Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
I think your soul is like the SW that runs on a computer. If I take a blank CD and weigh it, then put $1000 worth the SW on it, and weigh it again, the CD weight is exactly the same
therefore, SW has no mass - therefore SW is not confind by the laws of physics. It can travel faster than the speed of light (mass = 0) and it is eternal. The embodiement of it in our physical world is not eternal, but we can make copies of copies of copies, and that SW can exist forever without being changed or diminished in the slightest 'bit'
likewise our souls.
|
I like your analogy; it's a very interesting argument, but I take issue with the first premise. A CD is encoded with a series of physical bumps that represent zeros in binary. A CD burner uses the heat from a laser to chemically change the translucency of CD-R dye via phase shifting. These are both physical and observable changes, just as how a floppy disk is magnetized. In any case, mass is not a measure of how substantial something is (just as how software's alleged ability to "travel faster than light" doesn't make it any less grounded in the laws of physics). You can't weigh, for example, an idea, or a concept, such as "dignity" (nor can you draw dignity, to which Simpsons fans will attest). A CD (or similar storage device) is not magically imbued with information; it is physically changed in a manner devised by engineers such that it can be read by a machine devised by engineers. While I'm sure a lot of people on this forum would like to equate engineering with god, I personally don't buy it. Therefore your conclusion that software -- and therefore a soul -- gets to forego the laws of physics is fallacious.
The bottom line is this: Mike -- in addition to pointing out that our thoughts are as far as we know the simple product of neurons firing -- raised some philosophical questions of a religious nature that both religion and science will never be able to answer to any reasonable degree of epistemic satisfaction. Based on this information however, I think it's easy to see his position on why there isn't enough information to justify the existence of a soul.
Like Karen however, I would like to know what Mike meant about still being a Catholic, whether he meant it in an ethnic sense, I suppose in the way Robert Novak is a Jewish Catholic.