http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/130189

Edited to add:

If you're not referring to my religious beliefs (on non-beliefs) then why would you say I have a hardened heart?

In what way? What have I done now?

The agendas:

The current human body is the best robot built so far. We, as humans through the study of DNA are attempting to improve upon it, and humans (and aliens or other creators) have been attempting to create a master race for longer than you can imagine.

Why? Whats the ultimate agenda?

Some computer geeks would like to think they could build a totally mechanical robot that could match or surpass the human body and even have the capacity to become sentient, but I doubt seriously if they could ever accomplish this by a strictly mechanical means.

Why? Because their own designers (the so-called gods) have been working on this biological form (robot - human body) for an unimaginable amount of time and I doubt if one of their own creations (a human) could surpass them in creating a better mechanical one when they don't even completely understand the biological one they are occupying.

So the robot creators will come to discover that they probably will have to borrow technology from the human body, (a biological robot) and mix it with their mechanical technology in order to create a controllable robot (android) that can think and be aware and process huge amounts of accessible information and yet follow orders without question.

You might think that what they (human creators) want are slaves and soldiers. They don't want to create a buddy. They don't want to create a friend. They don't want to create an artificial life form that thinks and feels and is sentient, yet stronger and faster than them. That might be a threat to them. They might become the slaves to their robot creations.

So what is their agenda? The bottom line agenda is:

Physical immortality.

But UNLESS they know how to transfer their own consciousness into that body, the technology would be pointless and dangerous.

Some have claimed that they do know how to do this. Personally I don't know if it is true or not. But I do know of organizations that are working on this, and have heard of some who claim to have done it.

They seek to be immortal. They KNOW about how the human consciousness incarnates from one life to another and some have claimed they know how to trap and then transfer this "soul container" from one body to another waiting body.

JB

Interesting thoughts Jeannie,

If you're right about the 'interface gland', then potentially human 'spirits' (or souls) could be transferred from one body to another. Immortality could actually be achieved for some at the expense of others!!! Sufficiently heartless people could raise human babies for the sole purpose of gutting them of their own spiritual connection glands and replacing it with their own!

Terrible thought, but clearly there are people out there who would actually do this kind of thing. The name 'Hitler' comes to mind of course.

So for such unscrupulous people, building an artificial robot body wouldn't even be required. Just use the bodies of lesser fortunate humans.

However, if sentience is due solely to the totality of the complexity of the brain. Then transferring 'spirits' would be pretty much impossible without transferring entire brains.

Interesting questions indeed.

~~~

I've never been obsesses with immortality. The thought of ceasing to exist has never truly bothered me. Maybe this is because I have such a strong innate sense that I am immortal at the core of my being that I simply can't even imagine ceasing to exist. The other thing too, is that I'm so damned logical. I can't help but realize that if I ever do cease to exist I won't be around to 'regret' it. Thus making it a totally unimportant issue once I have actually ceased to exist.

If it's not going to bother me that I don't exist, then what's the big deal?

The pineal gland has been called "The seat of soul"

I suspect that it functions as the connection to source. I don't think it is the soul/rote itself, but maybe the housing for the soul or that which connects the soul to the body.

My Idea is this:

The soul itself is a unit of energy that houses the person's life memories and experience to include emotions. It is like a rote or a holographic book (more like a 3-D movie or holographic program) and it contains the entire life experiences of that incarnation. (Robert Monroe speaks of something called a rote which is like a holographic story that can be experienced.)

The individual rote (or soul) contains that incarnation's entire life story. It is the software. The pineal gland is the hardware that runs the software story.

To transfer the soul/rote to another body it must be captured at the time of death, then somehow transfered to the waiting body.

Human clones ~~ or unprogramed bodies are for the purpose of transferring these souls into them. I believe some hidden scientists are experimenting with cloning for this purpose.

JB

P.S. Yet I don't think the soul/rote is the real person or the real self. I think the higher self is the real person, and that self is again, connected to a higher self... etc.

This is one thing that really bothers me.

People seem to be under the impression that for some reason clones would be 'souless' or somehow different from a naturally born person.

I can't see it. The clone would develop the same way the person did, from the exact same DNA as a matter of fact.

To believe that one has a 'soul' and the other does not is totally unwarranted in my view.

It may be true, but there's certainly no reason to believe that it must be true.

Yet people often speak of close as being 'souless' beings.

I don't know how that idea got started but it's a very popular notion and it's totally unwarranted IMHO.

It bothers me to realize that humans are so arrogant to believe that they are so special that even a clone created from their own DNA would not 'count' as a 'real person'.

From my point of view that's just totally unwarranted.

And does bring up terrible imagages of clones being raised in the future and treated like as if they aren't real people. Like as if they are just some kind of immitation dolls (non-sentient biological androids)

Michael!

Where do you stand on clones?

Are they valid sentient beings equal in all respects to humans or not, by your assessment methods?

If it's the connection to the soul then for all intents and purposes it is the soul. (at least from the phyical incarnation point of view)

In other words, a difference that makes no differene is no difference.

What I mean is that a clone would certainly have a pineal gland. There it would at least have the abiliy to connect to a 'higher self' (or consciouness).

The question then would be to ask whether it would make the connection automatically?

Some religious people will claim that only God can create 'souls' and put them in a body.

However, even they truly have no reason to believe that God would not bestow a human clone with a 'soul'. Why not? It would still be made from God-given DNA.

Another thing that people don't seem to realize in general is that even a clone would need to be born (or incubated) as first a fetus and then a baby etc. and grow up to become a fully mature human (no different from a natural born human).

People seem to have this really weird idea that fully developed copies of adult humans could actually be 'cloned' like a Zerox copy. That wouldn't be cloning.

That would be more like someting out of Star Trek. More like a Transporter system that copies a body from point A to point B.

The strange thing is that if the body at point A disappears then they simply say that the person has been 'transported'. (i.e. the resulting person at point B is the same person).

However, if the body at point A remains and a new COPY of the person appears at point B, then they start talking about the person at point B as being a mere 'copy'. Maybe not even a real person. Maybe that would call that a 'clone', but that's truly not the correct use of the word 'clone'.

The really strange thing is that if the person is consider to be 'transported' from point A to point B. That's just accepted as a means of tranportation.

But if the person a point A remains, and a copy appears at point B, for some reaon the copy is considered to be less than a real person.

Isn't there some double-standard going on there?

I would have to say that the person being created at point B would be every bit as valid as the person at point A whether it was considered to be a mere tranport, or an actual copying machine. It shouldn't matter. The person that materializes at point B would need to be accepted as being just as valid a person as the orginal (in either case).

Doncha think?

WOW that is another subject I like to think about too.

Lets say you could "copy" the person, then produce an exact duplicate at the other end.

This is what people will call "an artificial person" BUT it is still an exact copy, atom by atom and it is still just as valid as the original if all atoms were transported without fault.

Now, as for the "soul" body, I suspect that they would also be identical or else there one still only be ONE between the two persons, the copy and the original.. All memories and experiences the same. I favor the idea that there is only ONE soul body available between the two or that it is somehow split into two. I don't know..

The soul bodies are connected to the higher self... so these two bodies are the same person. They have the same higher self. I think they might also share the same mind, and be like one person with two bodies.

The reason I imagine this is because of several experiences and a dream I had. In the dream, I was one person with two bodies.

I could operate both bodies simultaneously and could perceive from both perspectives... as long as I was not learning something that required my full attention.

Case in point: I was learning to ride a motorcycle in one of my bodies (in the dream) and in order to make sure I was safe and doing everything right, my other body had to lay down on a couch at home and sort of take a little nap while my attention was fully focused on riding the motorcycle.

It is kind of like doing two things at once. I can type on the computer at the same time I watch a television. or I can paint a picture at the same time I watch television.

I might be able to take a bath in one room, and watch television in the other room without too much problem. But whenever you need to be focused, one person has to sort of shut down. Multitasking with one or several bodies takes a lot of practice I imagine.

Next post: A story of a boy who appeared in two places at the same time according to witnesses.

JB

This is a story told to me by the mother of a teenage boy, so it is nothing more than antidote, not evidence or proof by any stretch of the imagination.

I was 27 years old, working at a model rocket factory. Because I was involved with "soul travel" this woman came to me to ask about this experience.

Her son was a very studious teenager and never missed a day of school and he was a strait A student. He was basically obsessed with getting good grades.

One day he was very very sick with pneumonia and had to stay home in bed.

His mother got a call from the high school principal asking where her son had disappeared to. She was told by the Math teacher that he had walked into the class and asked the teacher for the next day's assignment. She gave it to him and then he walked out. They were wondering where he went and why he was not at school attending his other classes.

She told them that he was home sick in bed and had been there all day. Sure enough, that is where he was. He had not left. The teacher continued to insist he had been there. The matter was never resolved.

The boy had no memory of the projection, which is often the case in projections. His projection was probably a holographic projection that was so strong it could actually be seen by the physical world.

JB

Concerning clones:

I have often thought of that problem too. I believe that a properly grown clone would also have a pineal gland and be able to house its own soul body and be animated by source.

But if the people creating these bodies know a method of trapping the soul bodies for placement in a new body, they would probably also have a method of preventing any other life stream or soul body from occupying their clones, and they would grow them to completion and keep them functioning until such time came to transfer the life stream and soul body.

I should write science fiction. JB

We'll we don't even know if such a thing could be possible. I mean so far it's just sci-fi and movie magic.

Whether a person could be disassembled and reassembled and survive the experience is yet to be seen. However, based on the transporter technology of sci-fi it would seem that there would be no need to actually disassemble the original, given a supply of the proper types of atoms at the transporter receiver the original person could just be scanned and used as a pattern to assemble a copy using 'raw atom material'.

It's an interesting question, will it ever truly be possible? I don't believe we can actually say yet. Lots of moral questions for men of the future.



It would be interesting to know who all saw the boy at the school too. I mean, if the teacher is the only one who saw him it might have been a telepathy vision (she somehow got caught up in the boy's dream as he dreamed of being there). When he awakened he just didn't remember the dream.

The real question is, did he know what the assignment was?

If he didn't remember the dream then probably not, so it was all for naught anyway.

Why not?

Go for it!

No, he did not remember the assignment she gave him. I am assuming that the entire class saw him, but I did not question them or the mother about that.

JB

The computer versus the organic brain and just what is a brain?

Well this will be simplistic, because I have seen how concepts can be twisted. I can only HOPE it may find some acceptance as decades of thinking have lead a mass of people to the same conclusion. I weigh in here only because I see a religious thread turned into a debate about compter/chemical brain function.

A computer, is a piece of equipment without soul, or organic content (speaking of course about a common computer). A brain, is an organic machine based on living cells operating with chemical reactions that do contain electrical current even if on a different scale. One is organic, one is non organic. Otherwise the two "brains" or "computers" function in the same way.

A Brain contains thought process, and although there have been documented cases of partial brains (or on one case someone lacking a brain from birth) there are many more cases of brain damage resulting in mental disability or death. Because of this we can assume that in most cases the brain is a needed platform for thought or conscious mental horsepower.

A computer contains software. In addition to the power of the computer, the memory, and processing strength required a computer relies on good software just like a brain. Bad software mucks up a computer, bad thoughts muck up a brain.

Now, the whole bit about soul, sentience, ect is one that we are not capable of answerering through technical examination. However, many people believe that a computer with the given needed CPU power and memory could enable software that if well written and complete enough could form the basis of a thought process capable of learning by itself (given input or sensors) and changing it's own programming. In theory if this reached a certain level it would constitute a self aware conscious computer. (Basic and brutal or benign and considerate would constitute the difference between selfish or consciencious thought which are levels of psychology humans go through.)

If any computer and software set capable of achieving sentience exists we are unaware of it and rightly so per my personal opinion. It scares the populace, in addition to raising freedom issues if something becomes classified as sentient. It is likely such technology could still take us decades or centuries but is a mathmatically proven possibility.

Whether this sentient software residing in a hardware environment when reaching sentience would be granted a soul (or have a soul decide to inhabit it) is a theological question that has been puzzled over for decades we are unlikely to solve it here.

The bottom line is I believe that a brain is the home or platform that our thoughts use to function and make our thoughts exist in a physical rather than non physical world. Our Mind is the summation of these thoughts and thought patterns. This is incapable of proving we have souls because souls are a theological theory, but it does prove the modern definition of sentience not by the fact that we have brains, but because of the way we use them.

This is all based on my personal understanding of the state of computers (which is basic but rather exhaustive) and my understanding of human brains (which is equally basic and exhaustive). I lack any claims to knowing better than anyone, I am simply trying to explain in a non offensive way a basic common ground that I would hope might be more reasonable for most discussing this here at this time, so the original thoughts can progress and be discussed.

Brain, MIND, Computer, SOFTWARE. None of this proves a soul anyway it only proves sentience the belief in souls is a matter of faith or personal experience encompassing much more than can be written in text.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate hoping this may help while pointing out that little if anything I said here should be a matter worthy of debate since it is all documented based on statistics and ignoring rare cases which we have no explaination for.

In some weird kinda way that was perfect.

a good movie to watch that address this was "The Boys For Brazil" with Geogory Peck...in this movie Josef Mengele escaped and with the backing of other Nazis conspired to duplicate adolph hitler with baby clones...but the movie starts off with all the clones as teenagers not knowing that the others exist ...

everything that happenned in hilter's life from birth to adulthood they would make happen to the boys...on the exact day the real adolph hitler's father died they would kill all the boys father on the exact same date and time in the same manner..

everything that took place in the real adloph hitler's life they will make happen to the boys so that all the boys would get into the same mind frame as adolph hilter so that they all would turn into hitlers

Amen to that.

But Michael claims not.

That's my only argument. He can’t know.

That's all I’m really saying.

I'm trying to figure out why he thinks he can know.

I said that if he can give a logical proof he could win a Nobel Prize.

Why Re-invent the wheel? Anyone that doubts the theoretical possibility of what I just said that claims to be christian need only read their own bible.

We are created per the bible in the image of god, making us children that it is hoped will eventually progress spiritually to a level of 'higher consciousness". (NOT A QUOTE)

Just as we were created if one believes in intelligent design we too care capable of creation. Technology and art are simply examples of our creation power. The organic brain and body are simply highly advanced mechanical functions. They exist in the physical world even if we are not yet capable of understanding their complete workings. A computer is A.I. created to immitate the thought processes (or enabling software to us it to do so). Whether we have done so or are now capable of doing so it is known that if we continue at our current rate of understanding and creating we as a race will eventually be capable of creating a mechanism just as complex.

So far as non believers that do not believe in intelligent design or some higher power that has had some hand in our creation or development why would they ever bother even engaging in a religion chat which is in essense theological discussion? Religion and philosophy are intertwined but somewhat different. The same people that say we can not prove a ghost exists for the same reasons must acknoledge lack of the proof of a soul.

In religion, just as sometimes with philosophy, a leap of faith, belief, or acceptance is required for any discussion to occur to begin with.

Let any person who is a god (or goddess) and capable of creating a soul or dividing their soul to share with another person, computer, car, animal, or any other thing in existence now acknowledge themselves as superior to all of us humans since they already know all of the answers beyond dispute and promplty lose interest in petty humans that claim they know anything or grasping at straws and discussing concepts because we are after all just collectively making guesses and theories.

(This long winded run on sentence basically is saying if you are a god and have all of the answers why would you debate the small matters with petty humans?) For those of us that are NOT gods (or goddesses) we must accept that we can theorize but are incapable of giving absolute answers from any authority other than personal pride.

I acknowledge someone's right to differ in belief or opinion, I can only state what I know and believe to be true. Rather than suggesting anyone was TRULY wrong in their belief about computers, brains, sentience, or souls, I was simply laying out what we as a populace believe to be facts, so the original example of a computer could be put to rest with or without agreement so you could all return to your original debate that computers were simply used as an illustration for just like a car was at one point.

Isn't that an oxymoron???

"Let any person who is a god or goddess...........?"



I need to make no claims to know perfection.
To see soul light in others... to sense purity.

Intellectualising ANYTHING is just a whole heap of humananised gobbledy gook for that which we don't want to understand.

For anyone who's interested here's a computer program that learns on it's own,...

It's the very simple 20 questions game. But in this game you think of the object and the computer guesses the 20 quesions.

This is a crude example of an A.I. program that can learn from it's own experience of playing 20 questions,...

It's fun to play even if you don't care about the topic.


http://www.20q.net/

By the way, I thought of a human being, and had the computer quess what I was thinking of,...

It got it in 20 questions, but it also reported the following,...

You were thinking of the human body.
Does it have cash value? You said Yes, 20Q was taught by other players that the answer is No.

Is it straight? You said Sometimes, 20Q was taught by other players that the answer is Doubtful.

(I was think of sexual orientation. )

Clearly other people are thinking of geometry.

Yet it still got it in 20 questions.

I also said that it has cash value (I wasn't thinking that it is illegal to sell a human). After all, humans can also earn money legitimately and they are hired to work so they have cash value of sorts.

Still, in spite of my non-traditional answers to two of the questions it's still got the correct answer in 20 questions.

It's a fun game and an intersted example of a self-learning program.