Wholly unnecessary for what?

A theory of particles is wholly unnecessary for a theory of macroscopic objects, but this does not negate in any way the existence of particles.

RLK was talking about a robot mimicking self awareness. So, if a robot could be made such that it's 100% indistinguishable from human, what use is a soul?

(assuming the robot doesn't have a soul)

Oooh ooh ooh, I know! The brain is the tether to the soul. When damaged, you can jiggle loose some connections. Your soul (and personality, memories ect) are all still intact, they're just not translating to your brain and this plane of existence correctly anymore.

Man I love jumping aboard the U.S.S. Make-****-Up sometimes. Everything is so easy when you don't have to bother about pesky things like reality.

What is a soul "used" for?

Edit: Or to go in another completely different direction, does the 100% indistinguishability make the robot a human?

I don't think it's used for anything (I don't think it exists).

I would think so.

Thanks for handling this in my absence. This was an excellent response.

I have to acknowledge that I have acquired a sincere respect for the quality of your intellectual arguments and the honesty with which you approach debate. I still disagree with you, but I respect you.

It is not an issue of "making things up". It is an acknowledgement that there are multiple explanations that fit the observations. Until there is an experiment that can distinguish between the possibilities, they are just that: possibilities. To pick one or the other and say that it is the truth is not an expression of fact. It is a statement of belief. I have no problem with you having a belief. Just acknowledge what it is.

Thank you, that means a lot.

Could you define what a soul is so that we're all on the same page? What are it's properties and functions during life and/or after death?

Mimicking self-awareness and having self-awareness are two different things. If our self-awareness is actually a property that can never be present in a machine, it now becomes evidence that there is something more to existence than physical science can model.

If it is true that science can never confirm that awareness does or does not exist in a constructed machine, then the issues of the soul, afterlife and God will be forever unresolvable through physical science. That is not an unreasonable situation assuming that there is a God.

As far as this particular discussion goes, you seem to require *some* concept if someoneone is expected to have a meaningful conversation.

When you say "What use is a soul?" what do you think you're talking about?

Similar to the above (though still in a different direction), this leads one to question what you think a human is. What do you mean when you say "human"?

I'm not really sure this is true only for the reason I'm not certain there is a difference between perfectly mimicking self-awareness and self-awareness. We, the human species, could be a biological machine that is mimicking God's self awareness...and we would never know the difference.

I think the issues of the soul, afterlife and God will be forever unresolvable regardless of whether or not we can confirm that awareness can or cannot exist in a constructed machine. In any event, it will probably be impossible to prove 'real' awareness in any meaningful way.

Define self awareness. And also, awareness

Babies up to the age of x months are not self aware. Does that mean that the soul enters their bodies some time after birth?

Both of the below definitions have been given in this thread:
(1)That which makes something alive.
(2)That which is eternal that can go onto an afterlife.

(1) seems unnecessary and (2) is pure speculation.

I think the dictionary definition will do. Human: Of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.

I disagree with this portion. By "mimicking self-awareness" I am referring to the production of external behaviors consistent with those of a known self-aware being. Thus you could be such a biological machine since I observe you producing behaviors generally consistent with my own. But I know that I am not, because I observe my own self-awareness directly.

This may be true, but such a demonstration would certainly change the landscape.

On this point, we are in complete agreement.

Concerning the second paragraph, I do not know. I have no memory of self-awareness before about 2.7 years old. Did I have it but simply have forgotten or was it not there at all? No way to know.

Concerning the first, I will simply make the assumption that you know what I mean.

Thanks for filling that in. I didn't read the whole thread, so I wasn't aware that there was a definition that had already been presented.

I don't see how (1) is unnecessary and how it relates to the discussion you were having.

Ummmmm... isn't that an adjectival form? Want to try again?

Why miss out the first paragraph? Is it because you cant define them?


Using the mirror test, science says that babies dont have self awareness. Are you saying that science is wrong? Or that theres no way of knowing if they have self awareness?

Also, noticed this quote from you earlier

Theres a whole lot of assumptions here. That a spark exists, that that is what is aware, and that that spark is you.

Have you got any proof ? Or are you just accepting beliefs that have been drilled into you ( and everyone else) since you were born?

Firstly, how are you know the robot isn't observing its own self-awareness directly? Second, how do you know you are observing your self-awareness directly? You could, after all, be perfectly mimicking the process right now.

Sure. Defining 'human' is obviously going to be a somewhat fuzzy concept considering it's a sliding scale from single-cell prokaryotes to humans. So the only definition I can offer is that a human must have enough defining characteristics to qualify. If one of the defining characteristic is that it has to be a part of the genus h*mo, then the robot wouldn't qualify, but I don't think that's a viable objection.

After a cursory search it seems the above has already happened:

I'm not really sure what there is to "object" to. I'm not sure this a right/wrong type of issue. I just find your position on humanness to be a little strange, and I would conjecture that it's probably a minority perspective.

That's fair. I just can't come up with a rational reason why we shouldn't consider the robot and human the same if they're 100% indistinguishable from each other. For someone to do so it would seem they're holding contradictory views.

We cannot both say X=Y and X≠Y.

Of course, positing an non-testable soul solves this problem of differentiating between the two, but I don't think that's a workable solution.

Electrons are completely indistinguishable from each other (in the fullest sense possible). Yet we seem to have a somewhat fair understanding that there can be such a thing as two electrons that aren't the same electron. So I don't think the last line really works.

You and I are both (presumably) human. But I'm sure there are all sorts of differences between us, yet we agree we're both human. I think that there are some details being swept under the rug with your concept of "100% indistinguishable" because of the vagueness of what it actually implies.

We can go a bit further here.

Imagine there is a device which will scan you, read all the details on your atoms and 'teleport' a facsimile to another location by annihilating your atoms in one location and arranging a perfect copy in another location.

A strict materialist would probably reason that a perfect copy of you IS you. If you believe in a immaterial soul, then you would probably not want to try the teleporter.

1) Imagine you see various people go through the teleporter. Will you be able to tell whether or not they have a soul and, if so, by what means?
2) Same question, but you accidentally walk into the teleporter. Will you have a soul, and if not, how will you tell the difference?