Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thecard]

@ Thecard

Treating religion as fact doesn't work on those who don't believe.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your position on the issue, but insisting on divinely created souls won't work on atheists.

P.S. I'm also an atheist/agnostic, and the cybernetic augmentation thing still worries the hell out of me.

Yeah, that's why I'm not necessarily treating it as a regular fact.  I don't really think it's rational, I don't think it's supposed to be.  You can't explain faith.  I'm not expecting you to hear me and suddenly change your mind and believe or anything.  And I'm not trying to convince anyone here.  Hunt asked me a question, and I answered the best I could.

My rational side agrees with you though.  I sorta feel like we should be careful we don't drink too much mercury. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't explain faith.

Sure I can: Faith is a sociological concept of belief without evidence and in spite of evidence, employed by non-evidence based social institutions to maintain the loyalty of their followers.

Anyway, here's something for you to consider: Humans can make other humans. You have the premise that humans have souls that are endowed upon them by your god, but regardless of that we all know that humans can make humans.

So, following that, why do you not think that your god will endow any sufficiently complex AI we humans create with a soul as well? Nothing in Christianity states that humans and only humans are capable of having souls, regardless as to if we are the only beings with souls at present. And, as previously stated, we already know that humans are capable of creating things that your god will give souls to, that being other humans.

[Thecard]

You can't explain faith.

Sure I can: Faith is a sociological concept of belief without evidence and in spite of evidence, employed by non-evidence based social institutions to maintain the loyalty of their followers.

Anyway, here's something for you to consider: Humans can make other humans. You have the premise that humans have souls that are endowed upon them by your god, but regardless of that we all know that humans can make humans.

So, following that, why do you not think that your god will endow any sufficiently complex AI we humans create with a soul as well? Nothing in Christianity states that humans and only humans are capable of having souls, regardless as to if we are the only beings with souls at present. And, as previously stated, we already know that humans are capable of creating things that your god will give souls to, that being other humans.

Ah, no.  You defined it.  You did not explain it.


I'm guessing you must have read the Bible well, to be sure that God never said he would only give a soul to humans.  That's good, it shows you tried. 
But, you're looking at a thick book.  You have eyes to see and ears to hear, but you do not understand.  My faith, it is more than believing what I've read. 
You may be looking at a letter your friend from a distant country wrote you.  How can you be sure of what he said to you?  What if he left something out?  How do you know, if you don't have any way to communicate back to him?
But I am reading a note passed to me by a friend.  By my best friend, someone who wants only the best for me and who would never desert me.  He tells me what each word means, what it means for me personally!

The Bible is more than a book.  And God is more than you know and more than I know.  Whether you want to admit it or not.  I admit it, and I know I am not thinking of this logically in any sense of the word.  But I couldn't care less.

[Bdthemag]

I hope you understand why we don't get your side of the argument, considering you're basically saying you can't explain your side of the argument and wondering why we don't understand.

[Thecard]

I hope you understand why we don't get your side of the argument, considering you're basically saying you can't explain your side of the argument and wondering why we don't understand.

I'm not wondering why you don't understand.  I know why you don't understand.  It's because you cannot explain it.  I can't explain it.  No one can explain it.

Anyway, this is fun, talking with atheists and agnostics about Christianity, but we've gone off on a tangent here.  We should be talking about Unicorn-Death-Robots.  How have we not yet moved on to humans becoming giant mechanized Death-Unicorns?

[Lectorog]

I don't like robot unicorns. I want to be part of a computer system; physical body not necessary.

[Thecard]

I don't like robot unicorns. I want to be part of a computer system; physical body not necessary.

Yeah, I don't know about that.  Sounds like being part of the internet.  I feel like I'd just end up entangled in Tvtropes even more than normal.

[Lectorog]

Just like you're doing now, but quicker and more natural. Don't have to use a keyboard and all that.

[Max White]

Do we really care so much about our physical bodies as to define ourselves by them?
If I were to upload the contents of my brain into a machine that was able to accurately emulate my mind, wouldn't that machine have equal claim to being me as I do? I think it would, and I'm ok with this. Everything that I use to define myself is there, my thoughts and feelings, so in a way there are two versions of myself now, both equally valid. If one of them is made from much more durable stuff then all the better! God luck to him/me on his/my longer lifespan.

[Moghjubar]

Humans will change; not only by long term evolution, but by definition.  It won't just be one thing or another... it will be an all-of-the above thing. 

We shall make cyborgs.
We shall make/be robots.
We shall change our DNA, and shape our own bodies.
We will create other intelligent biological life, and said life will also evolve on its own.
We will interface all of them together one way or another.

Humanity will become its own aliens long before we ever see a real one.

[Xantalos]

I hope you guys get to transcending physical form soon so you can bust me out of here.

[Thecard]

Do we really care so much about our physical bodies as to define ourselves by them?
If I were to upload the contents of my brain into a machine that was able to accurately emulate my mind, wouldn't that machine have equal claim to being me as I do? I think it would, and I'm ok with this. Everything that I use to define myself is there, my thoughts and feelings, so in a way there are two versions of myself now, both equally valid. If one of them is made from much more durable stuff then all the better! God luck to him/me on his/my longer lifespan.

Yeah.  I mean, I probably wouldn't feel the same way, because there are some physical things that define me.  Little nervous tics I've gotten, that remind me of who I am.

Also, I think you might be forgetting about boobs.  (Or Dicks, for most you girls and some of you guys out there.)
How would sex be affected? 
I mean, I like technology, but my iPod doesn't get me up.  I like humans, and I kinda feel like transferal of the soul to a computer would be... different.  I mean, a physical mix wouldn't change anything about the person, just like prosthetic limbs don't change who a person is.  But a completely different body, a completely different type of body... I don't know man.  I'd be content with my good ol' fleshy body, if it means I'll be able to love.  A computer... well, you have to remember computers don't have hormones...

Yeah, y'all can go off and have your mind-orgies and all that.  I think I'll just stay here.

But don't forget to write!

[Xantalos]

For me, love would be defined as a merging of two minds into one: call it communion, if you will.

[Max White]

Also, I think you might be forgetting about boobs.  (Or Dicks, for most you girls and some of you guys out there.)
How would sex be affected? 
I mean, I like technology, but my iPod doesn't get me up.  I like humans, and I kinda feel like transferal of the soul to a computer would be... different.  I mean, a physical mix wouldn't change anything about the person, just like prosthetic limbs don't change who a person is.  But a completely different body, a completely different type of body... I don't know man.  I'd be content with my good ol' fleshy body, if it means I'll be able to love.  A computer... well, you have to remember computers don't have hormones...

Yeah, y'all can go off and have your mind-orgies and all that.  I think I'll just stay here.

But don't forget to write!

Sex is easy. We have been refining out ability to produce artificial genitals for a while, and if you can eventually give somebody feeling in an artificial hand, then one limb is similar enough to another. Your Ipod doesn't do it for you because you can't trick your mind into thinking that you can reproduce with it, but given the prominence of something as abstract as pornography being enough to get some people off, I'm sure people will be happy with a substitute that they can actually interact with.

[alway]

I'm currently taking a class at RIT called "Cyborg Theory." Have a couple of the readings:
A Cyborg Manifesto - one of the papers Donna Haraway is most well known for, and an important document in the history of cyborgs
Cyborgs and Space - the origin of the word 'cyborg;' a discussion of space travel w/o the need for space capsules; adapting man to the environment; of note, the paper was written in 1960 at the very dawn of the space race.

As for relationships, another course reading is relevant there: http://www.amazon.com/Love-Sex-Robots-Human-Robot-Relationships/dp/0061359807