Her hair shines radiantly in the morning light as it cascades down her face like a waterfall, gently, majestically, infinitely. Her delicate and lustrous skin has the tender and soft texture that of silk, pure and untouched. Her musical voice, tranquil, yet poetic, engulfs both ears with aural euphoria. Her firm nipples, exposed to the harsh realities of nature, have blinded countless men from a secret that only her dark and illustrious eyes can reveal. Just as a rain cloud blocks the sun’s jovial rays, her vision is blocked by her past and her present.

As he painted her with a thick and unjust brush in broad strokes and different shades of black, he smiled, as did she. She had no choice then and has no choice now, but to stare lifelessly into the eyes of tourists, spectators, and painters, with her deceiving smile.

As immediate woes like the ridiculous price of gas, the mortgage crisis, the falling dollar, among other economic hurdles distract Americans from more distant issues like the war in Iraq, we can expect to see the GOP try to make the case that they are best suited to protect the American taxpayer by naturally keeping taxes low. They must make this argument because 1) in order to win, the GOP must convince the American public that the Democrats will raise taxes, consequently leaving the economy in more of a slumber than it already is, and 2) the GOP just doesn’t have a compelling argument to stay longer in the unpopular war in Iraq, so they must do everything in their power to keep people’s minds on the “number one issue.” Thus, this coming November, if Americans think more about their empty pockets and less about the War in Iraq, the GOP will almost certainly succeed.

Although I would agree that our economy is the most pressing and important issue facing our country today, we can’t begin to forget how the economy’s current state is only a symptom of the war in Iraq.

Democrats must make the case that the war in Iraq and the GOP’s agenda is directly related to our economy’s downfall. Only during the last eight years has the middle class faced extinction as the gap between the rich and the poor widens even further. Tax breaks for corporations have done nothing to help average Americans, and have done everything to help war profiteering corporations. The war has cost us trillions of dollars that future generations will have to pay off as the dollar continues to sharply fall and inflation continues to rise.

If the Democrats can convince the American public that increasing food prices, oil prices, commodity prices, etc. will continue to rise if McCain resumes the war in Iraq, Americans may wake up to the fact that low taxes just don’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things when they’re most likely going to pay $8 or more for a gallon of gas. Additionally, to the knowledgeable voter who is conscious about their pockets, raising taxes should not be an issue considering that the Obama campaign has continually asserted that they will be keeping Bush’s tax cuts active for everyone except for those who make $250,000 or more a year. Considering that roughly 80% of the American population does not fall under this category, a majority of Americans shouldn’t be worried about any change on their IRS forms.

Even if Democrats can succeed in convincing the American public that the war in Iraq is negatively impacting our country from an economical standpoint and that they will only raise taxes for the wealthy, still a great many Americans will make their decision on who to vote for based on the color of the candidate’s skin. These voters are the same naïve and ignorant individuals who voted for Bush twice because they could see themselves drinking a beer with the gregarious golfer. Race is not the only polarizing issue. Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, among other decisive issues, as important as they are, will serve to divide Americans along party lines to vote based on their beliefs rather than a candidate’s policies on health care, the environment, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

In an ideal world, an American voter would look at the big picture and decide on whom to vote for based on a candidate’s overall package, hopefully with an emphasis on the candidate’s stance on the most pressing issues immediately facing the country directly (economy) and indirectly (Iraq). However, when voters vote for a candidate just because they would enjoy a beer with the candidate, or because the other candidate’s black or white, or because the candidate is against abortion or for gay rights (what ever happened to separation of church and state anyways?), then we face a serious problem. I mean if Obama has to continually assert that he is not Muslim because Americans can’t fathom a non-Christian president, you know we live in a society that arguably may not be too far off from one that stones women when their faces aren’t completely veiled.

The strong likelihood that McCain will most likely continue the downward spiral of the Bush Administration’s failed domestic and foreign policies doesn’t seem to matter much to most Americans. What seems to matter more is that McCain would defend the sacred and holy right to have a gun. But to the voter in Montana who can’t wait to cast his or her vote this coming November, I ask: what good will that .547 revolver do when a mushroom cloud trespasses your backyard?

Although that’s a bit over-exaggerated, like the facts leading up to the war in Iraq (ZING!), the point still stands. There are pressing issues facing our country that need to be dealt with immediately before it’s too late. In my view, Obama proposes the best policies to address those pressing issues.

What are those policies?

To end the ill-conceived and poorly managed war in Iraq that has cost us trillions of dollars, our reputation and influence in the global arena, and more importantly, the lives of more than 4,000 brave soldiers and more than half a million innocent civilians. By ending the war, we will finish the real war of terror against Al Qaeda, pay off our debt, and rebuild our economy.

Obama also proposes to talk to the leaders of our enemies. Some would say that shows a sign of weakness, but I would say that is the American way. America has always been a country about diplomacy first, and war as a last resort…until Bush. Unfortunately, McCain will continue Bush’s failing trend to piss off the international community as he laves diplomacy in the backburner and aggressively eyes Iran.

Of course, you’re free to disagree with Obama’s policies and my opinion. If you’re in the mindset that McCain will truly serve our country well because his policy to never surrender appeals to you, then by all means, vote for him. I just hope that you own stocks in Exxon Mobil or some factory that manufactures tanks, and don’t have a son or daughter who is currently serving in the military, because for the rest of us, brace yourselves for another potential four to eight years of Hell.

P.S.

I realize that many of the readers of this post may know someone or are the “son or daughter who is currently serving in the military.” Please do not take my opinions personally because they are just that, an opinion. I commend all those who serve our country and still have an optimistic point of view on the war. I don’t serve in the military, nor does anyone else in my immediate family. I sometimes wonder why I even bash the GOP. The past eight years have treated me and my family quite well. We haven’t been affected by the mortgage crisis (in fact, we bought a new house), we haven’t been directly affected by the war in Iraq, or by the increasing price of gas, food, or anything.

So then why do I complain if my life has been virtually unaffected by this administration’s policies? Because the reality of the situation is that not everyone is as fortunate as I am. I know people are suffering at the pump and the grocery store. I know kids don’t get to see their moms and dads for months. And I know that some soldiers who come back from the war have irreparable psychological damage, which affects families forever. How do I know? I live near a military base and have met many people with opinions that range from “patriotically protecting the country from one terrorist at a time” to “cynically fighting a war against my will for oil.”

I write this post for those who serve in the military, no matter what their opinion is about the war. I write this post because I cannot find myself to do what I did before 2004 in High School: sitting around playing videogames without giving a damn about what was happening in the world around me. I write this post because I now realize just how important elections are and what is at stake.

I am neither seeking fame, fortune, nor anything else from this post. In fact, I don’t expect anything more than a couple of grudges and ugly comments. Even so, I don’t mean to offend anyone. After all, I am an insignificant person in the grand scheme of things with no authority on the subject. So everyone should take my comments with a grain of salt anyway. I do enjoy thought-provoking debates though and would appreciate some logical arguments on why you think my opinion is misguided, if at all.

It’s become almost cliché to use the word “change” synonymously with the name Obama. He and his campaign have found tremendous success with their message that America simply cannot afford to have more of the same for another four to eight years. This message was partly what led to the Clinton campaign’s unpredictable downfall. History will remember her campaign as the antithesis to John McCain’s.

Before the Iowa primary, nobody could have predicted that Senator Clinton would have lost the bid to office to a seemingly novice nominee like Barack Obama. She ran with the message that she was the most qualified and most experienced candidate. However, her self-proclaimed experience did not give her the hindsight or even the serendipity to acknowledge the looming threat that Obama posed to her campaign.

Obama’s campaign had been thoughtfully planned for the long-run, as they rightfully knew that the Clinton campaign wouldn’t go down without a fight. Clinton’s campaign, on the other hand, expected a major victory on Super Tuesday assuring her bid as the Democratic nominee. When that victory failed to see the light of day, and her campaign was drained of most of its resources, only then did Clinton resort to Obama-bashing (Obama is all rhetoric and no willpower, to name one of many), which served to strengthen Obama’s argument that Senator Clinton represents the status quo of Washington.

Obama has not only proved to Clinton that he is every bit as experienced as he needs to be in order to run a country (if his handling of his campaign is any indication), but he has more importantly proved to the American population that his leadership skills are unparalleled as they come. The road to the general election will be much longer and more winding, but Obama’s eloquence, competence, and most importantly, his policies will allow him to lead our great nation back to its former glory.

May we end the war in Iraq, finish the war against Al Qaeda, regain our influence in the global arena, assert our moral authority on urgent issues like Global warming and genocide, and bring back the civil liberties that the founding fathers so desperately tried to institute. Can we do it?

I know it’s cliché by now, but I don’t care, I’m going to write it in bold capital letters anyway:

YES WE CAN!

The previous title of my blog was “Missak’s Unorthodox Blog full of random incoherent rambles that nobody wants to read.” I enjoyed writing the random rambles, but as it turns out, there’s not much of an audience that really cares about the different topics that only interest me. And thus, it wasn’t surprising that no one was reading them. However, all is not lost. 

Yes, my blog is nothing more than ash piled up on the surface of the Internet right now, but let me tell you something:  amazing things can happen in the last minute when all is lost.  Just like a phoenix, my blog will resurrect from the ashes into something beautiful, something sacred, and immortal. I will transition from writing random posts that attract to niche audiences, and begin writing to the mainstream by focusing on one very important and popular topic: Politics 2008.

I believe it would be a disservice to the American public, at large, if I do not contribute anything to this election like in 2004, a year in which I was too young, too naïve, and too stupid to contribute anything. This year, however, I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for the past year or so carefully observing every Republican and Democratic nominee to see what they bring to the table. I learned a lot about the American electoral process by following news stories and actively engaging in political forums. And now that we have presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, it is time for me to make sure that what happened in 2004 doesn’t happen again.

Indeed, just like John McCain, I will never give up on my unwavering commitment to serve the American population. And hopefully, my dedication will pay off just like it paid off for McCain…by some divine incomprehensible miracle. After winning only ONE primary in New Hampshire in January of 2008, Senator McCain was able to edge a victory over then Republican front-runner, Mit Romney. Quite an accomplishment when your campaign was on the brink of bankruptcy, in shambles, and in disarray.

In the coming months after that one victory, everything else fell in line: Giuliani and Romney drop out of the race, both expressing their unequivocal support for McCain, McCain begins to gain endorsements from countless newspapers and organizations, and in order to honor McCain’s “comeback,” as many journalists and political correspondents called it, Time magazine published this front-cover article:

I haven’t seen so much positivity in our media since the initial aftermath of the war in Iraq. Don’t remember? Here’s a little reminder:

We live in a great country. I only state the obvious because my blogs may at times be full of cynicism and pessimism, but I’d like my readers to realize that I am proud to be an American, as I am proud to have the right to freedom of speech. I am not proud of what has happened to our country in the past eight years, however. We have been forced to give up some of our rights in the name of national security. We have been deceived by our Supreme Court as they overturned the majority vote in the name of “justice.” And most importantly, we have been brainwashed to think and act a certain way in the name of fear.

This is not the America that our founding fathers fought so hard to protect. I fear that if McCain were to win, we would be subjected to the same exact hypocrisy and deception that we have become accustom to over the past eight years. And yet, the fact that we have become accustom to the fear is precisely why he has a chance at winning. It is our job, America, to wake up and not fall for the lies, the hypocrisy, and most of all, the fear.

I’m going to try my best to update my blog every Friday. Please keep in mind that I am a busy University student (yes, I’m taking summer classes) and have a job, so it’s sometimes difficult to find the time to write. But I will update as frequently as I can, and the more you comment, the more time I will invest. It’s up to you to make sure that this blog doesn’t have to resurrect into a gaming blog, which isn’t as controversial or as fun to write about.

The Shepherd transcends upon all.
He tells the sheep that they are strong.
They beckon to His every call,
But they don’t know that He is wrong.

His unchecked words are lies.
They believe Him as if they were blind.
They just wait for the day they die
As He poisons their minds.

The Shepherd makes his final call
And grabs His rope and gun.
One by one they slowly fall,
As their faith burns in the sun.

The shepherd’s sins of seven
Send the Sheep directly to heaven.

The violent storm shook the sea,

And destroyed every ship in its path;

No storm passed through says he,

But the captain sees and hears all.

There he floats on the surface of the sand.

You can’t see him, but look again;

He’s there! Do you see his arid hand?

The lies have blinded your eyes.

Here he drowned and was left to die.

You can’t hear him, but be quiet;

Listen! Do you hear his shrill cry?

The lies have deafened your ears.

The golden waves of dust float through the air,

Sending a haunting message to the world;

Only survivors can stop and stare,

While the rest of the world faces the blue sea.

Hyppo! Hyppo! Lying lies

In a city hypnotized,

What immoral mortal

Would dare deceive thee?

What deprived desert’s faction

Did cause thou so much detraction?

Was their motivation from rage?
Did they put you in your cage?

Was it corruption and conceit

That put the chains on your feet?

On what prophets can you lean?

What King? & what Queen?

What torch? What fires?

Hades longs for liars.

Why the lies? Why the guilt,

And the suffering that you built?

When the truth was spoken out

And your dependability was in doubt:

Did they smile their work to see?

Did they who made the Tyger make thee?

Hyppo! Hyppo! Lying lies

In a city hypnotized,

What immoral mortals

Dared deceive thee?

What is love? By Haddaway: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo

The question in the title of this post is one of immediate importance. I’ll try to confront and answer the question as a scientist would, but without doing any research or experimentation. To that degree, I suppose I’m not confronting the question like a scientist at all then. However, I will be using fancy words with a lot of style, but arguably with no substance…like a politician (ZING). I hope you find my analysis worthwhile, enlightening, and above all, entertaining.

Professionals, scientists, and scholars have devoted a majority of their time and resources in order to answer a wide array of questions like: is there a God? Did Shakespeare write all of his play by himself? And why did President Bush get elected twice? Unfortunately, outside of mere speculation and theory, these questions, and similar others, are void of any concrete and valid answers. However, the most immediate and elusive question that the human race, especially artists, have pondered for centuries is that of love.

Artists attempt to answer the world’s most elusive questions aesthetically, rather than scientifically, through art, music, film, writing, etc. The question at hand has particularly been a long-lasting and defining theme of the music industry. In a medium that uses the word “baby” and “love” about as many times President Bush has been cited as using the words “umm” and “aww,” music has captivated its audience with its emotionally charged lyrics and seductive melodies. It’s an industry that prides itself on its ability to be present even after the lights go out (thanks in large part to cheesy 80s jazz). With a countless number of songs about love, does music also answer the seemingly unanswerable?

One song, in particular, attempts to answer the question about love directly, if the title of the song is any indication. The song, “What is Love,” by Haddaway, begins with the all too appropriate question: “what is love?” As the listeners anticipate the answer that should follow shortly thereafter, Mr. Haddaway proceeds by singing, “Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more…” Then an upbeat and techno-inspired melody filler follows. An ingenious marketing ploy if I ever saw one. Stamp an unanswerable question on the front cover, lure the customer by misleading them into believing the CD has the key to the answer, and Mr. Haddaway buys himself a fifty million dollar house. We, on the other hand, are left in the same place we started, but fifteen dollars poorer.

It seems as though we humans are the only species on the planet that can’t directly answer the seemingly simple question, not even in our songs. Animals seem to have found their answer, as their limited capacity to think and reason outside of their genetic and biological instincts have rendered their understanding of love as mere sexual infatuation. For humans, the relationship has to be much more complex.

So what is love you may ask? There’s no easy answer, but I have written a short narrative (from a man’s point of view) that I hope is almost as orgasmic for you to read as it was for me to write:

Love is when a woman looks into your eyes with devoted hunger and yours look straight back. Love is when a woman grasps your shoulders firmly with bare hands as if to share the weight that you bear. Love is when a woman begins moving closer to you in a slow, seductive manner that transfers her body’s heat over to yours. Love is when a woman begins swaying her hands back and forth across your spine while massaging every tension in your body. Love is when a slow seductive melody engulfs both of your bodies with aural pleasure. Love is when the music stops and the lights turn on and the woman looks down, and says:

“what the heck is that?”

“That’s my penis,” you proudly boast.

Surprised, and appearing a bit disappointed she exclaims, “oh damn, I thought you were a woman.”

Caught off-guard, and embarrassed, you say: “oh shit, I guess the long hair does confuse some,”

While nodding her head, “Yeah. This is quite uncomfortable, isn’t it?”

You snap back, “Why yes, yes it is.”

With the look of disappointment evident in her face, she proceeds to sing: “What is love? Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.” Her eyes begin drifting away from yours as tears fill her eyes.

Before you lose her from your grip, you make one last attempt to capture her heart, and sing: “You and me, baby ain’t, nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they did it on the discovery channel.”

She smiles and agrees. Both of you live happily ever after.

Fin.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is exactly what love is all about. When a female is willing to convert her sexuality in order to satisfy a man’s every erotic and animalistic fantasy. Suffice to say, this situation could work both ways (that is, a man converting his sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual in order to satisfy a woman’s fantasy would still be love).

This is exactly why “My Best Friend’s Wedding” was such a satisfying movie. Julianne chases Michael for 95% of the movie in order to satiate her sexual thirst with Michael after Kimmy has already got his penis in her disposal. The movie ends unsatisfactorily when Julia finally loses her prey to Kimmy and Michael enjoys a nice car ride with Kimmy in a “just married” limousine, both excited about what is to come in the hotel room. Julianne, on the other hand, is left behind at the wedding party as the limousine leaves behind nothing but a gust of smoke from its exhaust pipe.

But wait! There’s George (the dashingly handsome Gay single in the movie) to save the day. The buildup is genius. George calls her on her cell phone. Julianne tells him how she has moved on and has let Michael go in a melancholy tone. George tells her that he is proud of her, but wants her to cheer up and enjoy the party. But with the thoughts of Kimmy giving Michael a hand job in the Limo, how could she? George then comments on Julianne’s velvet dress, hinting his own presence at the party. Julianne transforms from a tiger that loses its prey to a lion, to a mouse sniffing through a maze in order to find some new cheese. And then, when the “crowds part”, and a familiar song begins to play, there he is, her beacon of light, her avenue of hope, her sex machine.

Unfortunately for her, George crushes her sexual prospects when he tells Julianne, “Maybe there won’t be a wedding, maybe there’s won’t be sex, but by God, there will be dancing.” Something amazing happens in this scene. Julianne’s reaction is surprisingly positive. No sex? Just…dancing? Where’s the pleasure in that? But you know what? I had a revelation. Maybe love isn’t about sex, after all. And maybe love has nothing to do about converting your sexuality in order to satisfy a member from the opposite sex. If that’s the case, why the fuck did I write this post?

Watch the scene for yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VPGmqA4_-WM&feature=related

“How can something have meaning and no purpose? The term soul is practical indeed in that it defines the eternal part of man.”

Let us make a distinction between ”practical purpose” and “meaningful purpose.” Remember that I defined “practicality” as a concept or object that aids human beings by achieving something productive. Thus, the concept of “practical purpose” characterizes objects like doors, chairs, telephones, hearts, or anything that has a physical and concrete application to the world that can aid human beings productively (”pass me that chair,” “go through that door to find him,” “tell her to get off that telephone,” “the heart is bleeding. Pass the scalpel quick!”).

Remember that I agreed with you that the soul does have “meaning” within a system of belief. In fact, no legitimate word, concept, or object is meaningless, and consequently, they all naturally have a purpose, a “meaningful purpose,” to be exact. A “meaningful purpose” can aid human beings by allowing them to communicate about a concept metaphysically (”What is a chair?” “What is a chair’s relationship with a door?” “What is a soul?” “What is a soul’s relationship with the body?” Thus, with that (hopefully) clear distinction, my argument may make more sense. Here’s what I said in my last post:

“The question [we should ask ourselves is] does [the soul] serve a “practical” purpose? You could argue that it “aids” humans by allowing them to communicate about the soul, and thus, it does serve a “practical” purpose, however that’s missing the point. The word telephone can “aid” us in communicating about telephones as well, but unlike the soul, a telephone is something that has a physical application to the world, which is why it’s “practical,” while a soul is not.”

Thus, the argument is that a telephone can have a “practical purpose” and a “meaningful purpose,” while a soul can only have a “meaningful purpose,” which is why I argue that the soul is pointless. Now the word pointless is a strong word, one that usually has a negative connotation, and so I should clarify the scope of that word within my argument. I don’t believe a soul is pointless because it has no meaning, but because it doesn’t aid human beings productively (i.e. it doesn’t have a “practical purpose”).

It is easy to step outside a system of belief and disregard its structure and content as pointless. I could do the same for science. What is the purpose of the term “evolution”? It’s just the name given to a contrived time line of possible, biological changes that attempts to explain the here and now.

Firstly, I just want to add that I am not advocating one system of belief over the other. Never did I, or would I, advocate evolution over religion, or vice versa. I have no self-interested agenda to impose my beliefs or persuade anyone to believe me. In fact, if there is anything I advocate, it’s that all humans are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.

With that said, I agree with you completely. Evolution has no “practical purpose” either. Therefore, evolution, just like the soul, is pointless. I’d contend that evolution and religion are both excellent arguments that try to answer essentially the same kind of questions. The only difference is in their approach; one takes a more empirical approach, and the other a more abstract and interpretive approach.

I don’t believe that we invent ourselves and I don’t believe we invent our own consciousness. You are exaggerating Man’s ability to create which I do not agree with.

First of all, I never argued that we invent ourselves or that we invent our own consciousness. As for exaggerating man’s ability to create, I think you may be underestimating the power of man. We have done some amazing things in our history, from building pyramids, to writing the Bible (assuming that a man or woman did write it), to building the empire state building, to programming a chess program that beat Garry Kasparov. Sure, some may argue that everything we’ve done so far hasn’t been able to match God’s creation of man, but who knows? Perhaps one day we may if our track record of amazing feats is any indication.

There is always a level of uncertainty, which is why I contend that human beings may, one day, create artificial intelligence that emulates our own. Do I know when that day is? No. There’s not much I do know, and I’d be willing to bet that other human beings are in the same boat as I, despite the fact that they think they know.

Do I know that God created the world in seven days? No. Do I know that particles in space began rotating really fast and caused the Earth to form? No. Do I know that we originate from apes? No. Do I know that there is a soul? No. Do I know that there is such a thing as the unconscious? No. Do I know that I’m typing this argument now? Yes. Is there a cup of coffee on the table next to me? Yes.

We build complex and efficient tools, but the idea that simply because we have made a main-frame computer smaller means that we can create a machine with a notion of itself and its place in the universe is a far reach. Where are the flying cars, or floating platform cities in the clouds? “The Jetsons” were supposed to be a reality by now, and in a similar fashion true artificial intelligence is a function of the vast, human imagination.

I wasn’t making the point that our ability to create smaller main-frame computers was directly related to our ability to create intelligent artificial intelligence. I was simply arguing that humans have been able to achieve progress at an accelerated rate in such a short period of time. That’s the best evidence that I can come up with to back up my argument that aids my argument that we may one day be able to create artificial intelligence that has a notion of itself, as you said.

As for “The Jetsons” comment, I can relate with you there. I, too, was in my second grade classroom, young and naïve, willing to absorb anything Mrs. Harper spewed out of her mouth. I remember the statement “By 2000, we will have flying cars and blablbla.” So you can imagine my disappointment when 2000 rolled around and still no flying cars. But just because my second grade teacher was wrong doesn’t mean there won’t be flying cars eventually, just like eventually there will be truly intelligent artificial beings. But when? Some experts think it could be as soon as 2029.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm 

^{According to the US National Academy of Engineering, which is made up of eighteen technology experts (including Google’s Larry Page), we will be able to create artificial intelligence “with the broad suppleness of human intelligence including our emotional intelligence by 2029.”  To see a reputable news outlet like BBC post an article about something like this is a powerful testament of artificial intelligence’s impact on society in the present and in the future.Whether this is analogous to the statement “we’ll have flying cars by 2000″ I do not know, so I won’t hold my breath.}

Expectedly, my last post on the soul has conjured up some controversy and so here is my counterargument to those objections.

“Does something need to have a physical application to the world to be “practical” or hold any meaning? The notion of the soul operates within a system of belief, and within that system, it is full of meaning and has an important purpose.”

I believe the concepts of “practicality” and “meanings” are two completely different concepts. The point I was trying to make wasn’t that the soul is “meaningless,” but rather, “pointless.” In the scope of my argument, I defined “practical” as a word that “aids” human beings by achieving something productive (refer to my doctor example) or describing something we use everyday (telephone). Thus, with that definition clarified, physical application to the world, I’d argue, is necessary for a concept to be “practical,” as far as my definition is concerned.

You also pointed out that a soul operates within a system of belief, which is very true, and it does have meaning, but the question is does it serve a “practical” purpose? You could argue that it “aids” humans by allowing them to communicate about the soul, and thus, it does serve a practical purpose, however that’s missing the point. The word telephone can “aid” us in communicating about telephones as well, but unlike the soul, a telephone is something that has a physical application to the world, which is why it’s “practical,” while a soul is not. Again, not to sound redundant, but I can’t stress enough that I’m not arguing that the soul is meaningless, because it evidently means something within a system of belief.

“I can agree with animals having souls. If you are operating in the system of belief that acknowledges the existence of souls it is paradoxical to state that man has the power to create them.”

It seems paradoxical because 1) the statement that was quoted was put out of context, and 2) because I do not operate in the system of belief that acknowledges the existence of souls. I was only speaking hypothetically. However, I made a rather large assumption, didn’t I? I assumed that the soul (if there is such a thing, remember, I’m being hypothetical) arises from creation in general. If God created humans, and in the process gave them minds to think up of elaborate belief systems that include concepts like soul, then isn’t it possible that we can emulate that? In other words, by playing the role of God, we are not necessarily creating entities that have souls, but are creating intelligent beings that might think of complex belief systems that lead them to believe that they have souls. Are we not so different, or are we? No one can say for sure outside of mere speculation.

“Souls are supernatural and created in the image of God, by God. Were we ever to acquire the ability to create intelligent, sentient, productive entities, then your statement concerning machine-souls would hold some relevance. As we do not have that power, we are incapable of “playing the role of God” and subsequently incapable of creating eternal souls in the image of the divine.”

There is one very significant assumption in the quotation above that needs to be addressed. You seem like you’d agree with me that if we were, in fact, able to create “intelligent, sentient, productive entities” then perhaps there is a possibility for a presence of a soul in one of our creations (artificial intelligence). You contend that cannot be possibly, however, because we do not have the power to create. I hold that we don’t have the power to create…yet. I am optimistic in my belief that humans can and will create truly intelligent machines. Just food for thought, here’s a quote by Hans Moravec, a pioneer in mobile robot researcher and founder of Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute:

“I see a strong parallel between the evolution of robot intelligence and the biological intelligence that preceded it. The largest nervous systems doubled in size about every fifteen million years since the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago. Robot controllers double in complexity (processing power) every year or two. They are now barely at the lower range of vertebrate complexity, but should catch up with us within a half century.”

Who would have thought that a weapon like the bow and arrow would evolve into a nuclear weapon in the course of two hundred years (give or take). A more striking leap is the sixty or so years it’s taken to go from main frame computers that takes up the space of a whole room to a Macbook Air that fits inside a Manila folder. With the accelerated rate that technology is progressing, I’d say we’re well on our way to creating intelligent beings regardless of whether they have a soul, or think they have a soul, or don’t have a soul at all. It’s just a matter of when.

Our best hope is that we don’t kill ourselves with the aforementioned weapons that are also technologically improving at an accelerated rate. If weapons don’t end our species, then let’s hope that the machines we create won’t.