Spiritual machines?

[Guest]

Thank you, Kauffmann, for posting those links. There were very interesting and informative.

I have never put any "weight" in the concept of "soul weight".

I do not subscribe to the Platonic concept of the soul inhabiting the body, and so I am sure there is another explanation for the observed phenomenon. I am not, however, certain that the suggestions given in the second article account for it.

[Guest]

Emmet,

Thanks for the response. I think we are miscommunicating here a little bit. I granted you the fact, a few posts back, that one can't prove or disprove a soul/spirit, what have you. I agree with you that it can be a far jump to say because of human distinction we have a spirit, but I guess if I had to name that distinction than that is what I probably would name it. However, my whole contention is on humans having a complete distinction from the rest of all the animals.

Take for instance the power of reason. If an animal, doesn't matter which one, were to be going a long a trail, and in the middle of that trail was a tree, they would just end up going around it or climb over it. However, a human would come up to the tree and would think to themselves, that if they removed the tree than the trail would be easier to travel the next time.

This is just one example of several distinctions between humans and animals. So, if we are to look at this scientifically, than we have to come to conclusions based upon the evidence that is in the here an now. If we do that, than how can one conclude that we evolved from animals when we are the only species with such distinctions? To come up with some kind of linkage without any examples of other species with similar distinction is just pure conjecture.

Also, to bring up the Adam and Eve scenario, Adam couldn't find a suitable help mate amongst the animals. There was none like him because of his distinct abilities. That is why Eve was created.

So, don't get me wrong. I am agreeing with you on the connecting human distinction with having a spirit being a jump in thought without physical proof. I am just trying to see how you are saying humans are not completely different from animals and therefore allowing the probability that evolution could have happened given the evidence we have today.

Thanks again for your time.

Take care,
Micah

[Guest]

Hello, Micah,

Thank you for your patience with me and for your clarification .

However, my whole contention is on humans having a complete distinction from the rest of all the animals.

So, looking at this subordinate issue, we do have a disagreement on this point.

I think that you would shy away from such an absolute claim, on reflection. Humans are hardly completely distinct from animals. Animals consume and metabolize; humans consume and metabolize. Animals reproduce sexually; humans reproduce sexually. Non-avian land animals are created on the sixth day; non-avian land humans are created on the sixth day. If humans were completely distinct, then we should have at least merited our own day!

Humans share varying amounts of DNA coding with other animals; for chimpanzees, the percentage of commonality has been described as 95 percent or even higher. So although we are not completely identical with any other animal, we nevertheless bear significant commonalities with other animals. We may not be chimpanzees, but on the other hand, rats are not rabbits - and we are all animal creatures.

Take for instance the power of reason. If an animal, doesn't matter which one, were to be going a long a trail, and in the middle of that trail was a tree, they would just end up going around it or climb over it. However, a human would come up to the tree and would think to themselves, that if they removed the tree than the trail would be easier to travel the next time.

Numerous animals build and/or adjust the landscape around them (e.g., birds, gophers, and beavers), so we are not the only species attentive to adjusting the physical environment in accordance with our abilities and what seems meaningful to ourselves.

So, if we are to look at this scientifically, than we have to come to conclusions based upon the evidence that is in the here an now. If we do that, than how can one conclude that we evolved from animals when we are the only species with such distinctions? To come up with some kind of linkage without any examples of other species with similar distinction is just pure conjecture.

Evolutionary theory is, of course, conjecture. Because of inherent limitations, all that can be introduced are observable phenomena that accord with the conjecture. Some phenomena fit the conjecture well enough, but they cannot constitute proof per se, any more than a bloody knife with fingerprints on it proves murder. It is merely evidence that can be used to support a conclusion, though there may be numerous explanations for the phenomenon itself.

As I have mentioned before, evolutionary theory does not require that any given species should exhibit a certain parallel to any other species. But humans do exhibit many parallels, both physically and behaviorally. We are not the only species to have kidneys, or eyes, or muscle tissue, or teeth, or nerves; we are not the only species to have competitive mating, or cooperative hunting, or nuclear-familial childrearing. In places where we do have apparently distinctive behaviors, we can very often find parallels in other species, though generally at a more rudimentary level. Other species use tools and construct edifices. Other species play at work-that-is-not-work. Other species have both auditory and body language.

But beyond this, we may point out that the early (and sometimes later) years of human life strongly resemble an animal level of existence, without many of the "distinctives" commonly attributed to human being. Such distinctives are generally inculcated into young humans. Beyond this, feral humans lack many of these distinctives as they mature, emulating instead patterns of their host species. Yet none would say that very young, very old, or feral individuals are not human, based on their lacking these distinctives.

Also, to bring up the Adam and Eve scenario, Adam couldn't find a suitable help mate amongst the animals. There was none like him because of his distinct abilities. That is why Eve was created.

The text does not explicate why or how the other creatures were unsuitable for Adam. One's theological conclusion will depend a great deal on how one exegetes the Hebrew phrase rendered "help mate." The appropriate rendering is not easy to determine, but perhaps the proper connotation would be "a helper who would be like facing Adam himself." I am not arguing that animals are humans, whereas both Adam and Eve are obviously human characters.

Certainly humans are distinguishable from other animals. We have specific forms of physical construction and social behavior that are noticeably human. But these forms are not sufficient to render us distinct from animals as a whole. Our physical construction is strongly paralleled by other animals, and our social behavior is likewise paralleled by other animals - both of these in various gradations. To offer a comparison, chimpanzees and worms are easily distinguishable from each other, but they are not so distinct from each other that both are not considered to be animals - and surely the gap between worms and chimpanzees looms wider than that between humans and chimpanzees, both in terms of construction and behavior.

Thank you again for your gentle and patient response.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

Somehow I knew you would have an answer. You always do.

So, looking at this subordinate issue, we do have a disagreement on this point.

I think that you would shy away from such an absolute claim, on reflection. Humans are hardly completely distinct from animals. Animals consume and metabolize; humans consume and metabolize. Animals reproduce sexually; humans reproduce sexually. Non-avian land animals are created on the sixth day; non-avian land humans are created on the sixth day. If humans were completely distinct, then we should have at least merited our own day!

Humans share varying amounts of DNA coding with other animals; for chimpanzees, the percentage of commonality has been described as 95 percent or even higher. So although we are not completely identical with any other animal, we nevertheless bear significant commonalities with other animals. We may not be chimpanzees, but on the other hand, rats are not rabbits - and we are all animal creatures.

That’s like saying because a bulldozer has a steering wheel, 4 tires, brakes, windshield, and runs on fuel it must be a car. Just because we have certain similarities doesn’t mean they account for the complete distinctions between ourselves and the rest of the animals.

Numerous animals build and/or adjust the landscape around them (e.g., birds, gophers, and beavers), so we are not the only species attentive to adjusting the physical environment in accordance with our abilities and what seems meaningful to ourselves.

However, we are not talking about just adjusting ourselves to our environment. You won’t see a bird change the way they build their nest in order to improve it. They always build it the same way. You don’t see animals improving their lives to better themselves. A bird, gopher, and beaver have always done the same things they have done for centuries, where as humans have sought ways to improve their lives through better construction of homes, tools, etc. An animal doesn’t reason on how to improve their lives; they just keep doing the same instinctive habits over and over.

Evolutionary theory is, of course, conjecture. Because of inherent limitations, all that can be introduced are observable phenomena that accord with the conjecture. Some phenomena fit the conjecture well enough, but they cannot constitute proof per se, any more than a bloody knife with fingerprints on it proves murder. It is merely evidence that can be used to support a conclusion, though there may be numerous explanations for the phenomenon itself.

True, but if the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion, which it doesn’t in the case for evolution than why hold onto it at all? If the blood on the knife was found to be ketchup than you know there was no murder. If there is no evidence for macro evolution than why keep a hold of the theory?

As I have mentioned before, evolutionary theory does not require that any given species should exhibit a certain parallel to any other species.

This is where I disagree with you. The whole point of evolution is that we evolved from lesser species. The whole process of determining what evolved from what is looking at parallel traits.

But humans do exhibit many parallels, both physically and behaviorally. We are not the only species to have kidneys, or eyes, or muscle tissue, or teeth, or nerves; we are not the only species to have competitive mating, or cooperative hunting, or nuclear-familial childrearing.

See bulldozer example above. If all the animals had eyes and we didn’t than that would make us completely distinct. The same thing goes for animals having no purpose to improve their lives through logical reasoning. Only humans do that.

In places where we do have apparently distinctive behaviors, we can very often find parallels in other species, though generally at a more rudimentary level. Other species use tools and construct edifices. Other species play at work-that-is-not-work. Other species have both auditory and body language.

Other species don’t have compassion for their predators. Other species don’t find things humorous. Other species don’t worship a creator. Other species don’t keep improving on their lives.

But beyond this, we may point out that the early (and sometimes later) years of human life strongly resemble an animal level of existence, without many of the "distinctives" commonly attributed to human being. Such distinctives are generally inculcated into young humans. Beyond this, feral humans lack many of these distinctives as they mature, emulating instead patterns of their host species. Yet none would say that very young, very old, or feral individuals are not human, based on their lacking these distinctives.

How about imagination? An animal doesn’t use imagination like a child. An animal doesn’t pretend it is a bear, a frog, or a monster. Only humans, both children and adults, exhibit that trait.

The text does not explicate why or how the other creatures were unsuitable for Adam. One's theological conclusion will depend a great deal on how one exegetes the Hebrew phrase rendered "help mate." The appropriate rendering is not easy to determine, but perhaps the proper connotation would be "a helper who would be like facing Adam himself." I am not arguing that animals are humans, whereas both Adam and Eve are obviously human characters.

Still, if we are supposedly related in all ways, even rudimentary ways, than it shouldn’t have been a problem for Adam to find a helper.

Certainly humans are distinguishable from other animals. We have specific forms of physical construction and social behavior that are noticeably human. But these forms are not sufficient to render us distinct from animals as a whole.

They are sufficient if no other creature exhibits the same traits at all.

Our physical construction is strongly paralleled by other animals, and our social behavior is likewise paralleled by other animals - both of these in various gradations. To offer a comparison, chimpanzees and worms are easily distinguishable from each other, but they are not so distinct from each other that both are not considered to be animals - and surely the gap between worms and chimpanzees looms wider than that between humans and chimpanzees, both in terms of construction and behavior.

But the worm and the Chimpanzee don’t use imagination, improve their lives, laugh at jokes, etc. All the animals exhibit these kinds of traits, but humans are opposite.

Take care,
Micah

[Guest]

Emmet,

You said:

Before I can address your conclusion, though, I will need to know your answer to: what is a "soul"?

Let me quote Glenn Miller:

* Soul generally refers to either the totality of the person (including body) or simply the transcendental part (as distinct from the body--cf. Jesus' words in Matt 10.28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. ). It seems to include awareness and the moment-by-moment phenomenal consciousness, and can be designated by 'self' or 'life' in this general sense (Luke 9.25 with parallel passages). It can be 'pulled on' by evil desires--indicating some conflict of goal processes 'below it' (I Pet 2.11).

* When the concept of soul is expanded to include personality traits, is seems to be referred to as the 'self' (Eph 4.22; Col 3.9f; I Peter 3.4).

* The conscious aspect of the soul can be seen in the fact that 'mind' is almost a synonym for this function of it. The two words almost never appear together--except in panoramic statements such as Mark 12.30: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' . Mind can be programmed through attention/learning/choice (Dt 11.18; Is 46.8; Luke 21.14; Luk 8.18; Dan 10.12), can be influenced/dominated by the 'heart' and 'spirit' (Rom 8.6; Eph 5.19), and can be loaded with value-based goals (Rom 8.5) and principles (John 15.18; Rom 7.23). Mind seems to reflect the cognitive 'workspace' for immediate memory and attended percepts (Mt 16.23; ) and is subject to constant refresh and turnover (Rom 12.2). The mind is the primary mechanism we have under our control to effect self-initiated changes to the heart, generally through attention, fixation, meditation, and saturation (Phil 4.8 ; 2 Cor 3.18. cf. Phil 3.19; Col 3.1-2).

[Guest]

Hello, Micah,

Thank you for your response.

Somehow I knew you would have an answer. You always do.

And here's another one! Better late than never....

That’s like saying because a bulldozer has a steering wheel, 4 tires, brakes, windshield, and runs on fuel it must be a car. Just because we have certain similarities doesn’t mean they account for the complete distinctions between ourselves and the rest of the animals.

You are thinking too specifically. Both bulldozers and cars are automobile vehicles, because they self-propel and are not pulled by outside agency. Yes, a bulldozer is not a car, but neither is a truck, nor a van, nor a motorcycle. But all are automobile vehicles.

Likewise, a rat is not a rabbit is not a chimpanzee is not a human. But all are animal creatures. The lesser entities are subsets of the broader category.

However, we are not talking about just adjusting ourselves to our environment. You won’t see a bird change the way they build their nest in order to improve it. They always build it the same way. You don’t see animals improving their lives to better themselves. A bird, gopher, and beaver have always done the same things they have done for centuries, where as humans have sought ways to improve their lives through better construction of homes, tools, etc. An animal doesn’t reason on how to improve their lives; they just keep doing the same instinctive habits over and over.

I was not speaking of adjusting the self to the environment; I was speaking of adjusting the environment to the self.

Many humans do not revise and improve their habits, because they have no compelling reason to do so. Indigenous peoples across the world still live in primitive dwellings, the design of which is lost in time immemorial. Although they could theoretically develop modern architecture, they lack sufficient need or motivation to cultivate the means and ability. Some lesser animals may not noticeably improve on their customs because their skill set is reasonably sufficient to their desires, within the inherent limitations of their species. After all, a beaver probably would be hard put to strengthen their dam with steel girders, even if it could figure out how to do so. But on the other hand, animals do feature diverse behaviors in smaller ways that are to their benefit. Some birds, for example, will feature varying nest construction based upon climate or upon specific location: to quote Alfred Wallace, "The orchard oriole of the United States offers us an excellent example of a bird which modifies his nest according to circumstances. When it is built among firm and stiff branches it is very shallow, but when, as is often the case, it is suspended from the slender twigs of the weeping willow, it is made much deeper, so that when swayed about violently by the wind, the young may not tumble out. It has been observed also that the nests built in the warm Southern states are much slighter and more porous in texture than those in the colder regions of the north. Our own house-sparrow equally well adapts himself to circumstances. When he builds in trees, as he, no doubt, always did originally, he constructs a well-made domed nest, perfectly fitted to protect his young ones; but when he can find a convenient hole in a building or among thatch, or in any well-sheltered place, he takes much less trouble, and forms a very loosely-built nest." I suppose one could attribute such variation to either instinct or rudimentary thought.

Humans are, admittedly, remarkable inventors. However, invention is basically an extension of problem-solving, and some animals are able, within limits, to problem solve, first by way of trying out application of their present knowledge, and then, through experimentation (or lucky accident), by expanding their knowledge and retaining it for future application (cf. http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb. ... 201957.htm). Humans are capable of such things on a very complex level, but we are also able to do so because we teach each other extraordinary amounts of base knowledge. Humans would not display, innately, much accomplishment as inventors were we not following the patterns of our peers. This patterning, too, is an attribute that many animals share.

But even though humans show a remarkable capacity for invention, this does not qualify to remove us from the animal kingdom. A distinct ability does not necessarily remove one from being an animal. A rabbit cannot fly, but both rabbits and flying creatures are animals. A chimpanzee cannot breathe water, but both chimpanzees and fish are animals. Neither does relative mental capacity serve to remove a creature from their animal status. A goldfish cannot learn to negotiate a lengthy maze like a rat can, but both goldfish and rats are animals.

We are multicellular organisms who lack cell walls, are mobile, and do not photosynthesize. Therefore, we are animals.

…if the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion, which it doesn’t in the case for evolution than why hold onto it at all? If the blood on the knife was found to be ketchup than you know there was no murder. If there is no evidence for macro evolution than why keep a hold of the theory?

Actually, ketchup on the knife would not prove that there was no murder – only that there would be less justification for that particular piece of evidence to be introduced in support of there having been a murder. But there are bloody knives. There is circumstantial evidence. There is also, theoretically, means and opportunity. The question is the relative likelihood of connecting the dots of evidence in a certain way. And I have already expressed my opinion concerning the relative likelihood.

It seems that macroevolution is incapable of being proved or disproved on an evidentiary basis as an explanation for the current state of living organisms. That is why it is a theory, rather than a fact. And, of course, theories, though unproven, remain useful tools of thought.

[emmet:]As I have mentioned before, evolutionary theory does not require that any given species should exhibit a certain parallel to any other species.

[micah:]This is where I disagree with you. The whole point of evolution is that we evolved from lesser species. The whole process of determining what evolved from what is looking at parallel traits.

Yes, parallel traits are a significant piece of the discussion. However, evolutionary theory does not require that every trait must have its parallel in some other species. Mutation may produce unique traits.

…animals hav[e] no purpose to improve their lives through logical reasoning. Only humans do that. … Other species don’t have compassion for their predators. Other species don’t find things humorous. Other species don’t worship a creator. Other species don’t keep improving on their lives. … How about imagination? An animal doesn’t use imagination like a child. An animal doesn’t pretend it is a bear, a frog, or a monster. Only humans, both children and adults, exhibit that trait.

Quite easy to say. Quite difficult to prove.

Of course, humor, or worship, or imagination may take a less familiar form in a non-human psyche. But you seem to have faith in your knowledge of the inner workings of other creatures’ minds.

…if we are supposedly related in all ways, even rudimentary ways, than it shouldn’t have been a problem for Adam to find a helper.

I believe I addressed this issue quite clearly. Only another human would have been “a helper who would be like facing Adam himself.” It is obvious that animals are helpers to humanity, e.g., plow-horses, police dogs, etc.

Thank you for your time.

Shalom,
Emmet