Rui Barbosa

Lisbon

Researcher

-“You don't SEE anything that can be identified as a soul - there's just a lot of neurons and they're complicated but there's no consciousness to be seen”.
- The Soul isn't a material faculty, it is spiritual and can be taken as the life of the person; from it everything derives from Conscience to the movement of arms; the author doesn´t use the Theological definition (written in theological encyclopedias...).
- Because he's unable to SEE the soul, he deduces:“ Therefore it's an emerging property of a very complex system”?
- How does him deduce it? I prefer to accept that it isn't at our sight, and that as the majority of Humans beleive in it, to accept it. Why not? Only scientists have the prerogative to speak about it? On the contrary, given their obligation to follow a strict method applicable to a specific type of objects, they are impeached to speak about the Soul…
- "So we will attribute consciousness to entities even if they have no biology, even if they're fully machine entities: they will seem human, they will seem having consciousness"
- Agree
- "We will attribute souls to them" (he doesnt take ourselves for nothing!!!!, the fact of Man to attribute Soul to a machine would make immediately that this would be inferior to him, thus not human anymore.
- "But that's not a scientific statement" (then why is he speaking about that in those afirmative terms? It is for me preferable to acceot the soul of Bach, Schweitzer, etc.?).