
Some scientific data
To view this article you will need to login or make a payment.
It doesn't seem to be peer reviewed either.
it will have your soul as its own.
What, do you even know anything about programming? Also the turning test is not even a good test to test AI.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 3:17pm
vesperbot
986 posts
|
Seriously your arguments just seem to get more and more ridiculous.
Well, a ridiculous statement requires ridiculous arguments.
Testing on it indicates it to be a forgery
Sources!
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 3:38pm
MageGrayWolf
9,134 posts
|
Well, a ridiculous statement requires ridiculous arguments.
Statements based on facts and logic are hardly ridiculous.
Sources!
How about the source you cited for one.
"The Photographic negatives of the cloth in 1898 revealed the image of a man bearing the marks of crucifixion. Carbon dating tests carried out in 1988 showed that the cloth was dated from 13th or 14th centuries."
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 9, '11 at 3:39pm
Einfach
1,426 posts
|
Weird supposition, given Turing's test that no machine can pass. If you would build such a machine, however, it will have your soul as its own.
Which animals have souls? At which point does the soul arise?
Was the first soul created in sponges, flatworms, insects?
What about earthworms or nematodes?
Do jellyfish?
|
| |
