It makes me wonder how far humans would go to reach their "destiny" of unraveling the mysteries of the universe. When do we cross the Rubicon from being a biologic entity to a metallic/plastic one, and in the process drown our souls in the raging river of technological nirvana. I suspect that being fully and truly roboticized could and would hamper that journey towards that destiny.
If it is simply a matter of transfering a human brain to a roboticized body, then I suppose our technology could and would indeed be the apex of that nirvana.. But the brain is ONLY responsible for the licentious consciousness, NOT the conscientious consciousness that the human soul imparts in all of us.
I myself have wondered.
But maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by "conscientious consiousness"? Because even though I consider the soul to be intangible, I also think that as long as a person has a working brain, then they have access to the soul. Not that the soul is confined to any organ including the brain, but that we're able to have soul knowledge and feeling as long as our brains are healthy.........
The brain being the depository/interpretatory mechanism of all things that are perceived by our 5 physical senses is ONLY responsible for our CONSCIOUSNESS that emanates from that mechanism, thus one that is not hinged on any spiritual concept i.e "licentious". A separate consciousness is imparted to us by our souls, a consciousness that is undergirded by spiritual precept i.e. conscientious.
If technology do allow humans to create a roboticized (but nonetheless soul-less versions of themselves) would those versions be conscientious enough to allow homo sapiens--->homo roboticus to reach the destiny of unraveling the mysteries of the universe? I seriously doubt it.
I personally don;t think the there is any such thing as a soul. But let us assume there is.
If a perfect replica of a human was made that was capable of worshiping God, why would God not give it a soul just as he does with normal infants? Why would He damn a person just for being based on metal not carbon? God is not made or carbon so I doubt he considers that a deal killer.
I don't know for sure either way.
And it may depend on whether you mean the entire replica was made of metal or plastic. In which case, it could not be human anyway! And in which case, I'd compare it to the angels which God created---even though they were "alive" and could move and think, and could worship God in actions and words, etc., they were not human, and even though they can "sin", they don't have access to salvation like humans do. Which all tells me that humanity is God's most important creation, the most-Loved creation. So I don't think He would give anything that's not human a soul capable of becoming immortal.
Just like the animals. I don't think they have "souls" like humans have souls.
If the "replica" were made, but had a person's brain in it, then that person would already be able to think and feel emotion and all, I believe; in other words, wouldn't need God to give "it" a soul because "it" was already a person with a soul.. Even though the "soul" cannot be said to actually reside in the brain. Because it isn't tangible.
Have you ever read Ben Bova's works? You might enjoy them...
Since you do not believe in the existence of a "soul", much less, a human soul, then I assume that the second paragraph of your post, discussing God and his role in human affairs i.e "giving a soul to a normal infant"..."giving a damn" and "Him not being made of carbon" is just your way of sharpening your rhetorical knife, and nothing else. Not believing in the existence of a soul and believing in the existence of God are contradictory beliefs, and I certainly don't want to see you contradicting yourself in any manner way or form.
I too doubt it.
Because you said "soulless", and the mysteries of the universe aren't all about tangible things.
I agree totally with you in that the mysteries of the universe are not all related to its physical configuration, but also and most importantly to its spiritual formulation. The soul being a spiritual entity is part and parcel of that non-material realm.
Are you sure it is separate or does it only appear that way? Perhaps if you can explain your understanding of soul I might understand what you are pointing to.
Souls are spiritual entities that may or may not decide to inhabit or exist in the physical realm; in case of humans, our souls inhabit our soon to be human form bodies from the day of conception......our souls return to the spiritual realm once our bodies die.
Humans were created by God, via the evolutionary pathway , and along the way developed a brain whose integrative complexity is unmatched in the natural world...a brain that has allowed humans to be conscious of and therefore become witnesses to God's creation, the universe and everything in it. Being spiritual beings first, before assuming physical forms(bodies), it is humanity's destiny to aim for and unravel the mysteries of the universe.
Our brains are responsible for the consciousness of our minds, our souls are responsible for our consciousness that we are spiritual beings, first and foremost. Thus two distinct and separate consciousness but united..... the ultimate unity in duality.
LOL. It's hilarious when believers tell us specific characteristics and properties of their imagined nonsense. This is the epitome of dishonesty and deception.
That is entirely false, there is only one consciousness per brain. Unless of course, one has mental disorders and multiple personalities.
Don't laugh all the way to the bank....you might find its been emptied of everything that is of any importance, to you and the rest of your ilks.
You must admit you are making bold claims of knowledge concerning things you couldn't possibly prove you knew about. You make statements that most spiritual people wouldn't necessarily agree with. What do you have to offer that would give anyone any reason to believe you knew these things to be true?
Obviously, what I said were personal opinions and beliefs, and as such their factuality and verity are subject to my own ability to conceptualize and intuit. If you have an opposite belief system as ATM does, then so be it. If you find my statement horrendously beyond realistic probabilities, then you can offer your own take on the subject, and we can both have a discussion free of the scientist's strict criteria of empirical evidence of provability.
I don't find anything beyond realistic possibilities. Probabilities are something else entirely. And, it's great that you conceptualize but you do comment as if you believe it to be fact and not possibility. I tend to side with ATM's opinion when I read some of your statements. They don't come across as if you understand that you are simply imagining something.
I am not simply "imagining" something. But if by "imagining" you mean using our perceptive and intuitive abilities in order to believe in the conclusions that naturally emanates from those perceptions and intutions ... then yes I am imagining... not intellectualizing. I don't know how many times I have to remind my fellow hubbers of Einstein's own formulation: "Imagination is better than intellect". If I am not mistaken, it was during Einstein's tenure in a patent office, (not in a science lab hampered by empirical models) that he thought about and formulated his concepts of general relativity.
Of course.The history of human invention is dominated by folks whose imagination led them to think of possibilities that were not necessarily tethered on empirical formulation or consideration. Intuiting and perceiving the existence of God and the human soul and everything in the spiritual realm do not lead to objective reality, but it does not mean that the whole process is counterintuitive, counterproductive or futile.
I have no doubt that because you imagine God he become real in your mind, but unfortunately he doesn't appear outside of your mind. It's certainly possible to believe our own lies, it's our minds way of protecting us. However we can't make a God appear with hope.
We all come to conclusions based on evidence gleaned during our experience of life. However, to insist that these are based on anything other than hopes and dreams is a line Einstein didn't cross. To bring his name up in defense of a belief is probably not the best way to gain support for your belief.
I have no intention of asking, begging, threatening you or anyone else to gain support for my beliefs. Einstein, however a genius he was, still relied on his imagination, as a lot of other "geniuses" before and after him to be able to think through concepts and ideas, borrowed or original, and to formulate their practical application to the "work at hand". That's what I would call CREATIVITY. Creativity is greatly enhanced, first by one's "hopes and dreams", then one's interactive capacity with other humans who could and would contribute their own creativity to achieve the successful implemantation of "that work at hand".
Comparing yourself to Einstein? Sorry, but he relied far more on the work of others, evidence, observations, etc.
Einstein probably never attempted to pass off his theories as possible fact without a heck of a lot of back up.
Anyway. I'm not dissing creativity and thinking outside of the box. But, let's not take a great name like Einstein's and compare it to our forum activity. We are all just shooting the breeze.
That's pretty much what it boils down to, the bottom line, the fact that you can make any claim you want and talk about all kinds of characteristics and properties of your invisible friends without having anyone place reality in front of you.
I would think there would be a happy median where we could discuss ideas without always being goaded into proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cosmically, nothing is provable; but it's still fun to wonder about. Don't you think?
You must be delusional when you stated that I am comparing myself to Einstein. The Pediatrician that I am... kids and their health are my foremost professional concerns. Science vis-a-vis the spiritual realm, are a topic of importance in so far as they are always lurking in the background, tweaked and allowed to surface full blown by things I come across during times when I meander here there and everywhere.
LOL. Sorry, there is no such thing as science "vis-a-vis the spiritual realm". It's all in your head.
Therein lies the rub. You don't think science and spirituality could complement and supplement each other...a pity, because as you and I are debating this issues, scientists are becoming more conversant of the fact that the universe is not all material and physical. They have approximated that a little less than 15 % of the cosmos is made up of matter, the rest is space, comprised of energy (dark energy), that could and would not be translatable to any material way or form, or shape. Talk about spiritual, and there it is... staring humans (with their limited sensical abilities) right in the eye.
There's a simple answer to that, one exists while the other has never been shown to exist. That's like saying the Kentucky Derby could be complemented with leprechauns riding unicorns.
Your conclusions are not only false, they don't even follow any logical rationale. You jump to the conclusion of spirituality by way of dark energy. Hilarious.
I understand what you are pointing to. Thanks
I tend to agree with you. If there is a soul, it is independent of, but interactive with, the brain. So, if we were to remove our brain and transplant it into a robotized body there is no guarantee that the essence defined as the soul would follow. It's an interesting thought. What part of us is more important to the essence of who we are?
I don't know exactly where this quote came from, but it succinctly express what humans are: "We are spiritual beings living a physical existence." thus there is an inherent duality in human nature. You asked "what part of us is more important to the essence of who we are?"... I'd say, the spiritual, because we are first and foremost spiritual beings, that were then given physical forms.
My question wasn't addressing that. But, maybe I didn't fully understand your OP. What I was asking was, given the removal of the brain into a robotic body...if a soul exists, what is it truly tied to? The body or the mind?
Our bodies are the physical vessels to which our souls have been given or allowed to inhabit. Ou souls are neither tied to our bodies nor our minds, in the physical sense that we are familiar with, for if they are intricately woven into the physical fabrics of our bodies, when our bodies die, then they also would die. We believe of course that our souls don't die, because as entities, they are eternal consciousness, in as much as they came from the ultimate eternal consciousness---God.
Then how come when the brian looses consciousness so do we. Where does the soul go?
When I said tied, I was kind of thinking about what they were attached to not by anything other than their desire to stay close. I don't know. I just tend to refer to the soul as the energy that animates. I think it, by choice, drives the consciousness. I do think the energy that drives our forms is no different from the energy that manipulates all life. It is, by choice, that during our lifetime it is attached to us. Once we die, it goes back to the source and will chose to participate again. Maybe as a flower. Maybe as a squirrel. I don't consider it anything special by our reckoning.
What I do wonder, from your question; is which part would it decide to continue to associate with? Maybe neither.
Well, if we accept that a soul is possible, we have to determine how. Making up stories about it, as if we have concrete knowledge, doesn't really cut it. How do you propose it is possible for one to exist? I don't see many options left to theorize with.
And, by the way. I read your last response to rad man. You can't tell him he is mistaken. You don't know. You simply find one theory more plausible than another.
Interesting question. I do think that when a human body/brain dies, the soul that inhabited it continues to exist in the spiritual realm, but that soul retains much if not all of the memories it acquired while inhabiting that particular human body. So the dissociation and disconnect between body and soul is neither total nor complete. The soul once released from its physical cohort, may decide or allowed to stay in the spiritual realm, or it may then be imparted to another newly but still to be formed physical body, i.e. a human at conception.
Come on guys.. there are people who know this stuff and they are not making it up. The soul has a light body after it looses its physical body at death and reincarnates into another lifetime when the conditions (usually about 500 years) are conducive for the soul to come back to earth. We do not go backwards... we evolve until it is our will... body, mind and spirit... to become one once again with the Causal or God presence, as Jesus did. We never loose our sense of self, but pull God's consciousness into our own.
As I Understand It.
I'm afraid those you think know are making it up.
Your post showcases the problem with hopes of an understanding on a cosmic level. A soul is a hypothesis. A spiritual realm is a theory. You have bought into both because someone presented them in a manner that appears logical and appeals to you; and lines up with your perception of your life experiences. Just as rad man has bought into the Big Bang theory and A Villarasa adamantly believes the Big Bounce is true. All of these theories are a mixture of fact, conjecture and hope. Those who have presented them to each of you are just more able to articulate their beliefs. They have taken observable information and woven this information around assumptions; in an attempt to broaden our understanding.
It is great to listen. It is great to attempt to take all information into account. It is even better to wonder what it all means. Although, none of us 'know', everyone is clamoring in search of consensus. Everyone appears to need to have their beliefs validated. Isn't it enough that our beliefs help us make sense of life? Why must everyone agree? Life experience for each individual is unique. Their beliefs will be unique because of this. My failure to agree with you, or anyone else, does not negate the value of a belief.
What is the source of Knowledge?
What is the source of false knowledge (ignorance)
How do you know the difference between those who are making it up from who are not?
How do we know that you did not just make your statement up?
What is the benefit of your statement to you over theirs?
What is the benefit of your statement to them over theirs?
As we judge another, that the way we are judged
We are here to learn. And to do that we need to think critically. If we wondered through life excepting the words of others without prejudice, we'd quickly have nothing left.
so did you learn the answers to the questions yet?
If not why not....
otherwise you do not know what you need to know
neither you do not know that which you do know.
I have a good understanding of the answers I am looking for. You find the answers by asking questions.
I ask many questions...
the one indirect answer did not consider the questions as posed.
Maybe you consider the fact that you responded as the answers to the questions.
If I may....Ill pose them again as a reminder.
What is the source of Knowledge?
What is the source of false knowledge (ignorance)
How do you know the difference between those who are making it up from who are not?
How do we know that you did not just make your statement up?
What is the benefit of your statement to you over theirs?
What is the benefit of your statement to them over theirs?
so did you learn the answers to the questions yet?
If not why not....?
People who lie.
Observing those who lie.
My statement can be backed up by facts. Which one would you like me to back up?
I'm not understanding these questions.
So according to you,
Knowledge is limited to what is observed....
Since that affect everything else you say,
You need not say any other thing.
The source of your perception of knowledge is the culmination of you filtering all information you have received into what you consider to be the most logical conclusion. I have no idea what value my input is to another. That is for them to determine.
Although we all judge, I accept that my judgment affects me, alone. It should have no adverse bearing on you. If it does, that is your responsibility to determine why.
You seem to point to " information received" as source of knowledge.
what/where/who, then is its the origin?
You did not respond to all the questions, nevertheless
Since you imply That your knowledge is beneficial to you?
is it no reasonable to also think that their knowledge is beneficial to them?
And since you have discarded it as false ( as implied by yours statements )
How did you know it its no beneficial to yourself as it is to them?
This is how your judgement affect you...
Because you judge their knowledge as false, it remain false to you thus you lose the benefits of it....
and yes your judgement affects you alone and by that you establish yourself and destiny.
You assume too much. The question is why? Are your assumptions beneficial to you, or me? By assuming false information you put yourself in a position to believe your response enlightens, but since most of your assumptions are false, your effort benefits nothing but your ego.
You presume that I assume...
and that position gives you the freedom to doubt any and everything.
A freedom I must allow you....
I ask questions and made a statement.
Concluding I am egotistical and speak falsehood would mean
something if you knew what knowledge is.
Remember you recognize the Lie only because you have seen Truth...
Truth and knowledge is ONE.
I presumed nothing. I read your statement. If you don't know what you typed, how can you possibly participate in a conversation?
One can have knowledge about many things, some of which are not the truth. I can tell you I'm 6'4". You have that knowledge, but It's certainly is not the truth.
I agree with you completely. Our minds create a simulation of what it thinks we need. A.Villarasa used the phrase something like "I will not except..." when referring to people not being special in Gods eyes. She won't except because she can't, she needs to think we have a soul. I don't, so I can see a world without souls. Kathryn needs something different and I honestly have no idea what Mike Marks is talking about... I'll have to read it again, but I think someone has been spiking his cereal. The only way this makes any sense is if it's only our minds helping us get to 85.
They are obviously lying. The soul has never been shown to exist, by any stretch.
That is pure baloney. No one has ever shown we are spiritual beings.
Oh mmm...what destiny might you be referring to? Is unravelling the mysteries of the universe a destiny?
It isn't? Of course it is.
Now you may have other ideas about what destiny means to you personally, but as a specie, I strongly believe that it is Homo Sapiens' destiny to unravel, and therefore understand the mysteries of the universe... if it isn't, why even be imparted with a SOUL...and why even develop a brain that has allowed humans to ask the why, the how and the what of the universe?
Delusionally hubristic, some would say. I don't think so.
Oh dear, you think evolution has given us these brain so we can ponder the universe? Evolution doesn't have a plan. It simply looks for ways to survive and for us a big brain was needed to communicated, to use tools and weapons. We may someday have a better understanding of the universe and may even inhabit other planets, but eventually our star will stop shinning and we will be no more. Most likely before then though at the rate we a messing with our planet.
There is no escaping the need for intelligence in our origins. It is the conundrum always encountered by those espousing materialistic dogmas...sooner or later they must elude to intelligent direction because it is inescapably required, yet at the same time attempt to deny it. "Evolution doesn't have a plan" yet it (evolution, now demonstrating intelligence), "looks for ways to survive." So although this thing you credit has no intelligence, it does have an agenda and goal.
Are you saying all of the sciences think intelligence is required? Or are you saying YOU can't imagine the universe without an underlying intelligence? The individuals have intelligence, and want to survive. Random events play a part in evolution. Lighter skin in northern climates helps people survive, shorter limbs in the far north helps prevent frost bite. Sorry, no underlying intelligence required. ATM brought forth an interesting paper to another forum where a believers using math had concluded that the universe wasn't fine turned for our existence. No intelligence required.
I don't see it. That would be like saying that gravity has a goal and an agenda because it makes things happen and is necessary for life on this planet. But gravity just is. It "has" nothing.
What is so unbelievable about humans developing brains to ponder the mysteries of the universe. I don't see the bonobo chimps doing the same thing (outwardly that is), and their brains are closest to ours anatomically and physiologically.... closest, but not close enough.
If you posit that evolution developed our brains because of the demands to survive, why didn't evolution do the same thing for the the bonobos, when those demands to survive applied to all earthly specie.
Now that survival is no longer an issue for humans, their brains should and could be used not to deal with the issues of surviving, but with other things i.e pondering the mysteries of the universe, and maybe, just maybe... pondering the mysteries could in fact assure the future survival of our specie.
Didn't you say you are a doctor? And you clearly are intelligent, so why aren't chimps and bonobos like us has to be the most ignorant question an intelligent person could ask. Our common ancestors lived millions of years ago. We were forced down from the tree's while they were not. We were forced to hunt, scavenge and avoid being eaten, while they were not. But still we share 96% of our DNA. Now, the bonobos and the chimps are a different story aren't they. They look almost identical, but were separated by a river. Chimps were prayed upon, while the bonobo were not. The difference is chimps display the same emotions as humans, while the bonobos feel no jealousy and no anger, they are loving machines. Evolution have given them what they need to survive in their own environment as it did ours. You see most animals don't need high intelligence to survive, they have developed other ways of avoiding prey or being prey.
What do you think made "us" or "forced" us to come down from the trees, that somehow did not force the bonobos/chimps to come down as we did, if the evolutionary forces operative in the same geographical area could be applied to all living entities (be they hominds or apes) in that area. I don't think being separated by a mere river could change the dynamics of diffuse evolutionary forces that could impact one specie and not the other. What I am saying is, developing the brain that we did could not be traced solely to mere evolutionary forces, in the same way that being separated by a mere river could not make one specie a more survivalist specie than the other specie that lives on the other side of the river.
Unless that river is called the Rubicon. Everyone knows (including Julius Caesar) that once you cross the Rubicon, there is no going back.
Bonobos and chimps have developed different personalities and social structure because of their environment. Do some research.
Asking why humans came down from the trees and not chimps or bonobos is like asking why do zebras have strips while horse and donkeys do not. Isolation creates change. Animals adapt to their environment as do people. Why do separated groups of people look different? Why do the people of the north have light skin while those close to the equator have dark skin?
Humans make tools to hunt with. Throwing with accuracy takes a big brain. Are you so arrogant as to say we humans couldn't have evolved to this perfection without direction?
Yes, but you're saying is based on false premises due to a lack of understanding evolution. One particular branch of evolution can apply to a species, but not necessarily to a family or genus.
Destiny tends to imply (in my mind) a final result. I don't disagree that we over time will unravel many a mystery. However, that we will reach the end of these discoveries, is something I do disagree with. We live in a universe where there is more that is unknown than known and since the universe is expanding (apparently), will there ever be a destination? In my view, no.
If you assume the soul exists, I see no reason why a robot human could not have one.
If you do not believe that a soul, a human soul exist, then you are degrading and devaluing humans to a purely physical existence...... something that I could not accept, for if I do, then I'd be no better than the nihilists out there who believe that human existence is meaningless and purposeless( aside from the ones you give yourself in relation to other humans).
If humans were spiritual beings first would we all be in agreement with that? Wouldn't it be common knowledge just like we know we all have physical bodies?
No necessarily....in the same way that we are not in agreement with a lot of things.
It is common knowledge that we humans have souls, its just that people who say we don't, are in denial of that, for one very basic and quite simple reason..... their spiritual nature have been so overcome by their physical nature, that they have lost contact with their spirituality. They have decided to tether their existence on the purely physical and , in effect becoming lost souls in a sea of materialism, objectivism, reductionism, and nihilism.
It's not common knowledge that humans have a soul? No it's debatable. Saying a soul is common knowledge is like me saying God being simulacrum of the mind is common knowledge. No such soul has ever been identified, but the mind being capable of deceit has been identified. I would more likely believe in life after death, but you can't always get what you want. I found it interesting that you stated that you "could not accept" humans being just as any other animal (without a soul), because this demonstrates the power of the mind to deceive it's self to survive, and you clearly need to think you're special and have the promise of everlasting life to survive.
Simulacrum? hmmm what is that? It's not in my dictionary so you have to define that word for me.
Now that you seem to acknowledge God's existence in the first sentence of your second paragraph, how on earth could you deny the existence of the soul? Unless of course if you're just practicing your rhetorical skills.
I obviously believe that humans are special....if I don't believe you (as a member of humanity) are special then why am I engaging you in this conversation? I might just as well have a conversation with a bonobo chimp.... or a slug for that matter.
Simulacrum; Used to describe a representation, such as a statue or a painting, especially of a god.
I don't think I've acknowledged God's existence. If you feel your soul is your thoughts and memories how do you explain the connection between brain injury and personality changes?
Pretending a God made the entire universe just for us seems rather arrogant to me.
God is merely a representation (i.e simulacrum) of the mind? Now that one is not common knowledge... I don't think that is even knowledge except to those who would rather deny the TRUTH, and the truth is, you and I and the rest of humanity are not happenstance creations of accidental series of quantum events.
The soul is not your thoughts and memories, the mind is. The mind is the result of your brain's anatomy and physiology, and ocassionally, pathology. Your soul predates your physical form , the spiritual merging with the physical is what makes you and I human. Take away the spiritual, and you are just a composition of organ-systems whose purpose and meaning is questionable, irrelevant, and ultimately futile.
That is false, it is common knowledge that some folks believe we have souls, but souls have never been shown to exist. You and I and everyone here knows that for a fact.
On the contrary, it is YOU who is degrading and devaluing humans with nonsensical myths and superstitions.
It seems to me that if you see having a soul as a requirement for being human, then when you make an artificial human it will have a soul. If it doesn't then it is not an artificial human, it is just a very clever robot and will not be able to do whatever it is souls allow us to do.
Eh....artificial is the key word.
"Artificial human" isn't possible.
I guess that is the question. We obviously accept that a person can be partly artificial and still human (prosthesis etc) , so where would the line be crossed?
I think we've established that we consider the brain to be that line.
But I'm not sure! lol.
We're still wondering if the human brain is what makes a person human...........
Actually I read OP to be saying "everything but the brain" is too much. That is, a brain in an artificial body would have no soul.
I think it would come down to how the person felt, not what organic bits they had.
Re-reading it, yes, you may be right that that's what A. Villarasa meant....
In which case, I can think of it this way----- I think that the brain is what processes emotions etc., including "soul".
So....a person could have an artificial body but a human brain, and then that person could still process all thoughts and emotions plus all analytical things. Again, not that the soul is IN the brain, but that it's what processes everything.....
The brain differs from the other organs, yes. Like the heart. We can say we love someone "with all our heart" (and we do! since we mean our intangible (soulical or spiritual "heart"), but the actual organ the human heart really has nothing to do with our emotions. It simply pumps blood to the brain.
So I think we're in agreement about that.
what are you guys talking about???
Consciousness incarnates into every cell of a biological body and is connected to joy, wisdom and love. Without a human body it is IMPOSSIBLE for the soul to exist. Am I not understanding what in the world you are discussing? Why did Mr. V. bring this topic up?
Maybe we don't believe exactly the same things you do. Shocking thought for you to consider there.
If you find considering other possibilities offensive, participation is optional.
We're talking about what part of the human body makes a person human.
I agree that a totally artificial replica would have no soul.
But when you say that consciousness incarnates into every cell of a biological body (and the entire body is therefore necessary for that consciousness to be alive?) then.....I'm not agreeing with that....
- well what do you think is happening from birth to nine months? what do you think is happening from 0 to 6 years? a long process of the soul incarnating into the body and mind. A fact which most people do not know. But I do.
Well, a baby who's born with no legs or etc. still is human, and still has a soul.
That's the point I was making.
Which....you disagree with? Is that right?
My OP was quite clear in that as far as I am concerned a human-made/human evolved "roboticized version (with or without a human brain) of himself" will not be an entity with a soul, in as far as that soul is the other half of man's inate duality i.e the spiritual consciousness. The biologic brain/artificial brain that a roboticized human may be constructed with can only express the physical consciousness. God , is the only one who could impart that spiritual consciousness(soul).
There was a time in history where important scientists thought the soul was in the heart, and the brain was just an organ that cooled the blood.
We could be as wrong now as they were then?
I just can't believe such a ridiculous discussion... and to what end?
People do ridiculous things all the time, you don't need to take part.
We were considering putting your brain into a robot. This was simply a thread to feel you out on the idea. Sounds like a no go?
this discussion has a lot of tangents.
Hard to keep up with,
but I like it.
what? what tangents? It is impossible to put a soul into a machine. End of story.
@ Mr. V: Why did you bring this up?
Because they wanted to discuss it, as did we.
With your permission, of course.
what is there to discuss? it is IMPOSSIBLE!
Descartes thought the soul was most connected to the body in the pineal gland of the brain.
But it is really difficult to content that something physical and something non-physical are tethered in a concrete way/place IMHO.
Homo Roboticus is not a new concept.
It has long been believed that technology would reach a point where it could manufacture organically, else synthetic life forms. This is precisely why cloning, gene splicing, DNA mapping has been such an extensive preference. Equally the study and applications of consciousness.
There is the tangible conscious mind known as the brain or soul.
Then, there is the supra-consciousness, called spirit. The later is primarily recognized by phi-sciences and not traditional sciences. However, with large steps being made in quantum, it is becoming more and palpable.
To move the subconscious/soul, which is essentially the brain, is possible. To move the later, presently, it is impossible without complete organic/carbon based form -as in making a baby. Cloning would fail to do this, as would metallic/robotics. But it makes for good sci-fi.
The brain is tangible.
But not the mind.
And not the soul.
If you're saying that human cloning is impossible, I agree.
And I'm sure it's for a very good reason.
It's even a bit weird to think about, and wrong to me.
I think it's wrong and trying to play God to try to make a human replica "from scratch", as in try to clone an entire body with brain.
But I don't think it's wrong to want to make a body for a person whose body doesn't work anymore. I recently re-watched the old story of Jill Kinmont, the famous skier whose accident left her paralyzed from the neck down. That would be awesome to be able to give a person like that who still had her brain working, a working body. But even then science could never give her a "feeling" body. Because metal and plastic and other non-human tissue doesn't "feel".
I'm against research and experimentation with living tissue if it in any way takes away from a person.
But human umblical cord blood (from a newborn, after the cord is detached from the child) is, I think, a good and humane option. As are heart transplants, etc., as long as the top priority remains on the side of the donor.
Inetersting that you are teasing "soul" from "spirit". In my mind the two are one and the same thing... but I do get your point that the "spirit" is not transplantable... but it ceratinly is re-incarnationable. God's version I suppose of recycling.
Re-incarnation is of course one of the basic tenets of Hinduism... one that is fast becoming acceptable to a lot of Christians as well.
Well, we can (scientifically, if not legally) clone a human, but all you get is your genetic twin--still their own person. I suspect somewhere in the world this has already been done.
If your enjoying this thread, check out a short story called "Human" by Laston Kirkland. It is right up the alley of this forum.
http://www.synaptiqplus.com/journal/jou … ue-1/human
I always thought the idea that once a machine, a computer quantum or otherwise, gathered enough information that it would result in consciousness or sentience is quite a big assumption, I don't see the leap from a "supercalculator" to a "sentient conscious" happening, and the difference between the two is where I would look for a "soul", a consciousness that inhabits a machine (the human body and brain) and uses it while also being confined by it, a little piece of the one big consciousness dripping into fleshy walls... the merging of man and machine is in process now with artificial hearts and pacemakers and the evolution of all that adding more and more hardware to the flesh nanos next and of course always military budgets to improve the soldier... the scariest prediction I read concerning the merging of man and machine comes from Ray Kurzwell, a very respected technician with more PHDs, and patients on devices you and I are already using, than I can remember, he is in a good position to know what he is talking about, and he believes that manmachinemerging is going to be advancing to mindboggling dimensions expodentially during the next century ... I'm posting a link to a wikilinks article on Ray's predictions which are broken down chronologically at the second half of the page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction … y_Kurzweil
The man appears to be right on track with his predictions, at least the ones that I could understand! haha.
2019 starts to get really creepy though.
My sole reason for being leery and wary of "man-machinemerging" is best expressed in my OP,..... that when and if the day comes that that merging becomes a total reality i.e Homo Roboticus, will this next step in human evolution put an end to humans actually accomplishing their destiny of unraveling the mysteries of the universe, because Homo Roboticus is man-made and therefore does not possess a soul... a soul that I think is essential for humans to be able unravel those mysteries.
I think this theme is from the very first season of Star Trek.
Are you suggesting Data was a robot with no soul?
Data was a robot trying mightily to feel why, how and what it is to be human. He could and would never have a soul, because he was man made and as you already know, humans do not and can not impart a Soul to any of his creation. Only God can do that.
Do you have any evidence for that? That we have a soul?
Do you have proof that we only have Ego?
You, Radman, are proof that some of us only have Ego. This is because you deny the existence of soul, obviously. You are an individual who denies God who made everything out of his own being which is etheric in nature. It is beyond reason to even state that God does not exist. God is the over soul to everything made. He made everything with his essence which is energy. At our essence we are soul: metaphorically: a small drop made of the ocean.
I hope you will understand this and have some compassion for those of us who know and accept the truth of (the) matter..
The Ego is a name we give to the conscious part of your brain. The Ego mediates the
Super-ego and the ID. Since the Ego is the name for the conscious brain and I at least am conscious, then yes. The fact that I'm aware and able to type this message is evidence of an Ego.
The soul you describe is one that continues on after the death of the brian will all your memories and consciousness. While it may be soothing to feel we are special and our consciousness will continue forever there is certainly no evidence to support it. Unless you have some?
I can "reason" that there is Eternity based on the idea that "nothing(ness) is impossible" and something coming out of nothingness is impossible... I can reason that, because I know I can think and feel, that Eternity can do at least as much as me... I can reason that Eternity, the All in All, can create... I can reason that you I everyone and everything as part of the All and All has accumulated enough experience to favor things like love, compassion and kindness... I can reason a loving God who thinks and feels... a single sentience composed of all those droplets with knowledge of all those experiences able to make movements in parts of its own body which is the universe entire... I can reason that my speculations are less flawed reasoning than any big bang beginning notion... I can sit in meditation away from sounds, words, ideas, time, and perceive an invincible stillness that is as One with Eternity, and I may perceive that when that stillness began a language of describing its self to its self egos followed.
I thought you said you could "reason"? All you did was imagine and hope.
- nope. it is reason which proves the existence of God.
As “reasoning” is important to me, and it is clear to you that my reasoning is mere imagination and hope, perhaps you wouldn’t mind breaking down my reasoning and showing me how it is unfounded… as reasoning, as I was taught in Philosophy 101, begins with a basic assumption that, if true, then therefore the next point following would be true, until eventually we complete a logic circle that says if the following final point be true then the first basic assumption be true… maybe you could begin by disputing my first basic assumption that “something can not come from nothing” therefore and so on… or perhaps you can just start with explaining my method of reasoning is a false method?… I’m always open to being set straight by a fella who knows more than me… ps> your use of the word “hope” in regards to me may be an assumption you make about me.
Your use of the word nothing was your error. If you understand the big bank theory then you would know that all matter was contained prior to the big bang. You started wrong therefore you ended wrong. Sorry.
If you are contending that the Big Bang and the few nanoseconds before it was the start of Time-Space continuum... you are sadly mistaken. Time-Space continuum is eternal, and what scientists previously refer to as the Big Bang is sadly only a Big Bounce, a FLUCTUATION that occured in Space-Time resulting from the collapse of multiple galaxies.
You know there is a way of finding out, and we eventually will. The further out in space we look the older the light that's getting to us is. So when we are looking at galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away, we see a very young galaxy which is only 400 million years after the big bang. When we are able to look a little further back in time (which will be soon) and if we see nothing, then I'm right, if we see galaxies then your right. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.
You are assuming of course that there is only one universe, and that universe is the one that contains our galaxy(milky way).
Several astrophysicists and theoretical physicists have proposed that our universe is not the only one, but is actually one of several/multiple universes. How does this proposed multi-verse scenario jibe with your calculation or approximation of the age of our universe or of any other universe out there?
Still don't get it do you? Our universe is currently expanding, If by chance we see galaxies coming towards us we would know they are not from our galaxy. That has happen yet. We have no idea how big our universe is, all we know is what we can see. These are not my calculation, they are the calculations of people much smarter than you and I. It's no surprise the very distant galaxies appear young because the light coming to us is how they were billions of years ago.
I'm not saying your right or wrong to do so, I am pointing out that when you refer to "calculations of people smarter than yourself" as your source and evidence, I assume you refer to people with better math skills and instruments than you have, people whose calculations you can not personally verify for yourself, whose math is too far above your head for you to read and understand and check, you are therefore displaying the same faith in people wearing white coats as other people, other people you may refer to as delusionists, who put faith in the statements of people wearing white collars... what if we live in a more controlled society than you suppose, and the same hugeness of scam artists that may be getting away with bs in the catholic church also ran our halls of science and they assured you their calculations can be verified to reveal the presence of a giant cow as the beginning of our universe, and they were even willing to teach you some slight of hand math tricks so that you could learn the same math formulas to reveal the same cow, would you go for it? When do you shut your faith off anything and everything you are told that you can not or do not have personal insight into, yet, if personal insight, subjective insight, becomes the barameter for Truth how can you ever show it to some one else... so they say each individual can only find out for themself but can never be told, Alan Watts compared it to the punchline of a joke, you get it or you don't get it, but you can't get it by having some one explain it to you... you're reciting things you read in books, or reciting things you heard from teachers who read and same books and kept up with the latest other same books, probably the people you're discussing with on this page have read the same books, other than perhaps religious zealots any one on this page with a serious interest in this discussion has looked at all the theoretical physics and cosmology books and so on as yourself so you're not going to wake anybody up by repeating those other people's lessons from those books here... use those lessons, sure, to safeguard yourself with educated discrimination on your journey but make that journey a more authentic experience than having faith in teachers with white coats or white collars
I'll trust the people looking for the truth, not the people with an agenda. That's why we have the middle ages. I can see the light from star which has been coming our way for millions of years. Evidence of an old earth. Pick your side.
Likely we are on the same side, a page of partners looking for truth, differing in levels of discriminating truth from agenda. "I can see the light from star which has been coming our way for millions of years"... there's probably some truth in that sentence: "I can see light" is probably the truth (assuming you're not a 6'4" blind man)... more accurately, you "observe" above your head a field with sparks of light in it... your experience of observing that is the end of your "knowing", you "know" you are having that experience of observing a field with sparkiling light above you... the rest of it - that it is stars in spaces million of miles from where you stand on a globe in a solar system in a galaxy among many galaxy where the laws of light travel such and so - the rest of all that, is a "belief" dependent upon your faith in men you accept to be smart enough to determine the truth of it all and to be honest enough to share the truths they find with you, and that the system they use, the math and all that they believe in, is not just some form of reading tea leaves for predictions realized... now, all you believe in may be so, but you must understand it is a belief, part of an agenda that allows you to feel grounded in your reality, safe that some things are predictable by methods that work for you, and as well it paints a grand picture of the universe that you can enjoy with awe... while truth, as a word, must also be defined, so often it is meant to imply "absolute" truth, something that "reason" might approach if our senses and the instruments that may enhance our senses were sufficient to observe the absolute truth of the objective source that touches our senses for our brains to interprete into a workable form, so absolute truth already reduces itself to one of its lower levels, "workable" truth, from which we may discriminate "useful truth" amongst coherent truth and relative truth and so on... the absolute truth is there is much you can believe and much you can experience but very little you may "know" except as a point of witnessing... and who or what witnesses? You yourself are a lesser interpretation posed by your senses and brain of the absolute truth of what you are at your source, as the cluster of energy you are touches the cluster of energy about it and in the interface you perceive your face, your body, the ground beneath your feet as matter... the ego may have no soul, and the soul may have an ego, and the ego may die... and the absolute truth of what you are many extend well beyond 86
Theories that are back by evidence and math just like the recent Planck telescope has revealed. The Planck space probe looked back at the afterglow of the Big Bang, and those results have now added about 80 million years to the universe's age, putting it at 13.81 billion years old. Every way we look at it the math adds up.
Radman, what country have you never been to? I have never been to India. But, when I was a gallery attendant at a local art museum, people from India told me all about India... actually many people from many countries told me many things about their countries. Shall I not believe any of them? I believed all the accounts given to me by the people I talked to. I believed they had been there or were from there.
Its the same thing... If the accounts of Jesus are believable to me or to any one, then you really have no jurisdiction on whether we believe the accounts of Jesus or not. In my opinion you are out of line with your constant harassment of those of us who believe in God. Many have been convinced by the books of the bible and the accounts written down by actual men in history.
RadMan, I believe you hear words, and you refer to more words to define words, a word like "nothing" referring to no space, and no space to contain no space, and no time to change the condition of no space, and so on, and your words give you a feeling of satisfaction in being learned, but I don't believe you have the ability to actually grasp "nothing"(ness), because such concept that can not be contained by words, yet it is accessable to understanding, but only accessable without words, yet you, who have never grasped anything without words, believe to do so only yields a dull delusion of understanding that is not understanding... the word is never the thing, though you are well versed enough to you understand that, you understand it as yet more words... the soul as well is there to grasp yet you continue to define it with language and because language is insufficent to actually grasp it you think it therefore does not exist... and contending with you via words is a fruitless endeavor, only feeding into your continuity to mislead yourself with your own cleverness and self recitals... to actually comprehend such items as "soul" "absolute nothingness" "why and how existence exists" with language will only yield you a stomach ache, so you will avoid those realities to give your stomach peace, until you have your moment of understanding without words, then you will turn to words to reference that moment to capture that moment and it will become words again and be gone... and you will wonder if it was real until it comes again, and again, because once glimpsed you will not be able to stop yourself from pursuing it, glimpses that come and go, until you will finally note to yourself, "even if this leaves me again I know it is real"... and until then you will echo theories with arrogance and ego and say what a clever well versed boy am I.... totally rad... meanwhile, in your use of the word "contain" are you saying "all matter (in whatever form, we need not play with words like 'matter' or 'energy' or just basic "something") did exist before the big bang (M theory or whatever, matter or energy not in potential but as actual substance or as actual "thing") and thereupon are you agreeing to the concept of Eternity? (accepting without argument an oblivious that can be grasped without words, the obvious that there is no beginning before which there is a state of absolute nothing, and no ending after which there is a state of absolute nothing... therefore Eternity is. And if you are not agreeing to that, then I ask you "what is the container for absolute nothing?"
Don't tell me what I can or can't grasp. You don't know or understand me at all. Perhaps your upset because I showed you your error in logic. And it was a big error.
All matter and energy in the universe was contained in one place in the universe as the theory goes. Although it appears some sub-atomic particles seem to appear and disappear. Where they go, we don't know, but matter is matter.
Sorry about the use of words, it's hard to communicate without them.
You may have seen the movie the Bicentenial Man but not read the book it was based on, the Positronic Man, Asimov’s last novel and his last word on his Robotic series… my favorite part of book was the ending, it brought a soulful tear to my eye, but they changed the ending in the movie… story begins with a slave robot caring for a family and develops a good relationship with family’s little girl, story continues through that little girl growing old and passing on while he continues relationships with her decendents over centuries while he earns legal human rights and becomes wealthy with his abilities, but all the while he wants to become human, replacing his robot parts with the best synthesized human equivalents and so on until finally he wants to replace his atomic heart with a more fleshy one and he’s told he’s crazy because with new heart he’ll lose his strength and immortality but he does it, ends up weak in a wheelchair and finally in bed where he’s about to expire/die, and in last paragraph, that little girl appears before him to guide him across to the beyond with her… so, even if we have souls, are we not saying the human body and brain are just machines it inhabits, and why do we insist that the machine can’t be made of steel and plastic, as the native American might say, the great spirit inhabits not just people but rocks and all things… is there something, anything, in the Universe that is not made up of God? The analogy of water drops (individuals) in an ocean (God), the drops are flesh, and rock, and metal, and everything, everything is a component of the body of God
Scientifically, it is impossible for the soul to inhabit a machine-made body. Until it happens, I won't even think about it...
Although, I did see a statue of Vishnu wink at me, as a gallery attendant at the Norton Simon European Art Museum...LOL! (Was I hallucinating out of boredom? I didn't think so at the time.)
Uh... scientifically, it is impossible for the soul to exist.
So, you think.
Its a free country and we have freedom of speech.
Yay for that!
if scientifically it is impossible for the soul to exist... and yet you discovered your soul... theoretically, would you then be able to make the leap of considering science itself to be the great deceiver... what if once upon a time a universal police state thought it was possible and a good idea to disempower souls by having them put their faith in science that disproved the soul in such a dazzle of numbers that hardly any soul could follow the numbers never mind dispute their conclusions pushed upon us from the moment we open our childhood eyes upon the first school book our parents read.
And, how does one go about performing that miracle?
A Eureka moment for you ..."performing a miracle"... and believing in miracles. And I thought there was not a shred of the spiritual in you.
Sorry, but I have given no indication for believing in miracles. Perhaps, you missed the point entirely.
There is no point to miss entirely. The statement "....performing that miracle" assumes that you conceptually know of or read somewhere that a miracle has been performed...... and could in fact be performed again. Now, I would not have assumed anything if you just said"...performing that impossibility". NOT "performing that miracle". Then I would have said"..you obviously do not believe in miracles".
easier to believe you were hallucinting isn't it... neuroblah will show you the mechanics of said hallucination... and if you continue to not think you were hallucinating you might lose your job, your family and friends, and find yourself medicated in a padded room... why run the risk when your schoolbooks tell you very clearly what reality you must agree to if you want to live safe and secure
you know, as there are agreements and strong opposing points of view here, and I've read each one, discovered some stuff and enjoyed the debates, and I congratulate Villarasa for once again beginning a thread that attracts so many participants posting, and thank Rad Man for standing his ground and putting much effort into responding to each one of us with his point of view that he feels strongly about sharing and I suspect teaching for what he considers the betterment of us all, and Emile R. who I think often tried to sort out our differences and validate everyone's right to an opinion, and as I feel I may be ending my participation here, unless something very new comes up I think this particular thread has run its course (though, I'm sure, look for me on future Villarasa hubs), may I leave a quote, concerning the validity of respecting one another's opinions, from another writer/thinker, Issac Asimov, one of the leaders in exploring the initial question posed here concerning Homo Roboticus, and a big supporter on the hard science side, who said in 1980... “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Of course Krishnumurti posed the question that, as we have had centuries to accumulate our knowledge to the present and the present world is a mess while we wait for still more knowledge to straighten it out, maybe knowledge is the problem.
Im not sure when it will happen but i hope its in my lifetime. Being a cyborg would be my dream life!
Amen... to your being able to conceptualize possibilities, however, still in the distant future. For now the hope is that when the time comes, and human's are fully roboticized, they (Homo Roboticus) would cling to that perplexing (to some who, even now, aren't just into the spiritual) notion that their predecessors (Homo Sapiens) had souls, and that they being linear descendants of those soulfull entities, could one day be soulful beings themselves.
Ok, so maybe NOW you guys have wound down… ok. Vill, good for you, you didn’t let these guys pointing at their science scriptures faze you with their claim to authority. And those guys who were ill equiped to see your logic much less debate it without resorting to sarcasm didn’t faze you as well. As you point out, you engage in “thought experiments” as did Einstein, as did Schrödinger, Decartes, Newton, Galileo, and many others who have changed the paradyme of the scientific explanation of what is the universe… so the sarcastic immediately attack with “but they’re geniuses and you’re not” which how do I or they or maybe even you know one way or the other just how brilliant you are or are not, attack the argument, if you must, not the man (and don’t get hilarious or we might assume right back at you that your laughing like a crazy person… or at least a person too dull to give a credible answer and would rather pretend such an answer is beneath him/her)…don't forget, your great scientists are are not conformists to the text, they are rebels all, they don't say "yes" to their textbooks, they say its wrong and I'm going to rewrite the shit... a thought experiment, by definition, though it uses a foundation of theory that thus far is relevent to suggested reality, goes out of that box to explore other possibilities and consider their probability… I asked Rad, for instance, if he could yes or no the existence of Eternity as defined as a state that has no beginning or end if beginning or end is defined as a point beyond which is absolute nothingness, if yes we could take the argument from there, if no then define the container for absolute nothingness… he sidestepped with “All matter and energy in the universe was contained in one place in the universe as the theory goes. Although it appears some sub-atomic particles seem to appear and disappeaause someone to r. Where they go, we don't know, but matter is matter” (his posted sentence got a little muddle midway, I assume his copy and paste from whatever science literature he was reciting didn’t copy paste so well… all the while I was always asking him, while using the foundations of his reading, to try and think for himself)… anyway, I might assume his rather noncommittal answer to be a "yes", that “some thing” always is appearing and disappearing, but I don’t like to assume, he might have meant no, maybe he meant the disappearing signifies the absolute nothing state, who knows what he meant, basically he was just trying to answer with a nonanswer that sounded somewhat learned and cool… so thought experiment time based on Rad’s own words: what is appear and disappear? Sounds like “off and on”. What is “off and on?” Sounds like 0 and 1. What is 0 and 1? Sounds like binary code. Evidence: we know binary code can build an environment with laws of action and reaction occurring in a space of height, width, depth and time, at least it can build such an environment inside a terminal box. So is our universe a terminal box? Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting anything Matrixy here (nor am a plagerizing the Matrix, in the year 1984, long before that movie was ever heard of, I proposed to a bunch of docs around our table the thought experiment “what if the universe is a computer inside a computer inside a computer inside a computer”… if anything, Matrix plagerized me… though, honestly, even my proposal was suggested by the idea that preceded it: of the holographic universe illustrated pop culturally in Star Trek: NG) but I am suggesting that binary code, as a foundation at the same way-back-when point Rad sites, has proven potential to build a universe, holographic or otherwise, (and God said “Let there be photons”) and that religions have always suggested binary code, though they might not have termed it 1 and 0, they have termed it darkness and light, yin and yang, shakti and shiva, and so on… so there’s a possible source (you other thought experimenters take Rad’s premise I’m building this on and determine the degree of probability) for you and I and the universe to be foundationed as “information”... the universe being “information”… your body, your individual self, being “information”… the information looks at its self and sees whatever the heck it can, a body, a ground, a sky, some buddy avatars representing pulses from neighboring information... all known by the event of atoms spinning one way as opposed to another making binary code with universes of room for columns... perhaps substance, as we experience it, is simply clustered as “light” but lets stay with what we know, our flesh and blood… and what we also know: information can be transferred through the air, through the wireless internet, to other vessels … information skipping to spinning atom 1 to pulsating atom 0 across space might you upload to photons when you leave the harddrive you call your body? Might those photos build a hologram of Jesus or space cadet or wolf pack or Earth in the american continent in the year 1466 or Mars long long ago in a galaxy far far away? Or might you download to worms? Every construct may be labeled an illusion, so every construct may be labeled a reality, they’re equal, little difference between the two, except how alone or not alone you may feel… Will you remember where you came from or will you forget? Will you tap into logs of information contained in the binary codes of every atom pulsating left or right? How are you programming yourself? What laws will you wake up to? What you expect to happen might just happen, the information may fulfill its own programming. This information that is you may exist as bytes within gigs from the first appear and disappear spark of binary information you might call… your soul… and what happens to it when your current harddrive wears out might be more important than any sarcasm might wish away… the experience you have is always real… and that experience may be eternal.
The amazing thing is that you are you and I am me. Can you explain that?
I couldn't repeat any of this however I myself have thunk most of it.
SOoo I gotta agree.
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
The eminent and prominent physicist, Stephen Hawkings avers, in an interview with a British magazine, that the human brain is nothing more than a computer, and when that computer malfunctions then stops...
by Alexander A. Villarasa6 weeks ago
As some Hubbers have suggested empiricism aka scientific exploration is the only destiny that humans must aim for? Empiricism is tethered solely to materialism and physicalism. But humans as a...
by helenathegreat8 years ago
In your personal spiritual beliefs, do animals have souls? Are they interchangeable with human souls? In the past few days I've spent some time looking into my dog's eyes, and I can't decide what I believe...
by renju mathew8 years ago
According to me religion can give nothing to yout soul.Religion will not take you any where except to satisfy some social obligations.
by pisean2823116 years ago
was reading an article by an atheist...punch line was that god exist in human brain...
by Rad Man4 years ago
Has science found the soul?A few hundred years ago discussing such things would have gotten one charged with blasphomy. It was thought that conciousness was not part of the body. We know now it's a process of the brain....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.