Re: On inloading, humanity, the soul and atheism
- View SourceHello everyone, interesting discussion...I'd like to interject a few
As I read your posts it keeps occurring to me that in different ways you
both seem to believe that there is something inherently different about life
and machines...something that machines can never have (even Jean said
"replacing human living cells by machinery is indeed replacing life with
something inert.") It seems to me that humans ARE machines...biological and
self-aware, but still machines. For it to be otherwise would require some
metaphysical construct such as a soul which would in turn require an
essentially religious belief. (At that point there's no point in arguing
So what you're talking about is upgrading or copying a machine. "inloading"
a human is just a hard engineering problem (especially so since the machine
is self-aware.) There could be problems if it turns out the human brain is
somehow dependent on quantum effects and can't be copied (seems
unlikely)...but slowly modified is a different story.
All of these issues about whether a copy of your brain would still be "you"
are interesting, but they don't say anything about whether it is possible to
do. They are interesting social issues like those that crop up with any new
technology (oh no, I copied my self-aware Microsoft Word document and they
don't know which is the "real" one.)
- View SourceIn a message dated 11/4/2003 6:04:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, bittercrank@... writes:
For me, and many, faith is a matter of continuous questioning; at least the healthy version of it.Most of your post is an argument about the definition of faith, really. But part of the definition of faith is having complete trust in something. Complete trust precludes continuous questioning by definition.Derek