People don't have "souls".
Problem solved. You are welcome.
Is the correct answer !
Is the incorrect answer!

People don't have "souls".
Problem solved. You are welcome.
Is the correct answer !
Question is; Does Data have a soul?
If you are a spiritual or religious person and believes in such things, the questions still stands. My answer to that is yes, I believe he does.
If you are not spiritual or religious person or do not believe in souls or such things; please do not be a troll. (Also remember, even if you don't believe in Hell, you're still flammable)
And furthermore, I'm a non spiritual person who says he does have a soul... because it's a tv show & that seemed to be their intention. Of course he doesn't really have a soul. He doesn't exist in realityThe non spiritual folk here are perfectly capable of saying he doesn't have a soul without trolling, thank you.
This is an interesting question. If the answer is yes, then that means that we, as people, can artificially design and create a soul because Data is man-made. I'm not sure about that, but it's interesting.
This is an interesting question. If the answer is yes, then that means that we, as people, can artificially design and create a soul because Data is man-made. I'm not sure about that, but it's interesting.
Or, if you happen to be a believer in a supreme being, then that would mean that S/HE (or they) would deem a man-made creation as worthy of receiving a soul.
Agreed - It's interesting from multiple perspectives, regardless of your personal background.
There's an interesting article going around where a scientist claims he has scientific proof that the soul exists.
With some Trek-sounding terms too. He claims it's stored in something called microtubules.
http://www.sott.net/article/252984-Scientists-offer-quantum-theory-of-souls-existence
If that's true, Data may have a chance, assuming his brain is similar to a biological brain.
It would be ironic, if when it came to having a soul, even animals come before Data, simply because he had a mechanical brain.
Wow, what rock did you kick over to find that website? What a smorgasbord of nonsense... 9/11 trutherism, Earth changes, channeling.The woman who runs it (Laura Knight Jadczyk) appears to be a total crank and woo peddler. Yikes!
Anyway, the Penrose/Hameroff Orch-OR (Orchestrated objective reduction) theory of consciousness mentioned in that article doesn't hold up, as it turns out. Basically, the human brain's temperature is too high for quantum effects to last very long. Microtubule quantum states could exist, but would be sustained for only femtoseconds (a quadrillionth of a second), rather than the 25 milliseconds (1/40th of a second) required by Orch-OR theory. Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism
...these quantum states are notoriously fragile. Even in laboratory systems, atoms are cooled to near–absolute-zero temperatures to maintain entanglement for more than a few thousandths of a second. Biological systems would seem too warm and too wet to hold quantum states for long, yet that’s exactly what they appear to do.
Wow, what rock did you kick over to find that website? What a smorgasbord of nonsense... 9/11 trutherism, Earth changes, channeling.The woman who runs it (Laura Knight Jadczyk) appears to be a total crank and woo peddler. Yikes!
Anyway, the Penrose/Hameroff Orch-OR (Orchestrated objective reduction) theory of consciousness mentioned in that article doesn't hold up, as it turns out. Basically, the human brain's temperature is too high for quantum effects to last very long. Microtubule quantum states could exist, but would be sustained for only femtoseconds (a quadrillionth of a second), rather than the 25 milliseconds (1/40th of a second) required by Orch-OR theory. Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism
The keyword for me is "claims" because I don't know where this proof is. Seems more like a wild theory, but he claims he can prove it.
The article have been around for a while, so a lot of different websites are posting it. Popular Mechanics picked it up too: http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...t-unsolved-mysteries-finding-the-soul#slide-5
When anyone claims they located exactly where the soul is, it's time to turn on the BS meter. Especially when people throw in words like "quantum".
OTOH, what if he's possibly right? He claims his theory stands up to that argument. There might be evidence to back it up;
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/quantum-birds/
Here's snip of it;
I'm no scientist, but supposedly this can be used to refute the argument of the brain being incapable of quantum effects due to its warm temperature....these quantum states are notoriously fragile. Even in laboratory systems, atoms are cooled to near–absolute-zero temperatures to maintain entanglement for more than a few thousandths of a second. Biological systems would seem too warm and too wet to hold quantum states for long, yet that’s exactly what they appear to do.
Maybe science has saved us after all.
Maybe all that quantum technobabble stuff they say in Trek is true after all![]()
I'd posit that it might have been similar to Lal, in the stage which Data called "Passing into Sentience" & therefore, for Data it would have been during that "Childhood" which his mother referred toKind of like Pinocchio becoming a real boy. My guess is that the soul completes that, but then I wonder when in the series might Data have gotten a soul if it's possible?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.