Clones and Souls

[unicorn]

Would clones have souls? Maybe that's why they die so quickly...because God does not endow them with souls...they are copies of the biological aspect of a being--souls cannot be replicated. Souls are what spark life/animate the biological being. What do you guys think?

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

The funniest part of this whole thing is the following: There is scientific evidence/research to back the existence of souls. However, none to back the theory of macroevolution. So, I am going to ask you, what makes you think there aren't any souls?

P.S. Would have been nice if you'd actually read the articles.

[McCulloch]

McCulloch:
The funniest part of this whole thing is the following: There is scientific evidence/research to back the existence of souls. However, none to back the theory of macroevolution. So, I am going to ask you, what makes you think there aren't any souls?

P.S. Would have been nice if you'd actually read the articles.

Evolution is off topic.

Perhaps no reason to believe that there are souls. You have failed to cite convincing scientific evidence that backs the existence of souls.

There is no natural reason to believe that there is a soul. Where is it located? How much energy or mass does it have? How is it measured? How would the perception of human behaviour be different with or without a soul?

[Bugmaster]

There is scientific evidence/research to back the existence of souls.

I'd like to see some. I'd especially like to see the formulae that unify souls with other areas of physics -- electricty, magentism, gravity, or even ye olde momentum. Given a human being's mass, velocity, and age, can we calculate how many joules his soul is emitting, per second, and at what frequency ?

[McCulloch]

There is scientific evidence/research to back the existence of souls. So, I am going to ask you, what makes you think there aren't any souls?

Let me share with you a little bit of reason and logic.
I believe that there is a force we call gravity. Ignoring relativistic and quantum effects, it is the force between objects with mass, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects and proportional to the mass of each object. Its attributes have been measured and validated. There are some unanswered questions, such as how it fits into quantum theory, but scientists are very confident that what we know about gravity is quite solid.
I believe that the human mind has the capacity for memory. Memory is the capacity that the mind has to retain information for later retrieval. Memory, like all brain functions is less well understood than physics. It can be tested and measured. Certain injuries to the brain can effect memory. Scientists are very confident that memory exists. Research continues as to just how it works.
You say that you believe that souls exist. You have not provided a definition of what a soul is. You have provided very little information about the attributes of a soul. And the scientists you have cited are very tentative about even the existence of a soul. Would it be too much for us to ask that you provide a proper definition and some objective scientific evidence?

[QED]

The funniest part of this whole thing is the following: There is scientific evidence/research to back the existence of souls. However, none to back the theory of macroevolution. So, I am going to ask you, what makes you think there aren't any souls?

I don't actually think unicorn is interested in any science papers. I guess she doesn't trust what she finds written by scientists no matter how respected or distinguished. To her I expect the whole peer review system (through which all serious research is vetted) seems like a huge scientific conspiracy conducted by Athesits intent on levering God entirely out of the cosmos.

That might all be an inevitable consequence of some process of indoctrination that she has been subjected to. I often ask myself the same question (particularly when Harvey gives me a nudge!) -- have I been indoctrinated? I will admit it is very difficult to tell at times. In particular, when speculating on scientific issues at the limits of our understanding there is an ever present danger of being led astray. However, when considering those parts of the world that we have direct contact with, it is often possible to make checks with our own senses and intellects.

I think the question of Macroevolution is one such example: The theory of common descent predicts that the farther back we look back in time, the more different life should appear from the way it does in our current biosphere. This is because the most general conclusion of the theory of common descent is that life, as a whole, was very different in the past. Flood or no flood, there is a clear audit-trail of ever-changing life occuring on this planet which has never really looked the same from one epoch to the next.

Of course God, it will be argued, can do anything and make anything whenever he likes. But that's not how it's described in Genesis. The bible talks of a creation event in which the whole world was put together replete with all living things in six days. If I ask why we have remains of plants, trees, insects and animals that are no longer seen alive today I will be told it's due to them being wiped-out by the flood. This is an unsatisfactory explanation on account of all the marine creatures that are no longer around. And it is just as odd that certain types of tree and plant survived while others didn't.

That

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

Hey, yeah, why did I throw that macroevolution sentence in there? I think I got confused with another thread. Funny, huh?

Let me share with you a little reason and logic...

Impressive... McCulloch, you do know that your little "attempt" at logic has nothing to do with our discussion, right?

Would it be too much to ask that you provide...some objective scientific evidence?

I already have...completely objective, with a good subject base and measurable objectives.

...proper definition...

My own definition? Goody! Let me give it a shot. I'm going to be objective, okay?

soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory) that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

[Bugmaster]

soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory) that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

Hey, that's actually a pretty good definition ! Definitely something we can work with.

A couple questions:

* Do you have any evidence that souls exist ? If not, why do you believe that souls do exist ?
* Can souls be artificially created ? Why or why not ?

[QED]

soul--a sense/recognition of identity (encompassing sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, ability to make choices, ability to think/reason, memory)

That's a very good summation of the experience of being "alive". It's a wonderful thing isn't it. It's tantalizing as well, for technicians are just starting out with the development of AI and robotics. Compared to the biological counterparts, all man-made attempts thus far are several orders of magnitude less complex than the natural, nano-engineered, products. But the day may well come when we are not so far off the mark. The question then becomes at what point does consciousness start to emerge (if at all)? But I can't see why not!

(True, if one believes in vitalism -- that God sparks something special off in his chosen creatures to ignite their consciousness, it would be unlikely for AI to ever achieve this state. But looking at the vast array of living organisms it's hard to see where the line might be drawn by God. I say this because AI that meets or exceeds the level of ant intelligence is already a practical realization. So nothing 'special' would appear to be going on in ants. Working up from this level, we would expect to be met with a sudden failure at the point that God works his magic. I frankly don't find this a convincing prospect.)

We simply never see any form of disembodied consciousness. Not ever. All software runs on hardware. Hardware is a prerequisite: A medium upon which signals can ride. The problem with trying to convince me of the existence of soul is that it flies in the face of this universal observation.

that continues to exist/experience apart/independently from the cessation of all brain/bodily functions

There goes the hardware!

[Bugmaster]

We simply never see any form of disembodied consciousness. Not ever. All software runs on hardware.

Well yes, I'd agree. However, in the interest of keeping the debate focused, I'd point out that unicorn's definition of a soul specifically states that souls do exist, regardless of whether or not we ever "see" them. Now, he needs to back up his claim, and until he does, you're not justified in accepting it. However, I don't think you're justified in denying the existence of souls a priori, either, unless you have some logical reason for doing so.

[QED]

We simply never see any form of disembodied consciousness. Not ever. All software runs on hardware.

Well yes, I'd agree. However, in the interest of keeping the debate focused, I'd point out that unicorn's definition of a soul specifically states that souls do exist, regardless of whether or not we ever "see" them. Now, he needs to back up his claim, and until he does, you're not justified in accepting it. However, I don't think you're justified in denying the existence of souls a priori, either, unless you have some logical reason for doing so.

Would you not agree that for something which is itself "invisible" to be acknowledged as extant it needs to have some identifiable effect on something else. So far the only claim I've seen is that invisible souls provide a mechanism for our continuation into the afterlife. But this also fails to be an identifiable effect. What I want to be directed towards is a tangible manifestation of 'soul'.

I think that the observation about software requiring hardware is a very sound reason to reject any notion of a disembodied consciousness and would be most interested in any counter example.

BTW I think Unicorn is a she!