What do you think?
Rate this book
Brains, Machines & Persons
"Using the comparison of brains with minds, and machines with persons, Dr. MacKay makes the important point that scientific descriptions from the outside and personal descriptions from the inside are not mutually exclusive but are complementary. Thus he sees no need for Christians to fear increasing scientific understanding of brain mechanisms, since huma ignorance of such mechanisms is no sense the requirement for the Christian faith and worldview." Richard H Bube, editor
114 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 20, 2024
AN ARGUMENT BY A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST FOR HUMAN UNIQUENESS
Donald MacCrimmon MacKay (1922-1987) was a physicist and professor of communications at the University of Keele in England; he also wrote 'The Clockwork Image: A Christian Perspective on Science.'
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1980 book, "Constantly... I find myself asked to hazard guesses as to where all this brain science is taking us, or how far computers may eventually go toward apeing the functions of the human mind... In particular... do you think that the credibility of any well-founded Christian doctrine is at stake? I must say that I do not think so. The view I shall be advocating in this book is that all that the fullest imaginable advance in brain research can do is to amplify, deepen, and add new dimensions to our wonder, our hope... and our responsibility." (Pg. 11-12)
He states, "Take for example the question ... as to whether the bulk of our brain capacity is 'never used.' ... we may well discover that no area of the brain can be damaged without measurable loss; but even if this were not the case, the example of a human community shows that we could not validly infer that the damaged part must previously have been idle. The brain's tolerance of local damage probably indicates only that information in most parts is processed on a 'distributive' basis." (Pg. 34)
About whether or not computers can think, he suggests, "I find it useful to go back to simple situations like those we have considered, and to ask whether it would make sense to describe my jar as 'thinking' when I pour in the liquid. It is obviously I who do the thinking, by reading the arithmetical significance of the physical outcome. What the jar does in accumulating the water may be ANALOGOUS to what a thinker does when he adds numbers; but it would be baseless superstition to describe the jar as 'thinking.' The same point applies to even the most complex digital computing machines. As long as what we have in mind is the physical hardware, then notions like 'thinking' make no sense." (Pg. 53-54)
He defends the concept of responsibility: "it becomes clear that there is no escaping responsibility for the outcome of a normal choice by arguing 'it wasn't I who determined the action---it was my brain.' That would be as foolish as to argue that the 'EXIT' sign wasn't a notice but only ink and paper. Of course it is BOTH. It was I who chose..." (Pg. 86)
Even though this book is more than 30 years old, the points Mackay makes are still being discussed in today's "Artificial Intelligence" debates.
Donald MacCrimmon MacKay (1922-1987) was a physicist and professor of communications at the University of Keele in England; he also wrote 'The Clockwork Image: A Christian Perspective on Science.'
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1980 book, "Constantly... I find myself asked to hazard guesses as to where all this brain science is taking us, or how far computers may eventually go toward apeing the functions of the human mind... In particular... do you think that the credibility of any well-founded Christian doctrine is at stake? I must say that I do not think so. The view I shall be advocating in this book is that all that the fullest imaginable advance in brain research can do is to amplify, deepen, and add new dimensions to our wonder, our hope... and our responsibility." (Pg. 11-12)
He states, "Take for example the question ... as to whether the bulk of our brain capacity is 'never used.' ... we may well discover that no area of the brain can be damaged without measurable loss; but even if this were not the case, the example of a human community shows that we could not validly infer that the damaged part must previously have been idle. The brain's tolerance of local damage probably indicates only that information in most parts is processed on a 'distributive' basis." (Pg. 34)
About whether or not computers can think, he suggests, "I find it useful to go back to simple situations like those we have considered, and to ask whether it would make sense to describe my jar as 'thinking' when I pour in the liquid. It is obviously I who do the thinking, by reading the arithmetical significance of the physical outcome. What the jar does in accumulating the water may be ANALOGOUS to what a thinker does when he adds numbers; but it would be baseless superstition to describe the jar as 'thinking.' The same point applies to even the most complex digital computing machines. As long as what we have in mind is the physical hardware, then notions like 'thinking' make no sense." (Pg. 53-54)
He defends the concept of responsibility: "it becomes clear that there is no escaping responsibility for the outcome of a normal choice by arguing 'it wasn't I who determined the action---it was my brain.' That would be as foolish as to argue that the 'EXIT' sign wasn't a notice but only ink and paper. Of course it is BOTH. It was I who chose..." (Pg. 86)
Even though this book is more than 30 years old, the points Mackay makes are still being discussed in today's "Artificial Intelligence" debates.
June 19, 2023
5.5/10
I read this book because I found it in a lost and found and I had a free weekend. It was enjoyable, and thoroughly well-researched. It’s slightly dated, and I’m not sure the convictions of the author, but I believe it would be helpful for any Christian. The author remarks, “To do Old Testament exegesis, means to do text criticism and vice versa.” I would agree. I think it’s important for Christians to know how we ultimately got our OT and the many types/versions that have been translated and carried down to us to have an accurate and thorough understanding of God s Word as revealed in the OT!
I read this book because I found it in a lost and found and I had a free weekend. It was enjoyable, and thoroughly well-researched. It’s slightly dated, and I’m not sure the convictions of the author, but I believe it would be helpful for any Christian. The author remarks, “To do Old Testament exegesis, means to do text criticism and vice versa.” I would agree. I think it’s important for Christians to know how we ultimately got our OT and the many types/versions that have been translated and carried down to us to have an accurate and thorough understanding of God s Word as revealed in the OT!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews