When a typical human named X poses this question to a typical human named Y, what does the former really want to know? The question is simple and apparently straightforward. However, a more careful examination will reveal unstated assumptions and hidden implications that reflect the ambiguity of human languages.
A naive interpretation would be that X wants to know the location of Mingde. But to what precision? If we accept this interpretation, then "He's in the office", "He's in town", "He's on Earth" and "He's in this universe" are all equally valid answers. Yet some of these answers, e.g. "He's in this universe", are clearly not what X wants. Therefore, we must find a more fitting interpretation.
Suppose we interpret the question as asking for Mingde's location given to the greatest possible degree of accuracy, then the answer would always be "I don't know". The reason being that Y can not possibly know Mingde's location with infinitesimal accuracy. Once again, the problem of precision comes into play.
Let us refine our interpretation to "What is Mingde's location given to the greatest accuracy that you can provide?". This would seem close enough to reality. However, if Y does not know Mingde's location, then he would be forced to say something like "He's on Earth" because that would indeed be the best description Y can provide. But no one does that in real life! Normal people would reply with "I don't know". Hence there is still something lacking in this interpretation.
By now it should be obvious that interpreting this question in a strict logical sense is not a simple matter. There is most probably no absolutely correct interpretation since there is no clear definition of what a typical human is. But the best interpretation I can provide is "If you can give me Mingde's location with greater accuracy than I already know, then tell me Mingde's location, given to the accuracy that I need or you can possibly provide, whichever is less (since too accurate a description is redundant). If not, reply with 'I don't know'".
Hence if Y only knows that Mingde is in a certain building, but X knows that Mingde is on a certain floor and wants to know which room Mingde is in, then Y should reply with "I don't know". However, if Y knows that Mingde is in the third cubicle in a particular washroom and X only wants to know which room Mingde is in, then Y should only reply "He's in the washroom". Notice that this interpretation requires Y to know two pieces of unavailable information:
1) the accuracy that X knows
2) the accuracy that X needs
In real life, this is done by guess work. Point 2 is usually easier to guess since it is reasonable to assume that X needs an accuracy that allows him to find Mingde easily. Point 1 is more difficult to guess and is sometimes guessed incorrectly. This is commonly seen when a person asking such a question has to rephrase the question, usually by adding more details, to better convey point 1 to the person whom the question was posed, allowing the latter to give a more appropriate answer.
The funny thing is that most people apply these complex assumptions and implications in their statements and questions unwittingly. Moreover, they expect others to understand these hidden meanings even though they are unaware of these conditions themselves! Humans speak so ambiguously it's no wonder the world is in such a mess.
My Questions:
Does a cyborg (human with mechanical parts, e.g. a mechanical hand) have a soul?
Does an android (fully mechanical human shaped robot) have a soul?
How about an android with a patch of human skin?
How much organic parts must a cyborg possess to be considered having a soul?
If I were to remove half of every organ (brain included) from a human and replace them with synthetic equivalents, does this cyborg have a soul?
What if I were to use those removed half organs and combine them with synthetic half organs to make another cyborg, does he then have a soul too?
So can one make two souls from one or is there such a thing as half a soul?
p.s. While I was performing sentry duty at the live-firing area at Poyan, my fellow sentry told me that every human has a soul when I confessed I did not believe I had one. Professor Steve Mann from the University of Toronto just popped up in my mind since he was, being a cyborg as he claimed, not entirely human. The chain of questions naturally followed to which my companion had no clear answers. After all, who would have applied fuzzy logic when discussing the ethereal?
