Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by sumit1207, Apr 27, 2010.
I'm going to start eating babies now.
Fine, god gives us dominion over everything and with that comes responsibilities. We have a responsibility to treat anything with consciousness by the golden rule.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Nevermind that the technology is sci-fi, it's conceivable. I take you as you are today. I replace one brain cell with an artificial construct capable of preforming the exact same neurological function. It is integrated perfectly. You wake up, you are the exact same person you were before I put you under. I repeat this process, until your entire brain has been rewired into an artificial construct. Your consciousness is the same as the day we started. Am I allowed to now kill you?
Including the babies that we make?
I said that already
We don't "make" babies. We contribute via our actions, but the process was that laid down by God. Also, the soul that the baby has comes from God. No 'Data' that humans make would have a soul.
If you have sex and impregnate a woman, and the women gives birth, you're making babies. You don't need to be the inventor of a process in order to make something using that process.
How do you know this? A soul might be granted by God upon their creation. After all, they would be the grandchildren of God.
Also, would this soul be subject to "original sin?" Would Christians feel the need to baptize computers to save them from hell? (er... purgatory?)
You're going to have a tough time convincing most atheists or even agnostics about the literal divine entity that Christians call a "soul." Unless you're speaking of it metaphorically as "heart" or personhood.
If a being such as Data existed, you wouldn't be able to "own" him.
You can't possibly know that. Your opinion isn't based directly in the Bible, it can't be, the concept of AI was a truly unthinkable idea 2,000 years ago.
So I'm going to ask you to please make an argument from the Bible, citing relevant verses without going too "interpretation" mode to demonstrate AI couldn't possibly have a soul or back off from your claim.
"Dominion" over the earth, animals and man's creation doesn't count, since dominion directly requires responsibility to be a good sheppard. It's not as if "Well, God said I have dominion over my pet dog, so I can mutilate Suki" is something you'd ever think. And that is the extension of your thoughts on a hypothetical Data. You either think you can cut your dog in to pieces while she's alive and that's completely fine or you don't think man has exclusive dominion over God's creation.
If only that were true.
hah, take that, women.
You are right. That was a bit of an exaggeration. After all, he is a conservative Republican...
I'm not even sure you can say what his ideaology is at this point other than the advancement of Charlie Crist.
No, I will not back off my claim and I will remain in interpretation mode as well. Show me one machine man has ever made (not counting Herbie the love bug) that has even been suggested to have been given a soul by God? You cannot, why? Because machines don't get souls. Why? Because man makes them, not God. We don't have the capacity to give something the breath of life or a soul.
Funny how that works with anybody who shows any sort of independence whatsoever in today's Republican Party, isn't it? Yesterday's hero suddenly becomes tomorrow's pariah. You gotta love political hypocrisy on such a massive scale.
Obligatory Herbie jpeg:
Just because the technology doesn't current exist doesn't mean it couldn't exist in the future. There may very well be some fundamental aspect of consciousness that cannot be duplicated digitally or mechanically. We don't know that to be the case or not.
Assuming that AI is possible though, the question of a soul is moot. It's a question (from yer view, not mine) of our responsibility as humans as sheppards to god's creation. Either we have a responsibility to treat anything with intelligence as more than a mere toaster, or I can kidnap your dog, cut her apart piece by piece and you can only complain about property loss, since you know, she's just a toll put here for man's use.
What makes you think humans have souls at all? I mean, if the Bible is going to be your response than there's not much I'll be able to say to convince you otherwise.
Besides AI, would you consider a human clone having a soul?
Actually no, it doesn't apply to anyone who differs from Republican dogma. Snowe seems to have a consistent set of opinions at least. For instance, I wouldn't expect her to be seen hugging the President and supporting his stimulus plan and then a few month later be railing against it while claiming he never supported it. Nor would I expect her to categorically rule out running as an independent and then a few weeks later to file papers to run as an independent.
I guess that's where we differ. I expect conservative Republican politicians to be hypocrites who are willing to do anything to save their political lives when they realize they just commited political suicide by merely hugging the president and being grateful for federal funds during a recession. That is why it is such a pleasant surprise when one of them occasionally isn't.
Even if the law did make an exception for rape/incest, people would still complain. So why bother with the whole "I can't believe it doesn't make an exception for rape/incest!" thing? It's a-- dare I say it?-- total red herring. At any rate, good on Oklahoma. If you don't like it, you could always vote in some legislatures more representative of your cause (*hint hint, wink wink*).
And Oklahoma has a long way to go until it catches up to New York or California.
(And I'd encourage some people to do a little bit of research regarding demographics and support for abortion.)
Separate names with a comma.