Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/1/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6)

I really enjoyed Dr. Boyd's recent sermon on The Matrix (www.whchurch.org/whc/index.asp?PageID=405) and his thoughts on "TNT" in general. Now I have some questions on the nature of the mind and the constituency of man, as related the field of Artificial Intelligence.

I'm about to finally finish my B.S. degree in Computer Science. I have to take one more elective within my major, and I've chosen Artificial Intelligence since this seems the most interesting from a philosophy perspective. Anyway, I'm trying to prep for the topic from a Christian worldview.

What is the nature of Intelligence? What sort of approximation can machines make of it? Could these machines be considered to have a mind? A will? Free will?

It seems plausible that one day man could make a machine which will have a simulated brain, i.e. sophisticated neural networks, etc. What would distinguish such a “being” from a person?

Well for one, this being would not be made in the image of God. I understand the Imago Dei in primarily relational rather than functional terms; what separates Man from the animals and the angels is not his intellectual or emotional or volitional capacity, but rather his capacity to be in a love relationship with God. So even if this artificial being had human characteristics such as will, emotions, language, etc. it should not be considered a person. Maybe it would be closer to an animal than to a human. Can we say that animals have minds?

Am I right to think that we could one day create an artificial mind? Or is the mind an innately spiritual thing?

I've been advised by a philosopher friend of mine to review an article by Dr. Eleonore Stump, "Non-Cartesian Dualism and Materialism without Reductionism" and to get a book by Jaegwon Kim on philosophy of the mind. Anyone familiar with these?

Edited by - CJF on 03/01/2003 4:25:45 PM

Edited by - CJF on 03/12/2003 03:05:30 AM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 3/1/2003 11:37 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Am I right to think that we could one day create an artificial mind, but we could never create an artificial soul?

the mind, to me,is the soul. We aren't dualistic all, and I would like to hear how this would be possible. Ultimately, what we view is a soul is just the micro-level processes in the brain. I don't know much about it, but I think it makes sense. If you haven't, you should check out an author named Daniel Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained--one of probably many books on a materialistic theory of the brain (mind).

quote:
and to get a book by Jaegwon Kim on philosophy of the mind. Anyone familiar with these?

I am taking a Philosophy of Mind course in which this book is on a three day reserve in the library. I've picked it up, but could not give you a detailed description of the book; all I know is that is is an introduction to the philosophy of mind. The third book required for that course is his book, Mind in the Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation, which I am starting to read. It is only 120 pages, so I would recommend you pick up the afformentioned recommendations if you are interested in the topic. Dennett is a little more entertaining, and I heard Kim is a little more technical.

Happy hunting!

Peace,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 03/01/2003 4:48:31 PM

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/1/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
We aren't dualistic all, and I would like to hear how this would be possible.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Please help me clarify terms. I understand the "soul" to be that eternal aspect of us, which exists even when our body is dead. I understand "mind" to be the volitional, emotional, rational aspects of our nature, which I understand to be dependant upon the existance of the brain and body.

God relates to our soul, our soul relates to our mind, our mind relates to our body, our body relates to the world. Right?

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 3/1/2003 2:58 PM (GMT -6)

CJF, check out this thread www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1823 for discussion of a powerful argument against the possibility of a truly artifical intelligence, as opposed to the artifical mimicking of intelligence.

Philosopher John Searle has written some good stuff on the topic.

Also, I highly recommend a couple books by Christian philosophers:
J.P. Moreland, "Body and Soul"
William Hasker, "The Emergent Self"

God bless,
Alan

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 3/1/2003 3:13 PM (GMT -6)

Paul: We aren't dualistic all, and I would like to hear how this would be possible. Ultimately, what we view is a soul is just the micro-level processes in the brain.

Alan: If by dualism you mean Cartesian dualism in which the mind and the body are two fundamentally distinct substances, then I would agree with you, Paul, but that's not the only form of dualism there is. A much better view, defended by Moreland, is Thomistic hylomorphic dualism, according to which we are one substance with both a physical aspect and a non-physical aspect.

And why think the soul is just "micro-level processes in the brain"? If that is so, then when your brain dies, your soul dies as well. How do you square that with Scripture: "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"?

Alan

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 3/1/2003 7:41 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
And why think the soul is just "micro-level processes in the brain"? If that is so, then when your brain dies, your soul dies as well. How do you square that with Scripture: "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"?

It is funny you ask this.

This is one of the sites I use to defend why I believe this:

The Biblical Truth About the Immortal Soul

Also, some conservative interpretations of the bible reveal that we don't go straight to heaven after we die. Here are some verses:

Acts 24:15

15I have a hope in God—a hope that they themselves also accept—that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

John 3:13

13No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Judging from these verses, it appears that there isn't really a biblical backing for some immaterial stuff, a soul, that floats out of the body and ascends to heaven, or wherever, immediately after we die. Ultimately, I agree with modern science on a lot of issues, and it just seems to cliche for people like Hasker or Moreland to defend a presupposition that isn't backed by scripture--as far as I can tell--, and I really can't tell you why I would believe in an immortal soul anyways, what is its point on this planet? I ask this because of all the different things that can happen to the brain that alters the "self"; I realize because these things happen it does not necessarily follow that we don't have a soul, I just don't find the argument to convincing--convincing right now anyways.

I ultimately believe God will bring back whatever it is that is me on the day of judgement, so I am not worried that God will have a problem doing that even though I don't believe in a soul.

Peace,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 03/02/2003 12:49:49 AM

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/2/2003 3:10 AM (GMT -6)

Alan, I've read the thread you referenced. That argument seeks to refute the idea that humans are basically "meat computers", and establish that "we are not automata", which of course I agree with. 2 Cor 5:8-9 shows that the real "self" is something that has conciousness and does not need a body. I use the word "soul" for this, but maybe that's not the correct technical term.

An artificial intelligence would never have a soul. But can we go the next step and say that an advanced simulated brain could not have a "mind" - intellect, emotions, volition, etc? I sense a baby-with-the-bathwater problem here. Conceding the mind as an emergent property of a properly functioning brain does not necessarily set us on a slippery slope toward materialism. I think that's the point of Stump's article, though I haven't been able to get my hands on it yet.

A_Theist, doesn't this passage establish the idea of consciousness without a body (a soul)?

quote:
1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
-- 2 Cor 5:1-10

Alan, this response to Godel makes some sense to me. members.rediff.com/TheOne/godel.html Here's a quote from it:

quote:
But for those of us who do not have an abiding interest in mathematical logic I do not think that we have learned much more than what we (and Godel) started with: that ordinary language allows paradoxical, self referential statements. Godel only showed that this also applies within the very restricted area of formal mathematical logic that does not incorporate most of the aspects of reason (e.g., existence, identity, causality, consciousness). While Godel's theorem is technically important within mathematics, it does not have added significance for reason in general.

What do you make of this?

Corey

Edited by - CJF on 03/02/2003 08:21:04 AM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 3/2/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6)

I don't know what to think about them. I do know they seem contrary to other verses, so if you believe the bible doesn't contradict itself, then I guess you would have to rework those other verses to fit with that one, or vice versa.

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:43 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual