This would be true, but unfortunately there was Jesus Christ. As there was no Saint Graviton that changed gravity to being only repulsive over short distances, we can't discard what's possible to be there, namely the soul.

Computers don't think. They only execute commands and the memory they have is via magnets and electricity similar to the VHS tape recording lent which has magnetic codings and is read by the VCR. However, this very memory is proof of the computer theory from the 1920's or so.

The brainwaves without opening the skull have already been able to be read similar to the way cardiac beats have. A machine that can interpret the brainwave sequence of each brain can be made just like the programming language Java works for all Operating systems.

Monkey brainwaves have already been read and results have concluded that they categorize by images and not numbers. Unfortunately their skulls had to be open, but I'm sure that wouldn't be necessary in the future.

The brain is the only thing that thinks, and the only thing we have. I never meant perfect as in indestructible, I only meant as in the best thinking capabilities can come from A brain, since that is all that nature has provided us to examine. Nothing comes close to the brain, and the thought machine is all we need.

It's common knowledge. Google it.

Am I to understand from this that you argue not from evidence to conclusions, but from conclusions to "how must the evidence fit?" Does your notion of science depend on the historical figure of christ? What would happen if there was no evidence for such a figure?This is your response to my query of how something was "proven by computers"? Sorry, but this is a complete non-sequitor. The magnetic codings which computers read are completely different from any sort of brain activity, certainly, but this has nothing to do with what was asked!You are quite simply wrong about this. This is the second time you have asserted it, but you have offered no evidence to support your assertion, nor even an explanation of what is measured via "brainwaves" (other than "similar to cardiac beats", which is untrue).Patterns of neuron firings have been measured in monkeys using invasive techniques; this is not, whatsoever, the same thing as "reading brainwaves", and such readings cannot, even in principle, be taken externally.Not true, by most definitions of thought. Besides, the point was not that brains do or do not think; the point was that the brain is the product of evolution, not design, and as such is inefficient in some ways, biased in others. It may well be the best we have--so what? It is still inefficient, because it was designed by chance and survival over millions of years.It is also quite wrong. If google is the height of your research abilities, this explains why your ideas about brainwaves are so at odds with the scientific literature on the topic. Quit using google and get to a good university library. Have fun; learn something.

Unfortunately there was, thus the soul cannot be ruled out. I am not that deeply religious, all I'm saying is that there might not be a machine that is possible to make AI because of the existence of a soul.

I'm still having trouble with what a non-sequitor is. However, this has everything to do, because the memory stored in electronic chips can duplicate the brain's memory. This proves that there can at least be machines that read memory and that we can artificially add memory. If positron computers come out, then there will be beyond doubt that the human mind can be deciphered.

They had a tape of a machine right on top of a monkey's brain. The lady said that the evidence concluded that monkeys categorize their memory by images and not numbers. That is it remembers the event instead of knowing what must have come first. Brainwaves have been read. I don't know the exact name of the machine, but they have similar to cardiac listener machines that make lines when the brain does something. That is how u read a brainwave.

I use google as a reference to what I don't know and I decided you do the same since you didn't know any proof for what I said. This however I do know. I have books and I read them. The definition of thought is relative. The actions of the thought is what matters described. Brains think. It produces thought and that's enough. The only way a brain is less imperfect is if it has less brain power, or that is it processes information slower. The brain we have may be imperfect but there's no need for anything else, because this is the only thing in the universe that we have that thinks. What else do you need? Why would you need it? If we mimic the brain that's the best head start we can get. In fact that's the only head start we can get because we don't know anything else that thinks. Thus an imperfect brain is always the brain that processes information slower than the speed of electricity and its sensory organs are in positions that are impractical (such as the brain part that interprets sight is all the way in the back).

First off, I did not say "ruled out", I said "assumed not to exist". There is a huge difference. Secondly, the historical evidence for christ is sketchy, and it is by no means a certainty that he existed as more than a myth. Thirdly, you make no claims as to what a soul is and why its existence would make AI impossible, so at this point it is mere assertion.The "computer storage" metaphor of human memory had its heyday a couple of decades ago; it is no longer the view held by researchers of memory. Now we think of memory as a "re-experiencing" and "re-constructing" of an experience. Rather than the hippocampus being seen as a storage area (which it once was), it is now seen as a processing center for multiple pathways--say, visual pathways for visual memories, tactile for tactile, auditory for auditory...LOL...who is "they"? Who is "the lady"? Are you basing your argument on something you saw on television? You do realize that they simplify things....Do not use Google as a reference. Use scholarly texts and journals, as I do; you do not recognise this because I have not, as yet, needed to cite anything. I have been challenging your claims, not making claims of my own. Your claims are simply not backed up at all, and in some cases (6-10% of brain?) are ludicrous!

1)Well, I'm saying the soul remains as an option.
2)There is plenty of evidence that Christ existed, just not much about his miracles.
3)A soul is by definition the heavenly spirit. It would make AI impossible because AI would need a soul to think. If we can do that then AI wouldn't be impossible.

Memory of the human brain and memory of the computer may not be the same, but we can at least record memory and thoughts on computers.

You know, stupid ladies, they say stuff and change it later. I saw the machine on top of the brain though and it looked cool. How much of that is true isn't known by me.

It is a known fact that people only use 6-10% of their brain power. I use google only as an extreme source when I run out of books. Look up any neurology book and it might tell you in the intro about the human brain.

1) As soon as there is reliable evidence for it, the assumption that it does not exist will be rejected. That is how science works. As yet, there is no evidence whatsoever.
2) provide it. I think you will be surprised. Outside of the bible, which is not an historical text, can you point to any archaeological evidence? I can point to many attempts at forging such evidence, the most recent being the James ossuary.
3) By one definition. A soul being necessary in order to think is pure assertion. No neurology text, no cognitive psych text, no physiological psychology text, none, have had to resort to a soul in order to explain thinking.We can also record it on paper, by writing it down. So what? Computer memory does not work like human memory. Period.If you do not know your source, how do you know it is reliable? (and please, the "stupid ladies" remark is uncalled for)Ok...you have had a chance to retract this claim and you choose not to. This claim of yours is out-and-out false. No neurology book would support it. It is a myth, with no justification at all. Yes, there are peer-reviewed scientific journal sources which support my stance, and I have read some...but since you rely on google for extreme cases...
here is one
or here is a really nice one, aimed at a child's level of understanding.
Slightly different perspective, same info
There are several thousand more sites that could have told you, but I will stop with three.

It is a known fact that your assumptions about the workings of the brain could use some work.

Atheists for Jesus anyone?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Maybe I missed it--I must say I only read it through once, then skimmed once more to look for it, but I see nothing in your link even approaching archaeological evidence for Jesus. Not even close. Try again, please, or point out what I am missing from your link.

Well perhaps not? I just thought it was interesting that it should speak of how "Christianity" betrayed the teachings of Jesus. In how it was trying to separate Jesus the man from the Church that was named after Him. So I figured if you would find it anyplace you would find it here.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I also could find books on the life of Paul Bunyan, but I would not accept them as evidence he lived the life they say.

Iacchus, the big problem is that the site cited the bible as evidence...and nothing else. If you accept it as true, you must accept any other book that claims to be true. "The bible is god's word, because it says so in the bible" is nowhere close to a peer-reviewed archaeological journal article. Which, I think, is why there have been so many attempts at fraudulent evidence.

The site may also have accepted the mythical, not literal, jesus, in saying it would be nice to follow his teachings. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing that supports jesus being any more real than paul bunyan.