“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.}