I think that the fact that we are aware of our existence poses many intelectual and spiritual chalenges. The idea that we have all linked with Descartes "i think (therefore) i am", is from all times and places. In ancient times it sparked an interest in religious/spiritual issues. Fact is that self awareness is something we cannot (yet) completely understand, even though this same question nowadays doesn't have to lead to religious type of conclusions. Could machines become self-aware ?(there's another thread on that on this forum as well)
Even if a machine is able to process information in such a sophisticated way that it would seem to be able to draw this conclusion,it is not sure that the machine really knows that it exists, just like knowledge may be stored in books but books don't know anything.
It might be that A) indeed we have a soul (wich still doesn't mean that there is any religious system that has information of it's nature and content) B)there is a 'universal soul', a 'nature-god', that the energy that carries the information processed in our brains is somehow 'alive'or 'counscious' and that this primal energy is the spark of all our spiritual and psychological awareness C)That our self awareness is some kind of illusion created by the brain, that we are not really aware of anything and it only seems that way D) something else i have not yet thought of.
That, back to the cartesian uncertainty again, everything is uncertain and every concept of reality requires a leap of faith of some kind, makes not every system of belief equal to another.
The fact that we take part in this discussion alone proofs that we all take what we think is our daily lives but wich might just as well be an illusion, serious enough to believe it's real. We know the senses can deceive us, and that at the end the only certainty we have is from experience, but this doesn't make all claims about reality equal. For instance, many systems of belief depend for large parts on speculation while they at the same time are extremely specific, wich often leads to a schisma between those taking all that's written down literally and those who take it metaphorically.
I would say that the scientific aproach at least is the most consistent one with the least leap's of faith taken. Only one, the first one, that of our experiences being real. We can believe that life is real and at the same time know that things can be deceiving, but the scientific aproach can explain the differences, while the rejection of science cannot, other that reffering to the mysterious ways of god or other postulated existing thing. I am pretty much open to everything but what i do reject is a platonean picture of there being two worlds; a material one and a spiritual one, of wich one has then eventually be preferred over the other. This has often lead to nothing less then discontempt and loathing for the only world we are certain of, that wich we live in and that we share with others.
Even if a machine is able to process information in such a sophisticated way that it would seem to be able to draw this conclusion,it is not sure that the machine really knows that it exists, just like knowledge may be stored in books but books don't know anything.
It might be that A) indeed we have a soul (wich still doesn't mean that there is any religious system that has information of it's nature and content) B)there is a 'universal soul', a 'nature-god', that the energy that carries the information processed in our brains is somehow 'alive'or 'counscious' and that this primal energy is the spark of all our spiritual and psychological awareness C)That our self awareness is some kind of illusion created by the brain, that we are not really aware of anything and it only seems that way D) something else i have not yet thought of.
That, back to the cartesian uncertainty again, everything is uncertain and every concept of reality requires a leap of faith of some kind, makes not every system of belief equal to another.
The fact that we take part in this discussion alone proofs that we all take what we think is our daily lives but wich might just as well be an illusion, serious enough to believe it's real. We know the senses can deceive us, and that at the end the only certainty we have is from experience, but this doesn't make all claims about reality equal. For instance, many systems of belief depend for large parts on speculation while they at the same time are extremely specific, wich often leads to a schisma between those taking all that's written down literally and those who take it metaphorically.
I would say that the scientific aproach at least is the most consistent one with the least leap's of faith taken. Only one, the first one, that of our experiences being real. We can believe that life is real and at the same time know that things can be deceiving, but the scientific aproach can explain the differences, while the rejection of science cannot, other that reffering to the mysterious ways of god or other postulated existing thing. I am pretty much open to everything but what i do reject is a platonean picture of there being two worlds; a material one and a spiritual one, of wich one has then eventually be preferred over the other. This has often lead to nothing less then discontempt and loathing for the only world we are certain of, that wich we live in and that we share with others.