p1 A turing machine can perform any computable task*. p2 A human being is not able to perform any non-computable task. -> s2. Human beings perform only computable tasks.
p1.p2 -> s3 A human being could be replaced by a turing machine.
Given that a human is no more than a meat based turing machine, any other implementation running program "Human" would not require anything other than an appropriately programmed turing machine to completely emulate the biological hardware usually running the "Human" emulation wetware. So the actual "recreation" of a biological stimulus/feedback mechanism would be a redundant complication. In other words, if a particular biological process has the effect of e.g. modifying processing to reflect an adrenaline rush as a result of a "pain stimulus" (merely the transmission of an chemical/electrical signal) in a biologically based "Human" system, then the silicon implementation would not need to do more than to modify its processing to achieve the same end results in response to the same "pain stimulus" without the complications of biology as the actual mechanisms involved are completely unimportant in establishing a modification of the outputs of the neural net which is all that is relevant and needful to completely emulate the "Human" system.
The question I would ask is whether it would be appropriate to limit such a program by building in the aberations, inconsistancies and limitations (performance, reliability and capacity) of the biologcal hardware. I would suggest that ethically, the answer is no. Thus it seems probable that the non-biological implementation of "Human" will greatly outstrip the capabilities of the biological versions.
As regards to how we could "capture" the wetware of a person at a particualr instant of time, it seems that a number of processes could be used. The one I suspect is closest to being realizable would rely on the "infection" of a person with a genetically engineered virus, attracted to neural tissue. The virus would carry either a processor, capable of communicating via an RF network or, more simply, could contain a tuned circuit which would allow an external process to query the condition of each nerve individually. After a moderate period of time evaluating the effects of external stimuli on the biologcal mesh, a self tuning neural system residing in silicon and designed to mimic the results of the biological neural mesh in software would produce results indistinguishable from the human object of study. At which point a "logical clone" would exist even though the exact processes involved need not be fully comprehended.
A more advanced technique, more dependent on other possible developments (such as a molecular "santa claus" machine and "nanobots" capable of molecular analysis), but offering the potential of a great deal more analytic examination, would be to dissassemble a human a molecule at a time, simultaneously recreating it in biological form (i.e. a transporter cloner) while capturing the exact state of that human in a storage system. This would allow the creation at any subsequent time of multiple clones of the test subject (as complete adult humans in biological form), with the potential to inject minor differences into these clones, allowing us to analyze exactly the effect of these changes on the human test subject. It should be noted that although this approach potentially offers the ability to learn a great deal more about what makes us tick, it is completely uneccessary if our objective is merely to "clone" ourselves in hardware, when the former approach (very close to being implementable - I'd suggest between 10 and 50 years from now) should be quite sufficient for all practical purposes.
Of course, it appears to be very much easier to produce entirely artificial self-aware, self-evolving, neural meshes which achieve better than human results, without the complication of analyzing humans, and with none of our limitations, which may well make such analysis (and humans) completely redundant before any of the above happens.
Hermit
*Turing machines can (and have) been implemented in many forms, from the quantum level to the basic mechanical - and including the biological.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
I know that we are just complex chemical reactions. I just don't like to think about it. I need to "connect" with other people so badly, that I must believe in a soul. If we were just arbitary chemicals, it would seem impossible to truly connect with another human being (and my experience tells me I will not connect with another human being). Nonetheless, I hope that we have souls because the possiblity gives me reason to live.
Currently, I define soul as an idea. We all have souls. We have the idea of what we are --the voice in our heads. I see our self-image as our soul. This would suggest that the soul changes, which contradicts the definition of the soul; however, I have to hope that one day I will find someone who has a never-changing essence --something I can depend on.
My subconscious may define a soul by a person's philosophy or group of mannerisms, intelligence or beliefs, or psychology. I would guess that I define others' "soul" by intelligence, psychology, voice, and bone structure.
I know I am babbling and things don't make too much sense, but I trust if anyone reads this, you are smart enough to hear my thoughts and not just a words.
Another element I think is importantly connected to the idea of soul is an afterlife. I do not blieve in an afterlife. But, arguably, we live on because people who remember us (our "soul") keep that image of us alive till they die. However, this really depresses me, because I associate my soul with my consiousness --my free will, and my experience. So, from this I infere that my definition of soul is exclusively within its owner. One soul for body. The soul remains in that body, and can only be observed my others. And, when I think of connecting with someone, I think that I somehow get to experience what that soul experiences (however, I accept I cannot make the decisions). But, I cannot experience what that soul experiences, because I cannot keep that person live if he or she dies. I can experience what that other person expriences as best as he or she describes it, or I project it. OK, i am so not making any sense.
In conclusion, I think that my desire (and most people's) to believe that humans have souls because that says there is something unchanging and reliable about that person --besides death, we can depend on that person to help us stay alive (he or she won't have a different experience causing him or her to change his or her mind and leave us). Humans need to live in groups; even the most althetic of us is weaker, and slower at running, than most other animals. The misinformation that we have no natural predators is bull shit. The only reason we have no predators is because we live in groups, isolated from wild animals --if left alone, we could be eaten. So, we need other people for their ideas, and their abilities because otherwise we would be eaten, malnurished, living in a hut, etc. Simply knowing we need each other is not enough to bring us together. We must fear death. However, if we only hung around each other to use each other, we wouldn't be much help to each other, so a drive to love must create a medium between individual striving for life and an individual striivng for the group to stay alive --it creates the illusion of altruism, and we are all happy.
That isn't possible, without making a true clone (physiology, biochemistry, etc.).
Everything that you go on to mention can theoretically be simulated as far as I know. Maybe you know of some theoretical limitation of computer simulations that you would like to share with the rest of us?
Are you proposing that we can live forever by transfering our conscience to a machine?
If that is what you are saying, I don't believe it! If that's not what you are saying, what are you saying?
Ok, lets assume that the soul is a self-aware entity capable of experience, which can communicate, and can chose how it will act, believe, think, etc.
Now, we'll assume your "soul" could be contained with-in a robot. Well, this robot would have to be an engineered clone of you. Just because the machine in a clone, does not promise you eternal life because you will have seperate experiences from the robot --just as identical twins have seperate experiences. As long as you and that robot experience things seperately, you will experience death and not the life, which the robot is experiencing.
If, the machine were a clone of you, AND a vechical through which you experience things, communicate them, make choices, etc, you maybe able to live for ever. I am proposing that YOUR soul (the voice in your head and senses through which you sense) occupies two vechicals --your body and the robot. If the robot were to be taken to Paris, you would see exactly what that robot sees. If someone were to put you on one side of the ocean, on the robot on the other and read sentences to the robot, you would be able to repeat the sentences spoken to the robot, no matter how far apart you were.
When your organic vechical dies, you will experience death, HOWEVER, you will also experience the life of the robot. In essence, your body will leave your soul behind.
I believe that this process of incarnation will be neccessary in order for humans to experience eternal life through robots.
Unfortunately, a lot of questions about the brain remain unanswered, psychologists CANNOT swear in the name of their profession that souls exist, and computers cannot experience emotions --they only do what they are told.
Before robots can replace the human body, the soul must be physically isolated so that it maybe transfered to a machine, and machines must become as sophisticated as the human brain.
Are you proposing that we can live forever by transfering our conscience to a machine?
If that is what you are saying, I don't believe it! If that's not what you are saying, what are you saying?
I just wanted to apologize because I did not understand the discussion, and I just interjected with my babble. I do not know who I was responding to, when asking the above question. (I don't think it was related to this website) I know somewhere on the internet someone was saying we could live through machines --there is some other post (floating through the internet), similar to this one, which was talking about the soul. I didn't get much sleep.
Personally, I don not believe in a "soul", but I am compelled to think that there must be something else out there. I am not implying that there's a God. I am a firm atheist (i.e. "strong atheist") and although I know it is ilogical, I cannot help but wonder if there's anything superior to us, something "omnipotent". I guess I also agree with Pascal's wager. So that makes me agnostic. well, I just came to realize that I do not know what I believe in yet. The only thing I'm sure of is that "souls" do not exist. Then that must also mean there is no "god"... I also disagree with David Lucifer concerning the possibility of achieving human immortality through computers. That sounds very naive and I must admit I expected more from him.
originally posted by Shannon The only thing I'm sure of is that "souls" do not exist. Then that must also mean there is no "god"...
How so? I know a few deistic thinkers who are naturalistic and do not believe that there is a soul. How does the absense of a soul disprove God?
Note that this topic cam up on the IIDB today, so I couldn't resist asking . Also Note that I am an atheist so don't launch a tunderous assult on me for being a theist when I'm not.
Quote:
originally posted by Shannon I also disagree with David Lucifer concerning the possibility of achieving human immortality through computers. That sounds very naive and I must admit I expected more from him.
I also disagree with David Lucifer concerning the possibility of achieving human immortality through computers. That sounds very naive and I must admit I expected more from him.
Personally, I don not believe in a "soul", but I am compelled to think that there must be something else out there.
Dogma's a sin of the CoV. There doesn't have to be anything out there. Such an attitude smacks of creationistic "Argument from Design:" that the universe is so abundant with such complex designs that it stands to reason that some intelligence must be behind it. I bet that within this century, science will be very close to proving that there musn't be anything else "out there" to explain the universe except physics (superstring theory, m-theory, etc.).
I cannot help but wonder if there's anything superior to us, something "omnipotent".
In our arrogance, we always ask: "Is there anything superior to us?" I think the question we need to ask is: "Is there anything inferior?" All signs point to the fact that we are just matter in motion. There's no reason to believe that the state that matter has taken to form "me" is superior (or inferior, for that matter) in any way to the matter that this keyboard is composed of, or the matter comprising the light coming from your monitor.
The only thing I'm sure of is that "souls" do not exist.
Are you? To play devil's advocate, I say prove that statement. Let's not fall into the old bad habits of the religious and profess to know anything more about the universe beyond what science has "proven" or theorized. As an Agnostic, you should understand that concepts like the existence of the soul are unknowable, no matter how improbable. That is, like any other speculation, while you can prove its existence (though only by discovering it or it revealling itself to you), you cannot prove that it does not exist. Because of it's improvability, it is ultimately unknowable. This is not to say, however, that it does not exist. While I, personally, wouldn't say that there is positively no such thing as a soul, I do hold that there is no more reason to believe in the soul than there is for believing in the tooth fairie.