Bugsy [and Philo],

I looked back on a few posts between Philo and yourself. I gained the impression Philo sees the body as a conduit for the soul. Philo I have noted before has, I think, strong OT leanings. Herein, I note, after some quick research "soul" is indicated by the words nephesh and psuche. From Genesis, I gained the impression it is the breath of live that makes inanimate, animate. Moreover, as we shift,to the NT, the Christian proposition of the Body and Blood of Christ, could be extended to the death of psuche (soul) of their god. That is, with the alledged Ascension, Jesus lost His [human] soul. It died.

Note the above account is different account of Soul, as in the Mind and Body, in Attic Greece:

While Paul nee. Saul (ahem) Hellenised scripture; in Roman territories, the esoteric Greek philosophies had declined significantly by the time Julius Caesar and Cicero. The Christian claimed substitutionary random of Jesus, occured about eighty afterwards, and, the Gospels written 40-90 years latter still. [Albeit, some claim a Quelle document can be regressed/composited, maybe a generation before.]

Perhaps, taking the Hebrew perspective, the Soul has a anthromophic phase, that stage, it lives and dies, with the body of all living things. If so, what goes to the Christian heaven?

An alternative hypothesis for life is that replicative properties in inorganic substances [eg crystals] can transmute to become become organic replicative substances [amino acids/DNA] [See Dawkins].

A computer in a robot could be given emotions, all is needed is software to tell the computer it feels certain things. Love - a sense of excitement with a higher temeperature and pressure in the designated chest, and a lower focus quality of optical hardware. Hate - a sense of hostility and urgency with a higher temperature in the designated head with a microscopic focus to optical hardware and more energy fed to hydraulics. Compassion, enjoyment, annoyance, shyness, extraversion, frustration ect. All else is needed is recognition software and sensors to transmit data it picks up from the environment and programs to react to schemas. With the complexity of data coming in the robot will dream, imagine , form ideas as it would be doing what we do, probably confuse its feelings with a soul and feel there is a higher power.

The computer/robot comparison to man is problematic.
Robots and computers need to be built, programmed and operated.
Even if totally automated, they still need to be built and programmed at some stage. There is no avoiding this fact.
It raises the question that if our bodies are robots and our brains are computers, who or what built, programmed and/or operates them?

"It raises the question that if our bodies are robots and our brains are computers, who or what built, programmed and/or operates them?"

-- Nature and Nurture. Genes and the Environment. Not all programmes survive. Fundamental genetic material [genes] can have greater longevity than chromosomes. Computer programmes can work like this too. A job control language can execute severel different languages and produce temporary work files but also carry some [not all] values [fields/records] across routines. I think when we are better able to understand the relationship between geology [geothetmics?] and primitive biology, we might understand, "what"?. Personality within families and communities, embedded in culture responding to the environment conditions, promotes/eliminates and programs and de-programs. These posits, which can studied and tested for validity, realiability and falisification.

It is not a question of who.
Humans are a product of nature like an island lagoon. An island lagoon is created by the uplift of tectonic plates and the erosive power of waves and rain. We dont ask because we can build a marina then 'who' built the island lagoon? Or because we make light bulbs then who built the sun? Or we write Tv screen plays so who wrote the story of our lives? Asking who is like saying the moon is round , basket balls are round, spalding make basket balls therefore Spalding made the moon.

Though confidently stated, this answer is still not necessarily a finality. Nature can be considered a system, nurture a function, genes may be a program, and well the environment would be an environment.
The computing world includes authors, if it is to be analogous to the natural world the possibility of authors would exist there also.