There seems to me something slightly circular about his reasoning here: 'No matter how skillfully you may try to recreate a human being, vision, sensory systems, information storage and retrieval, vastly complex processing that I think is largely under calculated– you still don’t end up with something that essentially is the “self” or “soul”. There is no unique thing out side of all these interacting systems, that suddenly comes into being.'
He assumes that there is a thing independent of the mental characteristics which make up a human, but many philosophers believe the self is essentially a composite of attributes like those he lists. Thus, he presupposes his conclusion. Many philosophers would also argue that a sufficiently advanced computer might be a 'being'. How he can assume that an advanced piece of technology wouldn't have the same sensation of a self as we do, I'm not sure.
Another problem with his argument is that some of what he says is blatantly factually incorrect (as well as his claim that God exists) e.g. 'As most scientist have concluded, it is extremely likely that there is some kind of super intelligent force behind nature and all of existence.' As a commenter pointed out, scientists are overwhelmingly non-believers. Furthermore, even if this were true, it is a considerable leap from a deist god to a dualist view of reality.
Overall, a good article, Eilonnwy. Although you probably needn't have wasted your time demolishing such an utterly banal and ill-thought out piece of poorly written rhetoric.
He assumes that there is a thing independent of the mental characteristics which make up a human, but many philosophers believe the self is essentially a composite of attributes like those he lists. Thus, he presupposes his conclusion. Many philosophers would also argue that a sufficiently advanced computer might be a 'being'. How he can assume that an advanced piece of technology wouldn't have the same sensation of a self as we do, I'm not sure.
Another problem with his argument is that some of what he says is blatantly factually incorrect (as well as his claim that God exists) e.g. 'As most scientist have concluded, it is extremely likely that there is some kind of super intelligent force behind nature and all of existence.' As a commenter pointed out, scientists are overwhelmingly non-believers. Furthermore, even if this were true, it is a considerable leap from a deist god to a dualist view of reality.
Overall, a good article, Eilonnwy. Although you probably needn't have wasted your time demolishing such an utterly banal and ill-thought out piece of poorly written rhetoric.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
