Is my "soul" me in any meaningful way, and why should I be concerned?

[Radagast]

Well, we've already begun digitally uploading small animals... back in 2015.

Scientists upload a worm's mind into a Lego robot - CNN

Well, no, that's not what they did. There was no "upload."

But what I'm really asking has more to do with the identity problem:
Personal Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Famously, as I said, explored in two Schwarzenegger films.

My personality and memories certainly seem to be encoded in the brain. So if some spiritual thing like is what gets the reward or punishment for what my brain chooses in life, is this a meaningful motivator?

You are assuming an atheist perspective. This is a Christian philosophy forum.

 

[Quad]

Your soul can contribute to who you are. Your soul embodies your mind, and body; while your holy spirit embodies God's word, and everything above your Soul's desires. Your spirit is your true self. Our souls are still important, though. We believe and follow in Jesus so he can save our souls from damnation.

Please correct me if anything i said was wrong.

 

[Radagast]

Your soul can contribute to who you are. Your soul embodies your mind, and body; while your holy spirit embodies God's word, and everything above your Soul's desires. Your spirit is your true self. Our souls are still important, though. We believe and follow in Jesus so he can save our souls from damnation.

There is nothing in the Bible that supports a distinction between soul and spirit.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Well, no, that's not what they did. There was no "upload."

It was an example of brain mapping to the level of (near) behavior duplication, not of uploading a specific worm

You are assuming an atheist perspective. This is a Christian philosophy forum.

I don't assume that at all, I am a believer in Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection

 

[Quad]

There is nothing in the Bible that supports a distinction between soul and spirit.

From what i've discovered, they are described interchangeably, but there is a distinction between the two.

The Soul Versus The Spirit

Soul vs Spirit - Are the Christian Soul and Spirit the Same?

 

[Radagast]

The Soul Versus The Spirit

Soul vs Spirit - Are the Christian Soul and Spirit the Same?

Those websites are inaccurate; the first in particular is totally heretical. Why would you post stuff like that?

Traditional Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, sees soul and spirit as the same thing. See here for a brief summary of the Reformed view, or here for more detail.

 

[Radagast]

It was an example of brain mapping to the level of (near) behavior duplication, not of uploading a specific worm

There was a (partial) duplication of brain architecture, but not of brain state. And there was no "behaviour duplication" -- very few real nematode behaviours were actually simulated, and the ones that were were not simulated accurately.

I don't assume that at all, I am a believer in Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection

But apparently you deny the Biblical concepts of mind and soul. To take "mind" as identical with "brain state" is essentially an atheist position.

 

[Quad]

Those websites are inaccurate; the first in particular is totally heretical. Why would you post stuff like that?

Traditional Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, sees soul and spirit as the same thing. See here for a brief summary of the Reformed view, or here for more detail.

Taking direct quotes from the bible does not make that particular statement inaccurate, nor heretical.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Traditional Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, sees soul and spirit as the same thing.

Read Scripture to see the difference. They are not the same, ever.
(A few translations might be a lot better than some others concerning this - or just reading and praying for YHWH'S REVELATION with whichever translation you are reading - see and compare ALL the references to soul and to spirit, to start to see the great difference in the two).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

From what i've discovered, they are described interchangeably, but there is a distinction between the two.

See previous post. They are never interchangeable.

 

[Radagast]

Taking direct quotes from the bible does not make that particular statement inaccurate, nor heretical.

To say, as does the website you are promoting, "We are a spirit being, we live in a body and we possess a soul. The real person inside of us is our spirit" is Gnostic heresy, pure and simple. It denies the Christian concept of resurrection.

Heresy is always accompanied by out-of-context Bible quotes. That kind of pious window-dressing doesn't take away from the heresy.

 

[Radagast]

See previous post. They are never interchangeable.

"Soul" and "spirit" are clearly interchangeable in Luke 1:46-47 ("My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") and similarly "soul" and "mind" are interchangeable in Luke 10:27 ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind").

 

[InterestedApologist]

Bit of a side note -

You should read "I, Robot" by Asimov. It's a fantastically creative book (not really a dark take on AI either, which is nice) where he explores the idea of robotic conscience. Even though he's a sci-fi author his work has had a ton of influence on robotics, as others have tried to envision how to keep AI from "going rogue".

He imagines a future where we program three laws into all robots:

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

And then the rest of the book is short stories about how things can still go wrong without those laws being broken - but this isn't all that different from what happens with humans ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that)

Interesting that you reference this book in this thread. I will admit that I have not read the book, but have seen the movie that was adapted from it. In the movie, robots are able to make decisions within a set of laws. The side story is whether or not there are ghosts in the machine, or souls that come to exist over the course of a sentient robot’s existence.

Sonny, the main AI in the film is presented as having a soul, or at least some variation of one. Vickie is an example of a soulless AI, as only logic, math and probability matter to her. Sonny will occasionally break away from pure logic because it “just doesn’t feel” right.
In the end though, Sonny is revealed to be unique only because his creator made him for a special purpose. No one truly knows how or what it is that that the creator did to make Sonny unique. We are left with why Sonny has a soul as being a complete mystery apart from the explanation that he was made for a purpose by his creator.

I know you are using this movie as a fictional example of where you believe AI is going, but it really isn’t a good example for advocating your original premise of consciousness/soul being a simple matter of brain function. The movie explores the possibility of AI as a developing into a soul, but in the end, the real thrust of the story is that there is more to a soul than just being able to make decisions and be self aware. There are emotions, ethics, free will, love, and the ability to do what makes no logical sense because even though something is logical, it doesn’t make it the best choice. The exclamation point to it is that these traits that make up the soul are only given by the creator. Asimov seems to have been ahead of his time.

 

[InterestedApologist]

To say, as does the website you are promoting, "We are a spirit being, we live in a body and we possess a soul. The real person inside of us is our spirit" is Gnostic heresy, pure and simple. It denies the Christian concept of resurrection.

Heresy is always accompanied by out-of-context Bible quotes. That kind of pious window-dressing doesn't take away from the heresy.

I didn’t follow the links you are quoting but Christian theology traditionally looks at the essence of man in a Trichotemy or Dichotomy view. There are many believers on both sides of this issue, but to suggest a Trichotemist view is heretical is just plain rediculous. I see no reason why a Trichotemist view would negate the need for resurrection, nor do I see how it applies to Gnosticism.

For myself, I lean towards a Trichotemist view, as God is a trinity and we are made in the image of God, it simply makes sense that we would be created in flesh, spirit and soul. As the Bible also mentions dividing soul and spirit, it also makes textual sense. I am certainly not dogmatic about it, nor do I believe it should be cause for division amongst believers.

A short but good explanation can be found here:

Trichotomy vs. dichotomy of man—which view is correct?

 

[Radagast]

For myself, I lean towards a Trichotemist view, as God is a trinity and we are made in the image of God, it simply makes sense that we would be created in flesh, spirit and soul. As the Bible also mentions dividing soul and spirit, it also makes textual sense. I am certainly not dogmatic about it, nor do I believe it should be cause for division amongst believers.

I think that the Trichotemist view is incorrect, but my "heresy" comment was directed at other elements of the web site being promoted.

 

[Ronald]

As of today. Let's check back in fifty years and see where we stand after quantum computers are an everday thing. Actually, let's check back in five years after Zuckerburg has his mind-reading phone:
https://gizmodo.com/facebook-litera...3.1747412331.1505318059-1673279382.1504834612





I'm hesitant to say "these thoughts and questions are off-limits!" If I wouldn't say such a thing to a Mormon or a Scientologist, then I wouldn't say it to myself. Refusing to examine your own beliefs is not a healthy thing. And if you really believe that your current beliefs are the truth, what is there to be afraid of? The Truth is certainly not in danger because of questions like these.

The world is changing at an exponentially fast rate. Silicon Valley elites are pouring stupid amounts of money into tech for stuff like this and making strides on a near weekly basis (like AlphaGo, a computer that, knowing only the rules of Go, played against itself for three days and became unbeatable even by the world's champions). Stuff like "You need to stop with these weird philosophical thoughts" frustrates me. Why the heck would it be better for the church to wait until after we already have these spiritually challenging technologies to think about the implications? Would it not be far, far better to be prepared???

I just read recently that people are actually having sex with robots! That's technology for you. I suppose maybe if you passed them out to all the sex offenders, they wouldn't need to rape women?
People think technology is good, but is it. Is it good that people watch umpteen hours of TV, and disconnect from their family members or kids who spend all their time with video games, so they don't do chores, learn an instrument, do their school work and when they graduate (barely), they know how to do nothing but play games on the computer. One hundred years ago, boys worked out on the farm with their dads and knew how to run a farm by age 15 and they were young responsible men. Technology?
Do you realize that if people would just use natural cures, like H2O2, honey, lemon, a couple grams of vitamins C, 50 mg of D3 and eat well, meaning much less sugar and refined flour, no processed foods, exercised, etc., we wouldn't need $2 trillion of healthcare every year in the US. All those fancy high tech testing and treatments are very costly. I am 62 and have been to the doctors only for an antibiotic maybe six times in the last 40 years because I use natural remedies - don't need doctors. If I had cancer, I would not need one either. Oxygen is the key. Flood you system with oxygen and 50-60 diseases are cured -- they cannot survive and oxygen rich environment. So pennies a day compared to thousands of dollars.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy goes in one direction, from usable to unusable, meaning waste, pollution, etc. The more technology, the more waste. So what else do you have, driverless cars? Big deal, just wait until the computers malfunction. And computers ... what is so good to have all this knowledge available when you don't use it. The stress that excessive phone calls, advertisements, texting idiot mindless thoughts filled with nothing interrupting your day, as if you have nothing better to do, causes stress and takes you away from real living as does TV and computers. Technology? I just read that Bill Gates bought 26,000 acres in Arizona to build a Tomorrowland type futuristic city with all the bells and whistles - big deal. Will they live better?

 

[Ronald]

. duplicate

 

[AlexDTX]

I've been thinking a lot about the philosophy of identity, mostly in sci-fi ish thought expiriments. But the more I think about it, the thornier it makes spiritual issues as well.

Been thinking further on the topic since I have been watching a UK show called "Humans" on Netflix. The premise of the show is that androids had become practical and are called Synthetic Humans, or Synths for short. However, an AI scientist came up with a program that gave some Synths consciousness, and awakened them. The show deals with various ramifications of what conscious androids would be like. Two end up killing humans for their own self preservation. One was hiding as a sexbot and she kills the customer who tries to raper her. The other sees humans as her enemy. Then there is a human mother who is an AI scientist who copied the memories of her dying daughter into an AI called "V". V becomes aware that her memories are actually the memories of the dead daughter named Virginia. In another ramification a little girl in an abused home escapes from that association in a cognitive disassociation by acting as a Synth without feelings. Another storyline is a cop who works with a conscious synth, but does not know it and falls in love with her. Later she reveals to him that she is not human but an awakened synth.

While the story is entertaining, my wife and I realize that this is a propaganda piece to get viewers to accept the idea of synths being a part of society. Disney had worked on animatronics years ago with their presidents display and AI has been developed already in limited extent. We have no doubt that they are already trying to combine the two.

My point is that the show is actually asking the question: What is life? This is not new. Data the android was considered alive on Star Trek, and Mary Shelly in her book Frankenstein posited that life simply was energy put into the monster.

In the show, consciousness is equated as being alive. But plants have no consciousness and they are alive. They are sentient and can sense sunlight, cold, water, wind, etc. But they have no consciousness. Nor does sentience equal life. Machines are already sentient. Your I phone is sentient when voice activation is left on. But the Iphone is not alive. Life, clearly, is something else, and Christians know that life is in the spirit for the body without the spirit is dead.