Two friends sit down at In-N-Out (the true best burger chain) after a long workout and take their first bite.
“This burger is so dang good. This is what true happiness feels like. God is good.”
“Where did ‘God is good’ come from? Why would you suddenly mention him?”
“Well obviously because God has given me the ability to feel emotions like love and joy. How else would I feel these feelings?”
“Well, because of the hormones that run through your body. Emotions are just a concept that your brain uses to categorize the different patterns of hormones your body releases when reacting to certain environments. Love is no different. Because it is more beneficial for humans to stay in groups or packs, we evolved to ‘feel good’ when we are around others because specific hormones such as dopamine are released.”
“Then would you say that if a piece of technology is given hormones and is told to react in certain ways based on the combination of hormones, that piece of technology is essentially feeling emotions?”
“That’s such an interesting question. For now, we don’t know but I don’t see why it wouldn’t. If we perfectly replicated a human body by placing all of the atoms exactly where they needed to be and we set up all of the processes that you and I have, would that work? Would the replicated “human” be able to move and think like all of us do? If a robot is given the same hormones as humans and the ability to react to them in the same way that we do, does that mean this robot has emotions? I think that it does. If it does, then I feel like it is pretty intuitive that hurting/causing unpleasant emotions in this robot is wrong. However, if we don’t consider the robot to have emotions, would it be wrong to inflict harm on it?”
“I think that what the robot would feel is not emotions. The robot is not given a soul and is therefore unable to feel emotions. What we feel is something much more complex and unreplicable by physical means.”
“And how would you define a soul? What is it?”
“I believe that there are two parts that make you human. A soul and a physical body. The soul is something nonphysical and outside of this world. I can’t give you an exact definition of a soul, but it is what essentially gives you consciousness and emotions. It is the part of you that defines your identity and makes you who you are. The soul is what is given by God and is what separates you from the robot. ”
“Then, by your interpretation of the soul, how would you define consciousness? If it isn’t physical, would it be possible for a human to ever lose or transfer consciousness? If we were theoretically able to upload your mind and thoughts into a computer, would that computer be “you”? If the requirement to be a human is to have a soul and a physical body, would you say that the “person” inside the computer is no longer human?”
“Firstly, if it were possible to transfer your consciousness into a computer, I believe that it would be a sin as death is part of what makes us human. However, regarding the question of the loss of consciousness/soul, I don’t think that it is possible. I believe that there are two worlds, the spiritual world (heaven and hell) and the physical world. The soul is something that is created in the spiritual world and transferred into the physical world when you are born. After death, the soul is released back into the physical world. The soul isn’t something that can be destroyed or lost, only transferred between these worlds. If your soul is somehow able to be transferred into a computer, I think that it would still technically be you because it still holds your personality and emotions. On that note, how would you define a human?”
“To me, a human is just somebody who has the biological build of humans and is able to do everything a human does,”
“Then by your definition, would a human who is born differently (ex: with a missing limb) or somebody who is incapacitated because of a conflict no longer be a human?”
“No, of course, there are some exceptions,”
“Where do you draw the line between human and non-human? Could you theoretically define a monkey as a human whose birth just ended up leading to a slightly different physical form?”
“I am no biologist by any means, but I’m sure there are more than a couple of major genetic differences between a monkey and a human. The genetic markings are how we can differentiate humans and other organisms,”
“Wow, that’s very interesting. I guess that is where we agree to disagree. The drawing line between a human and a monkey for me would be the introduction of a soul. A monkey would have consciousness but not a soul. Very similar to Aristotle’s theory of the tripartite soul. He believed that organisms have anywhere from 1 to 3 parts of a soul. Firstly, the vegetative soul. This is the part of the soul that encourages growth and reproduction (like the name suggests, organisms like trees or plants would have this soul). Then the animal soul. This is the part of the soul that induces mobility, sensation, and experience. The last part of Aristotle’s tripartite soul theory is reason, which is the piece that allows thought, reflection, and abstract reasoning. I believe that the first two parts of Aristotle’s theory are not quite parts of the soul, but rather a more physical aspect of organisms. Instead, the last part of the soul is what truly makes up the soul, and in addition to the ability of self-questioning is the ability to recognize and praise God.”
“I see. So a major difference in how we define identity is how we describe the ability to self-question. To me, self-questioning is just a complex form of thinking that we can participate in thanks to the unique structure of our brain. ”
Then the world exploded
The End
First off, I would like to make two disclaimers regarding the dialogues. I am not an expert in either of the fields, so I was not able to fully address some of the questions and my goal of this dialogue was not to favor one side over the other, but to introduce two major schools of thought.
Materialism is the ideology that everything in the world is physical, everything that we can do can be replicated by technology, everything can be sensed or measured, and we are changed by physical means.
Dualism is the belief that there are two parts of the world, physical and nonphysical, we are self-aware, we can control our urges and desires, and we have a conscience/sense of morality. (Christianity is a subset of Dualism).
Here are some questions that arose for me during this process.
How do Christians draw the line between helping humans with technology and creating something sinful and not of God’s will? For example, if somebody lost their leg and replaced it with a prosthetic, I can guarantee you that nobody would believe it to be sinful. However, to what extent does that hold true? If somebody lost their entire body except their brain, would it be a sin to give them an entirely new robotic body?
If there is nothing more to life than the physical aspect, what is the purpose of life? Why do we value life so much, if we are ultimately all just atoms and particles? If pain and suffering are ultimately ended because of the help of technology, would it be okay to commit mass genocide and live life however we want as unrestricted as we want? Additionally, if all of our emotions and feelings are just hormones being emitted, why do we categorize some as good and some as bad? If both happiness and anger are just chemicals flowing through our body, why avoid anger in the first place? Why strive for happiness?
I really enjoyed reading this article! The format presented the topic about the materialism vs. dualism debate in a very digestible form through conversation. Moreover, the content of this article really made me consider what can really differentiate humans because with the rise of AI and advancements in technology, the lines between human and machine are becoming increasingly blurred. As we develop AI systems that can mimic human behavior, emotions, and decision-making processes, the question arises: What makes us uniquely human? Is it our ability to feel and experience consciousness in a way that AI cannot, or is it something deeper, perhaps related to the concept of the soul or a non-physical essence that AI cannot replicate? While I can understand the argument of a differentiating factor of a soul, as an agnostic, I am of the personal opinion that honestly, there would reach a point where robots would be considered human in everyday life.
Additionally, your article made me think about the Ship of Theseus paradox, which raises a similar question about identity and continuity. In the paradox, a ship is gradually replaced with new parts until every part has been substituted. At what point does it stop being the original ship and become something entirely new? If we apply this to humans, as technology advances and we begin to replace more and more of our body with machines—such as cybernetic limbs, organs, or even brain implants—when does a person stop being "human" in the traditional sense and start being something else? Does a person remain human as long as they retain their consciousness or sense of self, even if their physical form is largely synthetic? Or, once enough changes occur, does the essence of being human transform, much like the Ship of Theseus, into something fundamentally different, even if it appears outwardly the same? Just some thoughts to consider :)
This article offers a thought-provoking dialogue that delves into complex philosophical questions surrounding the nature of identity, emotions, technology, and the soul. Through an engaging conversation between two friends, it contrasts materialism, which views emotions as chemical reactions, with dualism, which sees the soul as a non-physical essence. The discussion raises profound ethical and existential questions, such as whether replicating human emotions in technology would constitute a true emotional experience, and whether using technology to enhance or replace parts of the body could be considered sinful. While the dialogue offers a balanced exploration of these perspectives, it would benefit from further depth, particularly in developing the materialist view and exploring additional philosophical theories. Ultimately, the article encourages readers to reflect on the meaning of human existence and the role of technology in shaping our future.