Moore vs. Creationism
Posted by: jorrizza in Philosophy, Religion, tags: Artificial intelligence, Christianity, Dualism, PhilosophyIn this short article I will share my views upon the future, and why creationism has no place in it. A warning in advance; this is merely conjecture, although highly probable, still only a product of my imagination.
Like Santayana once stated, before we can take a look at the future we have to dig into the past. Creationism has it’s roots in the original biblical Christian dogma. God has created man in his own image, and our souls will be dealt with after our death based upon our loyalty to the dogma during our lives. During many, many years after Christianity became the de facto faith in the western world, philosophers have slowly stripped Christianity down to what it is now. A collection of shaky assumptions, easily taken down by modern reason.
One of these assumptions, dualism, has never been successfully challenged by reason. There have been, and still are, several philosophers who have an interesting view on things. The so-called father of modern philosophy, Descartes, was one of the first to describe dualism in a less theistic way, in a way acceptable by the standards within the level of reason mankind had reached in the seventeenth century. He described the two aspects of the human being. The mind and the brain. The mind, according to Descartes, is the non-physical part which encompasses self-awareness. The brain would takes care of the intelligence and the physical interaction with our surroundings. The Christian creationist’s view is easily applicable on this model, hence the largely theistic following of Cartesian dualism. The model has been refined over the years, like the removal of the idea of a gland as the link between the mind and the brain. But the basics have been preserved and are still fueling many philosophical debates today.
There wouldn’t be any debate if there wasn’t a movement pleading against dualism. And remember, the case against dualism is a case against Christian dogma. A large variety of philosophers are forming a formidable counterweight against the aging Cartesian dualistic model. Usually these counter arguments have a scientific background. There’s the argument from the physicists, who claim that dualism breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The biologists and doctors say brain damage can cause personality disorders. Psychologists are reporting physical reactions to mental problems. And there’s of course Occam’s razor, which simply asks why dualism should exist in the first place. All these people haven’t been able to kill off the Cartesian dualism once and for all.
The final blow to the very existence of the weakened concept “soul” will come from a very unexpected corner of science. One of the greatest, if not the greatest, logician Alan Turing. His ideas are still used in the foundations of modern computer science. His other major achievement is often overlooked. Turing saw the raw potential of computer science and it’s role in the creation of true artificial intelligence. According to Turing, a computer, if powerful enough, should be able to think individually. It should be able to be conscious, while being entirely physical. If such a computer could ever be built, the entire dualistic world view would cease to exist. Theists mocked Turing and when it turned out he was gay, which was a criminal offense at the time, he became an easy target. Soon after his prosecution and obliteration of his scientific career he died, under questionable circumstances. Many people believe he was killed because of his radically new ideas.
And then along came Gordon Moore, with a company indirectly fulfilling Turing’s dream. In 1965 Moore published a paper, “The experts look ahead – Cramming more components onto integrated circuits”. The paper describes an exponential increase in the amount of components that will fit onto a single chip. This increase is responsible for the exponential growth of computing power, storage capacity and bandwidth available in computers. This paper has been coined Moore’s Law, simply because his assumptions were bang on.
If we continue this exponential trend, following Moore’s Law, mankind will be able to effectively rebuild the human brain in electronics, and thus the mind in software. And this important breakthrough isn’t that far away. The human brain is capable of processing roughly a hundred million million instructions per second. That’s fourteen zeros. We’ve been able to create computers to just surpass one percent of that goal, but still lacking in bandwidth. But since this increase is exponential, we will reach Turing’s dream in a mere thirty years or so. Most of you will still be around when the last bastion of the old dualistic model collapses, when the pope gets a phone call from HAL 9000, explaining how there is no soul, no god and no hope.
Further reading: Vinge’s Singularity.
The Antichristian Phenomenon

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b66ada84-aa20-408d-80a4-15df4d116270)


January 8th, 2009 at 1:49 am - Edit
It's funny you mention this Jorrizza, because I was partially touching the same topic in my own article which I will revamp because Waldheri made me realize it wasn't very cohesive and there were a lot of errors in it.
Anyway, my own concern with the Cartesian dualism is that it makes no sense according to other Biblical teachings and how people actually perceive the world. What I mean here is that god is supposed to be omnipresent, this rather indicates a sort of pantheistic view and thus the idea of a seperation of the physical vs the nonphysical makes no sense since god is where, even in the physical.
Also, a little farfetched to support my argument I also go into explaining that we still think of the soul as being able to communicate with us in the physical world even though the soul itself is nonphysical and has left its physical body. Therefore one would assume communication with the physical body would no longer be possible.
Anyway, I think one could look a lot more into the idea of Cartesian dualism because I think it's obvious there are major holes in Descartes' arguments of the dualistic world.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:05 am - Edit
Disregard this comment, maybe we should try to keep the discussion at one place.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:01 am - Edit
Great article. The neurosciences are ankering the mind very much to the brain. There are many simple examples to show that the mind is very much influenced by the material body, such as cognitive changes after the consumption of drugs and more direct brain trauma resulting in all kinds of cognitive and/or psychological changes. All of these are body –> mind changes which do indeed support the notion that the mind, in the very least, is influenced by the body.
Your article seems to suggest this influence is a one-way road. There are however also examples of mind –> body changes which support the notion that the mind can also influence the body, giving the mind more status than a mere process run on the brain's hardware. Examples of these are placebo/nocebo effects and the ability of Buddhist monks trained in meditation to change the physiology of the brain while meditating (different brainwave patterns emerged during studies).
For me, the jury is still out concerning the mind/body connection, but Cartesian dualism is an extreme I've scratched off my list.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:37 am - Edit
I'm sorry if I wasn't that clear, but this article questions dualism itself. So there is no influence one way or the other, since it's all the same (physical) entity anyway. Expressing this in technical terms you could say that the brain is the Turing machine, and the mind is the state.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am - Edit
"There are however also examples of mind –> body changes which support the notion that the mind can also influence the body, giving the mind more status than a mere process run on the brain's hardware."
Actually, there is even the extreme example of people suffering from DID being allergic to one thing as one persona but not allergic as the other. This phonomenon cannot be properly explained at all, obviously. I think the example in question regarded bee stings and logically thinking one would assume that since both personas are hosted by the same body biological functions would not change.