Is humanity an evolution of data cloning ?

2PhiloVoid said:

For some among the ancient Jews, and maybe even for some contemporary ones, there has been one position on human ontology that suggests that we human beings do not have souls, but rather "we ARE souls."

Click to expand...

This thought is shared by some of the Christian mystics. And to be honest, it's the way I see things as well. It's a perspective that's not at all that uncommon these days. It comes from a spiritual question that asks: What is our essence?

fredis said:

I did say in my opening post I am talking about the mind experience . I know what I am talking about but I am not sure you are understanding .

My use of feral is correct , before humanity was created and evolved , we were feral .

The word human didn't even exist , there was no humans until the label was created .

Click to expand...

I believe in the simpler things like GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

I believe the Bible is saying that until we have been set free by the truth, we've been feeding on garbage.

"Humanity" as recognized by the world is a garbage concept.

Bradskii said:

Interesting article on it here: The Prospect of Christian Materialism - Christian Scholar’s ReviewThe Prospect of Christian Materialism - Christian Scholar’s Review
.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the relevant article! It's a good one and I'll be reading it today and definitely keeping it.

Bradskii said:

This is something new to me. It makes sense to me, as a materialist, but I was unaware of any Christian thought that argued for it. There has always been a problem as to when the soul 'evolved.' It seems nonsensical that it evolved in step with us from pre human to human (if a soul is fully evolved now, what was it like when it wasn't?). And equally nonsensical that at some point a human was born witth a soul while his mother didn't have one.

Click to expand...

I fully understand your sensibility on this issue. The whole notion about a soul does seem somewhat extraneous when viewed from a materialist position. And so, suprisingly I know, there are some Christian philosophers/thinkers who go in for a materialist angle.

Personally, I take the notion of a soul as a derivative concept, one that simply rides along with the Jewish/Christian theology. If it does exist, then I recognize that the writers of the biblical documents don't give us enough info by which to undrestand its ontology. Attempts to remedy this by then subscribing to Plato or the like aren't going to ameliorate the epistemic and ontological shortfall we encounter in this regard. Like a number of things in the Bible, we are presented with an undemonstrable concept, one that remains virtually indiscernible on the typical human level of empirical verification. This makes it almost feel like an alien piece of furniture in our otherwise Modern house.

Personally, I don't attempt to integrate Christian Theology with Evolution. I don't think the soul "evolved," and I keep each of these paradigms separate and in their own spheres, not only because there have been folks like Stephen Jay Gould who suggests we do so out of some respect for spheres of thought, but simply, out of philosophical discernment, I don't think they are blendable being that one is ancient and different from a modern one, so I don't blend them. This plays out in that when I bump into biblical concepts such as the "human soul," I assess it as an existential potentiality to perhaps be realized in the future (assuming Christianity is true). All the while, I firmly realize the soul isn't something that is quantifiable, substantively qualifiable or otherwise apprehendable in the here and now apart from ancient modes of thought. It's an auxiliary piece of theology that will have to be shown to me when, or after, I die.

Bradskii said:

Materialism seems the obvious answer and if you need a soul to continue after death then God gives you one at the point of death. You solve both problems at the same time.

Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd say that Materialism is the obvious answer. As an Existentialist, I'd rather say that it seems to be the more immediately perceived/felt position to take where my own possible "soul" is being considered (whatever it is). I think my view on this is one that results mainly by default from our present human position, informed as it is by our Sciences and our Philosophies (i.e. my analogy here is to simultaneously stand with the shoe of someone like Carl Sagan on one foot, but with the shoe of a Pascal or Wittgenstein on the other). Then, there's also taking into consideration a few of the things that someone like Patrick McNamara might also suggest about the overall conception of religioun on the whole:

Closer To Truth

fredis said:

Who remembers it ?

Click to expand...

My understanding of it is that up until about 7 years old the child is building their sub-conscious. They are watching and listening and taking everything in,

No wonder the enemy wants our children young. Let's have a drag queen show for the kids!
Then the kid wont remember it and it goes into his subconscious and when he gets older, he will be telling you all about how he was born a woman or born gay.

Bradskii said:

Interesting article on it here: The Prospect of Christian Materialism - Christian Scholar’s Review

This is something new to me. It makes sense to me, as a materialist, but I was unaware of any Christian thought that argued for it. There has always been a problem as to when the soul 'evolved.' It seems nonsensical that it evolved in step with us from pre human to human (if a soul is fully evolved now, what was it like when it wasn't?). And equally nonsensical that at some point a human was born witth a soul while his mother didn't have one.

Materialism seems the obvious answer and if you need a soul to continue after death then God gives you one at the point of death. You solve both problems at the same time.

Click to expand...

Well, that was an interesting read. Peter van Inwagen I'm familiar with, but I thought two names therein that I wasn't familiar with (Trenton Merricks and Lynne Baker) had the better, even if obviously inconclusive, arguments presented in the article. ... yeah, I liked that article.

fredis said:

Ok , my name is Stephen . Stephen did not exist until Stephen was labelled with the word Stephen . Stephen then gained more data to evolve into a human . The humanity did not exist in Stephen when he was first born .

Click to expand...

When I was young, the the thinking was that we are born as a "blank slate" to be taught everything. Over time, that idea took a beating as it became clear just how much a human is born knowing.

Tabula rasa is an idea (by now a discredited theory) that, at birth, the human mind is a "blank slate" without any rules for processing data, that data is added and rules for processing it are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The modern idea of the theory is mostly attributed to John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, written in the 17th century.

Infant cognitive development - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

fredis said:

I am also considering that this data is cloned data , repeat information time after time taught to infants.

Click to expand...

I think what you're referring to is called "memes".

AV1611VET said:

I think what you're referring to is called "memes".

Click to expand...

That would be a strange horse shoe if Creationist dualism led back to Dawkins.

fredis said:

That's not true , Stephen is a word , data . The data didn't exist until Stephen was labelled .

Click to expand...

But that word applies to something. That something exists independently of whatever words are used to describe or label it.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

But that word applies to something. That something exists independently of whatever words are used to describe or label it.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

The ancient idea was that to name something was to get some kind of control on it. This seems to be common in all cultures. So "the man" names all the animals, becoming their steward. And note that "the man" in Genesis 2 is merely "the man" until he names the animals. After that, he has a name himself. "The man" is now "Adam", all animals having been named.