56 ms·

Religious people claim it's merely a communication device, and the computer is elsewhere. Clearly one's interpretation is a function of the paradigm one exists

by xnickb 1y ago

Religious people claim it's merely a communication device, and the computer is elsewhere. Clearly one's interpretation is a function of the paradigm one exists in.

riidom 1y ago
Thin client theory?
- xnickb 1y ago
  It's more of a hypothesis in this case. And some are clearly thicker than others. But that's details.
AStonesThrow 1y ago
> Religious people claim it's merely a communication device, and the computer is elsewhere. No, that is a seriously weird and imaginary perversion that you've invented, unless you have some citation to a doctrine. Christians do not consider body organs as "devices" nor do our churches teach doctrine on "external computers", if you refer to the Holy Trinity as such? Are you thinking of Latter-Day Saints mythology, or Scientology? Your description is quite reductive in many aspects, including temporality and misuse of technical nomenclature. Thanks for telling religious people what we think and claim, though, and thanks for the amazing overgeneralized blanket dismissal. In fact, humans used to be called "Computers" in terms of their job roles, that is, a human in an office was given math/physics problems to solve, and they'd use tools such as slide rule, paper and pencil to "compute" those problems and solve them. There was more than one example of a fantasy "panopticon" by which a central observer or observers could watch everything going on, for example in a prison facility, and those observers could report findings to human computers, who would process the data and submit it up to the authorities, for meta-analysis and taking action on new developments or trends.
- swat535 1y ago
  Not to put words in the parent’s mouth, but I think they were pointing to the idea of the soul or consciousness, concepts that mean very different things in religious vs. scientific contexts. One sees it as an immaterial essence; the other as an emergent property of the brain.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  I believe they are referring to the soul. The soul according to doctrine does not exist inside the body for it can exist after the body's destruction.
  - AStonesThrow 1y ago
    > does not exist inside the body Uh okay but let us not be reductive, because again you are confusing physicality and temporal space with spiritual reality, which is nuanced. A Christian would never say that “the soul [never] exists inside the body” because what do you mean by “inside”? That begs the question. Look up hylomorphism: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34027 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism While the soul, in death, can indeed exist apart from the body, even after the destruction of the physical human body, the soul is immortal, and lives on, in anticipation of its reuniting with that body. Whether in Heaven or Hell, the soul and body shall be reunited. Even if the body is “destroyed” by physical means, that is a subjective judgement by human senses, and that glorified body will be reconstituted by Almighty God for everlasting unity with the soul. > emergent property of the brain Unfortunately, even this scientific definition is reductive. It ignores the theology of the Soul as an animating principle of everything that is created. Animals have souls [thus their name derived from “anima”]; rocks and stones have souls; trees have souls rivers have souls: everything that we can detect in this world, and every invisible thing, possesses a soul. The difference with human souls regards their essence and immortality. But material souls are likewise considered souls in orthodox theology, and this should be considered by scientists. Even in an “eternal death” in Hell, the body and the soul will be reunited there for eternal torture, body and soul.
    - yieldcrv 1y ago
      Lets fast forward this conversation to its conclusion of “its open to interpretation” and Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion or the fungible and unquantifiable soul concept
      - 1y ago

by xnickb 1y ago

Religious people claim it's merely a communication device, and the computer is elsewhere. Clearly one's interpretation is a function of the paradigm one exists in.

riidom 1y ago

Thin client theory?

xnickb 1y ago
It's more of a hypothesis in this case. And some are clearly thicker than others. But that's details.

AStonesThrow 1y ago

> Religious people claim it's merely a communication device, and the computer is elsewhere. No, that is a seriously weird and imaginary perversion that you've invented, unless you have some citation to a doctrine. Christians do not consider body organs as "devices" nor do our churches teach doctrine on "external computers", if you refer to the Holy Trinity as such? Are you thinking of Latter-Day Saints mythology, or Scientology? Your description is quite reductive in many aspects, including temporality and misuse of technical nomenclature. Thanks for telling religious people what we think and claim, though, and thanks for the amazing overgeneralized blanket dismissal. In fact, humans used to be called "Computers" in terms of their job roles, that is, a human in an office was given math/physics problems to solve, and they'd use tools such as slide rule, paper and pencil to "compute" those problems and solve them. There was more than one example of a fantasy "panopticon" by which a central observer or observers could watch everything going on, for example in a prison facility, and those observers could report findings to human computers, who would process the data and submit it up to the authorities, for meta-analysis and taking action on new developments or trends.

swat535 1y ago
Not to put words in the parent’s mouth, but I think they were pointing to the idea of the soul or consciousness, concepts that mean very different things in religious vs. scientific contexts. One sees it as an immaterial essence; the other as an emergent property of the brain.
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
I believe they are referring to the soul. The soul according to doctrine does not exist inside the body for it can exist after the body's destruction.
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  > does not exist inside the body Uh okay but let us not be reductive, because again you are confusing physicality and temporal space with spiritual reality, which is nuanced. A Christian would never say that “the soul [never] exists inside the body” because what do you mean by “inside”? That begs the question. Look up hylomorphism: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34027 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism While the soul, in death, can indeed exist apart from the body, even after the destruction of the physical human body, the soul is immortal, and lives on, in anticipation of its reuniting with that body. Whether in Heaven or Hell, the soul and body shall be reunited. Even if the body is “destroyed” by physical means, that is a subjective judgement by human senses, and that glorified body will be reconstituted by Almighty God for everlasting unity with the soul. > emergent property of the brain Unfortunately, even this scientific definition is reductive. It ignores the theology of the Soul as an animating principle of everything that is created. Animals have souls [thus their name derived from “anima”]; rocks and stones have souls; trees have souls rivers have souls: everything that we can detect in this world, and every invisible thing, possesses a soul. The difference with human souls regards their essence and immortality. But material souls are likewise considered souls in orthodox theology, and this should be considered by scientists. Even in an “eternal death” in Hell, the body and the soul will be reunited there for eternal torture, body and soul.
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    Lets fast forward this conversation to its conclusion of “its open to interpretation” and Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion or the fungible and unquantifiable soul concept
    - 1y ago