“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.

If there’s anything I’ve learned in my brief exposure to English and linguistics last semester, it’s that language is innately arbitrary. There is no real connection between the object that represents a door and the word door. What seems to attach an abstract concept and a concrete object together is our mutual acceptance that the word door unequivocally represents the thing that we use to pass from one room to another. What if it was common practice to call the thing we sit on a door, as opposed to chair. Would that have made a difference to anyone? Maybe it would right now, but not if we had learned it the other way around in Kindergarten.

So where am I getting with this here? Well, the concept of a soul is quite possibly the most abstract, transparent, and elusive concept known to man (by man, I really mean just me). The word is naturally arbitrary, yes, but it is also elusive because it serves no practical function. The word doesn’t serve the function of describing a part of our body that could aid doctors in conducting a surgery (a heart, for example), and it’s not a word that describes a thing we use everyday (like a telephone). We’ve created a lot of words in our history, but the word soul is (dare I say it) pointless.

Now don’t get me wrong here. I’m not complaining that the word is abstract. We have thousands of abstract words, which are perfectly fine. The concept of soul is almost no different than the concept of love (almost is the key word). I can’t hold love, I can’t see it, and I can’t smell it, just like a soul. However, I know (or do I?) what love is based on some physical and concrete associations I have about love (kiss, hug, sex, etc.). A soul, on the other hand, has no physical and concrete associations. There is no way I can witness my soul in action unless I die, and that’s ONLY IF religious texts are accurate, which nobody can say for sure if they are or not. In contrast, with love, I know for sure I’m experiencing it when I hear cheesy 80s jazz music.

Now there’s a lot of talk about how only human beings have souls, but animals and machines do not. To those I say: who are we as human beings to assign a soul to ourselves and to others? I mean big freakin’ deal, we have the ability to create abstract words and come up with complex ideas, but that’s only by virtue of acquiring language. Trust me, if Gorillas could acquire language, they’d be boasting about their benevolent souls and our lack of. I mean after all, we start wars, commit genocidal acts, create weapons of mass destruction, emit harmful vapors into the atmosphere, cut down rainforests recklessly, and eat wastefully. Who would win the debate over who has a soul and who doesn’t? Us or them?

I’d go as far as to say that machines can have souls too. Why not? I can say anything I want. I, however, lack authority. Who am I to say machines have souls? I am neither a philosopher, scientist, nor a priest. No one will ever agree with me, and thus, I might as well be crazy. But who’s really crazy? The one who blindly believes the word of authority, or the one who uses their own mind and makes a decision for themselves? After all, if the argument is that God’s creatures have souls, then aren’t animals God’s creatures too? By that logic, animals should have souls, and so should machines, because man plays the role of God by creating intelligent and productive entities (when we do create a fully sentient intelligence, that is).

Is the word “soul” a word that we’ve created to give meaning to our very existence? If so, I guess it does serve a practical purpose after all, but just not a very good one. When there is a possibility to know the meaning of existence, then there’s naturally a possibility to find a lack of meaning to existence. A lack of anything leads to desire. Desire leads to greed. Greed leads to hate. Hate leads to death. Death leads to…well, I guess we’ll never know, because by then, it’s already too late.