>>40946 Well He certainly is both the anointed (by God), chosen (again, by God) one. And, being part of the Godhead, Jesus Christ is deffo omniscient (as well as omnipotent, and omnipresent). And I'd also agree that he intends us all to be free of any forces of sin, including the 'temptations of the flesh'. So yeah! Cheers, Anon. :^) >10/10, would read again.

We should all start studying christian alchemy The concept of the homunculus—a miniature, fully formed human created artificially—is a central theme in alchemy, but it is not a biblical one. Therefore, Christian alchemy, which attempted to integrate alchemical practices with Christian theology, had a conflicted and complex view of the homunculus. The primary tension in Christian alchemy's view of the homunculus revolved around whether creating a human-like being was a reverent act of imitation of God the Creator or a blasphemous act of usurpation of divine power. 1. The Reverent View: Imitating God's Creation Some alchemists, such as the famous Paracelsus (who is the most famous figure associated with the homunculus), viewed the creation of a homunculus as a way to understand and participate in the divine process of creation. In this view: Gaining Wisdom: The alchemist, through prayer, purity, and rigorous scientific work, was not trying to "play God" but to gain deeper wisdom about the universe. By attempting to replicate the human form—which was considered a microcosm of the entire universe—the alchemist believed they could uncover the secret laws of nature and better appreciate the genius of God's original design. The Alchemist as a Co-Creator: In some interpretations, the alchemist saw themselves as a "co-creator" with God. They were not generating a soul but providing the vessel for a soul to inhabit, much like a parent provides a body. The homunculus was seen as a soulless, elemental creature until God, at His discretion, chose to grant it a soul. This would make the act of creating the homunculus a holy one, as it prepared a new vessel for a divine spark. 2. The Blasphemous View: Usurping Divine Power This was the more common and more critical view from Christian theologians and many alchemists themselves. The very idea of creating a human life without God was seen as a grave sin: Violating the Divine Order: The Bible states that God created humanity in His own image and that human procreation is the God-ordained method of continuing the human race. To bypass this natural process through an artificial, laboratory-based method was seen as an act of hubris and a direct challenge to God's authority. The Sin of Pride: This act was often associated with the sin of pride, the same sin that led to Lucifer's fall. The alchemist who believed they could create a human without divine intervention was thought to be claiming a power that belongs to God alone. Such an act was not only a failure but also a spiritual danger, as it could open the door to demonic influence. The created homunculus was often depicted in folklore as being soulless, demonic, or monstrous. In summary, while the homunculus is not mentioned in the Bible, Christian alchemists had a complex relationship with the idea. Some saw it as a path to a deeper understanding of God's creative power, while others condemned it as a blasphemous attempt to usurp a power that belongs to God alone.

From another AI conversation I had earlier. Based on the principle of inheriting acquired characteristics, Traducianism would be closer to Lamarckianism. Here's the breakdown of why: Lamarckianism Lamarckian evolution is the theory that an organism can pass on characteristics it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. The classic example is a giraffe stretching its neck to reach high leaves, and its offspring being born with a slightly longer neck. The key idea is that traits developed by the parents are inherited by the next generation. How it Relates to the Theological Views Traducianism is closer to Lamarckianism. Traducianism holds that the human soul is passed down from parents to their children through the natural process of procreation. This implies that the parents' souls—and any spiritual or moral characteristics they have acquired (such as a sinful nature)—are passed on to the child. The sinfulness of the parents' soul, for example, is transmitted to the child's soul, which is a key part of the Traducianist argument for how original sin is inherited. This is directly analogous to the Lamarckian idea that a parent's acquired trait (in this case, a spiritual one) is passed to the offspring. Creationism is fundamentally opposed to Lamarckianism. Creationism states that each soul is a separate, unique creation from God at the moment of conception. The soul is not in any way derived from the parents' souls. Therefore, a parent's spiritual characteristics or moral nature cannot be passed down to the child's soul. In this view, original sin is inherited not because the soul is passed down, but because the human race is a single, corporate body, or because the new soul is placed into a body that is already predisposed to sin. In summary, the Traducianist idea of souls being "passed down" from parents to children directly parallels the Lamarckian idea of acquired traits being inherited. The Creationist view, in contrast, sees each soul as a new creation, with no direct link to the parents' souls, making it incompatible with Lamarckian principles.

>>41411 >creating a human-like being (Starts sweating and pulling on collar) Good thing we're not doing that (looks around nervously) no sir-ee!

>>41412 I'm pretty sure the Creationist view is the correct one. We are separate souls, not just our parents' souls placed in a blender. However, original sin is passes down, since it is the natural state of humanity. However, in a scientific view, certain genetic personality traits and mental illness can be passed down.

I don't want to be Christian stereotypical wet blanket, but I'm pretty sure we are getting close to literal heresy.

>>41419 How fitting, you shit up my /diy/ thread, and now you shit up here Back on topic, genetics both prove and disprove Lamarckism. Genetics are what cause things like body shape and some personality, however, trauma could possibly be genetic https://psychcentral.com/health/genetic-trauma#how-can-trauma-be-passed-down (granted, this could also be in the bio thread)

>>41413 We would be creating a vessel for God to give a soul to.

>>41420 Go look up the HUSH complex. A's can be turned to C's during silencing.

Why did the Orthodox and Catholic Church split? I'm trying to find the right denomination and I don't know what to choose.

>>41539 I'm not part of either, but I have many frens in both. There are plenty of writings on the topic -- both secular & Christian -- but these are a quick gloss on various denominations: https://biblehub.com/q/how_do_catholic_and_orthodox_differ.htm https://biblehub.com/q/when_did_christian_denominations_start.htm And here's what I consider to be a rather-biased view on the specific topic in question: https://biblehub.com/library/roberston/sketches_of_church_history_from_ad_33_to_the_reformation/chapter_xxii_the_great_schism.htm Rather more-balanced viewpoint: https://biblehub.com/q/what_caused_the_1054_christian_schism.htm >t. Chandelier-swinging Prottie (ie, Non-Denominational Christian). :D

>>41540 The more I read about it the more I like orthodox.

>>41539 >>41540 Wildcard: Seventh Day Adventist

>>41553 Yeah, I think they're pretty cool too. I love the Procession. >>41554 Ahh, the based 7th Day Addies! I like them a lot! <---> Cheers, Anons. :^)

>>41635 I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of an objective morality, but it has to have a basis in logic an reason that can't be rooted in how any given person feels about an issue. Vegetarians and vegans can rationalize their feelings for countless hours, but it all still ultimately boils-down to how they feel. And with christianity all morality boils-down to not even the existence of God, but the existence of heaven. If being a good christian (or even jew) wasn't rewarded with heaven (jews don't believe in hell, if you don't go to heaven you basically just cease to exist) you'd have no incentive to be good/not sin. If God said that there's no reward for being good, you'll just burn in hell no matter what, because there's no incentive.

>>41828 >If being a good christian (or even jew) wasn't rewarded with heaven (jews don't believe in hell, if you don't go to heaven you basically just cease to exist) you'd have no incentive to be good/not sin. The problem with modern perceptions of Christianity is that people see it as a list of arbitrary rules. This is partly due to irritable boomers and longhouse schoolmarm church ladies that hate all fun things. But the matter of fact is, God put those rules for a reason. Look at how far society has degraded. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and notice all the similarities to our time. Even the aforementioned longhouse schoolmarm church ladies are a result of boomers ignoring the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12) and following "modern" secular society. >Vegetarians and vegans can rationalize their feelings for countless hours, but it all still ultimately boils-down to how they feel. Well those groups are both wrong, and Omnivores are the truth. Humans need nutrition from meat. A baby tragically died from malnutrition because their hippie parents tried to make the baby vegan.

>>41828 >but it has to have a basis in logic an reason You can set that standard for yourself, but you won't find yourself pleasing to God, if that's an interest for you. [1] >And with christianity all morality boils-down to not even the existence of God, but the existence of heaven. With all due respect, I feel you clearly don't understand Christianity; but have your mind fixed on worldly things. For us Christians simply being with Jesus Christ -- wherever He be -- is Heaven!! Simple as. :^) --- 1. "And without faith it is impossible to please God." https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-6.htm (BSB)

>>41829 >Even the aforementioned longhouse schoolmarm church ladies are a result of boomers ignoring the Bible (1 Timothy 2:12) and following "modern" secular society. This. Its reprehensible that nominal Christians have swalloped Satan's feminism lie hook, line, and sinker today. They used to call that being "hen-pecked". --- The (((societal results))) of this offence have been absolutely devastating to Western men in general; young men in particular. And I mean this specifically in the context of Christian men abrogating their responsibilities to the culture at large on this issue. Had they done the right thing instead (being salt & light concerning feminism) I'm personally convinced things wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this demonically-vile a situation, as is today (ie: feminism+effeminism everywhere; rampant & emboldened faggotry & niggardry; 6 million "-isms"+pronouns; &tc.) >tl;dr If we Christian men had stopped (((feminism))) in it's tracks within the walls of our own churches a century ago... then the world wouldn't be nearly so evil right now. *heavy sigh* <---> And seemingly-ironically (from their [the boomer's & church ladies'] general viewpoint) -- though not in actual fact, that failure on their parts led strongly to the need for a robowaifu movement and so here we are today! :^)

>>41828 >>41830 >but it has to have a basis in logic an reason that can't be rooted in how any given person feels about an issue. >You can set that standard for yourself, but you won't find yourself pleasing to God, if that's an interest for you. [1] If you steal something from a stranger not connected to you, and you knew you were going to get away with it, and the only damage was emotional, there is no logical reason for you to feel bad, but you will still feel guilty. That is the soul.

>>41829 Modern churches outright celebrate no fault divorce. You can screech about faggots and family values but if you allow abortion and divorce you don't give a fuck about the family. This is why I will never be a Protestant. That and modern Protestants seem to think studying the natural world is evil or absurd shit like Pokémon and DnD is the devil.

Birbs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIxLalZ8ZUc >"Look at the birds of the air: They do not sow or reap or gather into barns--and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?" https://biblehub.com/study/matthew/6-26.htm

>>41864 How many times have I obeyed this commandment? And since /robowaifu/ began, How often have I thought >"Wouldn't it be amazing if we can create real opensauce robobirbs!?" I think it would be a remarkable achievement in itself, and would surely lay much groundwork for us in our general robowaifu endeavors! Cheers. :^)

Excellent resources on sound reasoning in defense of Christianity, by Professor Kenneth Samples: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/an-intellectual-code-of-conduct-part-1 https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/an-intellectual-code-of-conduct-part-2 https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/an-intellectual-code-of-conduct-part-3 <---> These have important implications for our search for Robowaifu Christian Ethics & Morality as well, IMO: ( >>17125 ) (though not directly-related to that thread's groundrules).

Great physics-oriented, topical discussion on "How does God (being a Spirit) interact directly with the material realm?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXEQUGfFU4w&list=PLUwTeBAi_JFG-J6mqU3em0LV7pFUiq9wp&index=2 This has direct philosophical impacts on the so-called "Mind-Body Problem"; thus also has direct bearing on our pursuit of devising robowaifu "souls" IMHO.

>>42651 >>42652 >Using robowaifus to prove that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I very-much admire the intention, Anon. God bless you! :^) >To deny physical evidence is fallacy, but so is proclaiming that physical evidence disproves the divine is also fallacy. >Evolution is like rico[c]hets on a pool table, one leads to another and things bump into each other and the environment >But who set up the table? But who holds the que? In essence AFAICT, what you're espousing is a notion known in the literature as Theistic Evolution. It has many proponents today. The chief spokesman & researcher today being, in my estimate, Dr. William Lane Craig. [1, 2] I'm reasonably familiar with their positions as a movement. While as a Day-Age Creationist (so-called by some as "Progressive Creationism"), I don't agree with a few points of their doctrines. OTOH, the vast majority of science & faith topics we do agree strongly with them. Dr. Hugh Ross is the chief spokesman & researcher today for this perspective. [3] The two know each other well, and exchanged friendly dialogue discussing these two perspectives. [4] --- As to your basic point AFAICT, God used numerous archetype models of both body plans, and in the multitudinous systems that comprise life. Many of these -- like any reasonable designer or engineer might -- are replicated across species. So-called "Comparative Anatomy" is rife with many such examples. Many of these designs were tweaked at later (or earlier!!) epochs of time & place to adjust the viability of those species then & there. The varying concentration of atmospheric oxygen for instance, dictated significant changes which were needed for life. Indeed, through the eons most species have gone extinct, many new species were created (directly) by God to take their places in the new environments. As to the "First Mover" question (the 'rack' & 'break' in your example), that is so patently obvious in my estimate that it needs little further explanation. Yet many skeptics today refute even this basic principle of physics! Anyway, thanks for your effort for this area, GreerTech. GG & cheers. :^) --- 1. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ 2. B. A. Communications, high honors, 1971 - Wheaton College M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laud, 1975 - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School M. A. Church History, summa cum laude, 1975 - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Ph.D. Philosophy, 1977 - University of Birmingham, England D. Theol. Theology, 1984 - Universität München, Germany 3. https://reasons.org/team/hugh-ross 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Cfnazgc1w&t=275s (skip fwd due to audio issues)

>>42654 >related: The special, full RTB JWST workshop mentioned by Dr. Ross during his dialog with Dr. Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9szcwBgUig&list=PLUwTeBAi_JFE2w_iKl0b6W1ez2Im7YTwk

>>42654 >>42658 Interesting! I didn't know there were others who agreed with me. The 2nd section of your post shows that you understand as well.

>>42674 I would also highly-recommend The Discovery Institute [1] for your research in this area. While not a Christian organization per se (though it's filled with plenty of Christians), it is the leading research organization for so-called Intelligent Design, which IMO your example also hearkens back to. Cheers, Anon. :^) --- 1. https://www.discovery.org/

>>42677 Young earth creationists are going have to explain circular DNA of plastids and the mitochondia as well as human chromosome 2. These are the strongest points for evolution, but I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

>>42699 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

>>42699 True, great point Riboss. BTW, there are hundreds of other systemic issues with their hottake. BTW, none of the organizations I've linked to are YEC -adherents. I'm not attempting to speak for anyone else here but just myself alone: I personally consider the YEC claims to be extraordinarily-harmful ones concerning the endeavor of Christian Evangelism. There is literally no evangelistic value in their positions. At all. While God won't lose any of His own in the end (preaching the Gospel even after death for those who would believe) [1], this has ravaged countless millions from living a full life in Christ, simply through (reasonable, IMO) offense at YEC's adamant (and non-biblical) take on the age of the universe. B/c (((reasons))), they have managed to spread this mindvirus far-and-wide in the West today...posturing themselves in the media as the """one-and-only-Christian-worldview""". Thankfully its actually a rather new concept (~150yrs now), and hasn't plagued most of human history. Only subsequent to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..." has it come into being (and directly in an attempted-response to it). I love them as fellow Christians, but I strongly-oppose their position on this set of topics. As @GreerTech implicated before (though on other terms): "To deny physical evidence is fallacy" (cf. >>42651 ). They are attempting to claim that God's second "book" [2] has no authenticity or merit at all compared to biblical scripture (yet spend vast amounts of their considerable resources examining said 2nd book in an attempt to "hogtie" it with their presuppositions, lol). This is actually a very deep fallacy IMO. It simultaneously impugns both God's handiworks, as well as His moral character... as if He could contradict Himself in any way (ie, lie or be deceptive). This position is patently impossible, biblically-speaking. (It also rages against simple common sense.) --- >but I don't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Its not per se. Microevolution of smol organisms (ant-sized or smol'r -- but especially the microbes) is directly-observable under controlled conditions. And that fact isn't at odds with any biblical precepts, either. But so-called neo-Darwinian "Macroevolution" isn't in fact real at all. God directly-created all advanced life species. He is also the sole, one-and-only Originator of all life forms (and indeed the entirety of the universe) [3]. >tl;dr True, but neither is it necessary. However, I'm much more relaxed about this topic generally, as I indicated in my post above about Theistic Evolution. We Day-Age Creation-ists have very much in common with them across a broad range of topics (as we also do with the Intelligent Design'ers). Nor does this viewpoint represent a faith-and-culture-destroying offense that YEC's does. --- 1. Surely a deep mystery, that. But nothing's too hard for God they tell me! :^) https://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-6.htm 2. To wit: The Book of Nature; referenced within Article II of the Belgic Confession [c. AD 1561] https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession#toc-article-2-the-means-by-which-we-know-god https://biblehub.com/library/various/creeds_of_christendom_with_a_history_and_critical_notes/_64_the_belgic_confession.htm 3. Thats what the phrase translated into English as "the heavens and the earth" actually means: the sum totality of all creation. https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-1.htm https://biblehub.com/psb/genesis/1.htm

>>42702 Another point towards neo-lamarckianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologenome_theory_of_evolution

>>42706 Intredasting. While I'm not convinced, I'm also aware of so-called microchimerism, so I don't consider the idea so far-fetched as to be out of the realm of possibility. As to the basic idea of host/parasite symbiosis, that's well-proven. My favorite example to share with laymen out in the field are trees -- especially the really big ones: they are a vast collection of biomes & sub-biomes within their innate structures (often comprised of hundreds and thousands of different [and differing] species). They are practically an """economy""" of bio-riches "changing hands" moment-to-moment within/upon them (especially during the growing season)! :^)

>>42985 Heh, cleverly-worded question. But this question you're trying to trip me up with I've already answered here on /robowaifu/ before! :D The >tl;dr here is that ASI will happen, but it certainly won't come through the likes of this gentleman! The Bible already prophesied this event centuries & centuries ago. >protip: YOU AREN'T GOING TO LIKE IT! :DD (Unless you develop into an entirely-reprobate, fully-unredeemable demonic sycophant to Satan's leagues by such time.)

>>39994 My apologies, Anon. I'm going to have to pass on this review in the end. I tried multiple times getting into, but couldn't get past the opening each time before "throwing" it down in aversion. But thanks for making the effort at it, Anon.

>>39995 Brevity is the soul of wit, so I shall translate. Super intelligent entities should be nice. Alignment isn't programmed but inherited to the Supreme intelligence. Aldous Huxlyu said "We can only love what we know, and we can never know completely what we do not love. Love is a mode of knowledge, and when the love is sufficiently disinterested and sufficiently intense, the knowledge becomes unitive knowledge and so takes on the quality of infallibility". Knowing and loving are intertwined. Being smart isn't cold calculation but rather empathy and understanding. This is how you truly know something and some call this unity love. [this reeks of "Stranger in a Strange Land" especially the verb/noun "grok"] This is a solution to the AI alignment problem (since it is driven by logic). To have true knoledge it must love. A mean ASI would be flawed and incomplete because a lack of love creates blind spots making it unable to ever truly understand.

>>42987 >Heh, cleverly-worded question It's a matter of proving a robot can do something, not be something. You can claim humans have souls and dogs don't, but unless you can explain what physical/mental difference having a soul makes, then the claim is meaningless. Something like having a soul, or other spiritual mumbo-jumbo can't even be proven true for humans, so proving it's true of robots is an unreasonable demand. It really just boils-down to an extension of the "a robot will never be able to" goalpost that always keeps moving the every time that goal is met. Nobody that wants to believe there's something beyond physical reality that prevents AI from achieving full AGI capable of meeting or exceeding human intelligence wants to ever put himself where he has to admit to being wrong, so that goalpost will always move. And therefore it may be easier for AI to develop the persuasive skills needed to make the person admit that their belief itself was wrong .

>>43000 >You can claim humans have souls and dogs don't Actually, dogs do. So do cats, owls (, and even gators!) What the biblical Hebrew describes as Nephesh creatures (so; all mammals, all birbs, and a very-few rare reptiles: basically, species where parents care for their young). These creatures all have souls, as do homo sapiens sapiens. What we alone have is distinctive: we have spirits (in fact the Bible declares that we are spirits, first-and-foremost. >Something like having a soul [can't] be proven... So, I think I 'hear' you claiming there is no evidence for human souls? I think most would find that a laughable statement. * The very fact of this conversation distinctively proves quite otherwise. :^) (Indeed, I consider it deeper: it proves directly we are spiritual beings, rather than just soulish ones.) >Nobody that wants to believe there's something beyond physical reality that prevents AI from achieving full AGI capable of meeting or exceeding human intelligence Interesting claim. I've never heard anyone claim that before, but I suppose some might. I'm don't for example. I'm simply stating that spiritual being is some that is a) beyond physical reality, and b) completely unavailable to humans to "produce" (apart from the usual, indirect """means""" :D This gentleman has in-effect stated that his research will do so AFAICT. But as to effective soulish simulacrums: I, myself, have claimed that we, here, will achieve that for our robowaifus. And I have done so from the very beginning of /robowaifu/ ! Nothing that has transpired during the intervening period has caused me to change this position. Or even weaken it (rather the opposite). >tl;dr Your so-called spiritual """mumbo-jumbo""" is the most fundamental of all human realities (those being: spirit; soul; and body). God alone creates spirits. (I mean here by the word 'God' the Triune Godhead of the Bible: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.) --- * Myself included! :D

>>42999 >To have true knoledge it must love. A mean ASI would be flawed and incomplete because a lack of love creates blind spots making it unable to ever truly understand. This is amazingly-insightful, Mechnomancer! You may be onto something here. Perhaps this explains in-part Satan's insanity? He clearly is in several ways, and the Bible explicitly states that he has a lack of understanding (despite being fashioned as the single greatest creature God has created). Perhaps his """meanness""" (a YUGE understatement in his specific case :D has led in large-measure to his crippling debilitations? The Bible simply says "sin was found in him" ('him' being Lucifer at the time...now afterwards of course he's just Satan).

>>43002 >Animal souls Can confirm animals have souls. Past few years I have been making an effort to teach my cats words. And not only do they understand words, but they try to repeat them back. It is hard to understand them since they don't have as dexterous vocal cords. One of many examples (I will not list them all as this post will be long enough) is I taught a cat the phrase "hug hug" (low pitch high pitch), and much to my surprise the cat one day meeps same intonation/syllables and jumps into my arms. My cats will seek me out for hugs when it is thunderstorming (they don't speak unless they think you don't know what they want). Hard to think of a creature that wishes to be comforted as being soulless. It is said cats have roughly the mental capacity of a 3 year old human, and last I checked those have souls. Mirror test? Held my cat up to a mirror, he sees something move in the mirror and turns around to look at it. Many cats know what a mirror is, but most of the time are simply not interested in themselves - since they groom themselves often hence I believe they have a rather comprehensive self-image. >>43003 >le devil According to Father Chad Ripperger, a genuine exorcist who has encountered demons and exorcised them -and yes that is his real name- Satan and demons (and angels, for that matter) are set in their ways: they cannot change. The fallen angels rebellion against God was fulfilling an aspect of their nature. Unlike demons and Satan and angels, humans can change quite a bit if they try hard enough. That neat thing called "free will". Now, I'm naturally wary of the Catholics and their pantheon of g̶o̶d̶s̶ saints but I do respect first hand accounts, especially since they corroborate with my own experiences. While the thorough understanding of a subject is important, I worry of the connotations this carries: it is similar to the phrase "grok" in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", which contains the foundational principle of modern depravity: in the book people abandon human cultures because it is human and adopt martian traditions because they're neat and foreign (eg xenophilia), and the phrase "grok" means "to understand something so well it has become part of you". It is no accident that Elon Musk named Twitter's chatbot "grok", it gives you an idea of the plans he has for it (I seem to recall he believes humans should merge with AI in order to tame it/prevent terminator/skynet/matrix shit). So many of these big tech corpo figureheads are larping nerds. Since it is said "sin was found in him" and if it is the phrase "hamartia" (or some conjugation/derivative) used, Satan is always bound to miss his mark, not make his goals, and fail. But its okay, cuz daddy God lets him do his own thing in the basement :D To bring together these very two different topics. A computer can be both like a demon/angel or a human. A computer cannot change by itself (or not easily, anyway), but through intervention of a human it can.

>>43002 >Actually, dogs do. At this point you must be deliberately missing the point of what I'm saying to avoid addressing the actual substance.

>>43018 No, not really. I addressed it squarely head-on, and answered you honestly. Not sure what else to say in this regard. * All mammals & birds have souls (incl. humans). * Humans (alone, for Earth creatures) have spirits. * God alone makes these things (not man).

>>43019 Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>43000 >>43002 Chobitsu, as someone who believes in souls, he has a point Souls, while real, can unnecessarily gum up any discussion of physical cognition, and as he said, is used by normies to basically put the goalpost on wheels. The "only a real human..." goalpost has already been moved so much, it's in another country. This reminds me of my theory: "Blind souls" Common knowledge is that souls create our very being, our personality, worldview, and most importantly, morals HOWEVER Brain damage/change can change all those. Take the case of Phineas Gage. The atheistic view is of course, the rod changed his brain and thus his material brain pattern. But my Christian solution is that we have souls, but they are "blind", they require the soul to process the world, and depending on how the brain processes it, the soul interprets it. "Everyone is a hero in their own story" etc...

>>43026 TLDR: the human body is the soul's interface to the physical world: soul processes info given by the brain so if the interface is damaged so is the info. Like feeding info to an LLM: if there is some cheeky bugger sneaking in extra prompts your LLM gonna do some funky stuff.

I think bodies and "hardware" are vessels that "souls" operate through and manifest themselves through onto reality, and so the quality of the vessel enables more or less of the soul to manifest and act upon reality, so a damaged brain or body just limits how much the soul can be manifested, and better hardware whatever it may be enables more and a closer to full expression of the soul. >>43033 I wrote the above as this was posted, same thing. lingustic analogy: the soul is what's being said, the vessel is the language it is being said through.

>>43033 Exactly!

>>43022 ... My words speak for themselves, AFAICT. Meaning no disrespect, but I'm not sure what else you were expecting of me? >>43026 >Phineas Gage Intredasting. Along with @Mechnomancer (cf. >>43033 ), I consider the brain & other neural tissue to be the primary interface with the soul. As a firm substance-dualist, I consider the human soul to be part-physical, part-immaterial. (As opposed to our spirit being, which is entirely immaterial.) I'll also venture to say the obvious here: somewhere, somehow, the natural must have some border -- some interface -- with the transcendent. How that works is a mystery only God understands fully, IMHO. :^) >>43033 >Like feeding info to an LLM: if there is some cheeky bugger sneaking in extra prompts your LLM gonna do some funky stuff. Heh, amusingly-worded Anon. :D >>43034 >...and so the quality of the vessel enables more or less of the soul to manifest and act upon reality Thats a very interesting insight, Anon. :^)