101 replies to this topic

[spunky-monkey]

Jasi is a she.

Oh, my apologies Jasi.

It's more about the idea of not wanting to cease existing. No one would care if they didn't exist but not a great deal of people want to STOP existing.

Cute, but that's not the point I was making, besides I never said anything about anyone wanting to cease to exist.

That's not really anything to do with free will. That is biological progression. Free will is in the realm of consciousness and self-awareness, not physical attributes.

I'm curious as to where you pulled 'biological progression' from. The term is not used outside of the study of the human body.

So basically, 'existence' boils down to 'whatever we know (at the time)'? That sounds more like philosophy than science.

Or rather the principle of falsifiability within science. This is irrelevant however as the burden of truth lies with those who claim there is a human soul. If they can't be bothered to prove it then it falls into the realms of make-believe and superstition. You yourself already know this as fact, so stop playing games.

Until someone proves there is a human soul, then in the meantime it quite frankly does not exist. You're entitled to believe in an immortal ghost thingy of your own like an imaginary friend you may have, but never try and actually pass it off as irrefutable common-knowledge.

[Nevermind]

Cute, but that's not the point I was making, besides I never said anything about anyone wanting to cease to exist.

True, though as far as I can assess that would be the likely reasoning behind the whole "don't wanna not exist" you were talking about. That is something you'd have to ask each individual, though.

I'm curious as to where you pulled 'biological progression' from. The term is not used outside of the study of the human body.

Genetics, DNA, procreation, paternal, maternal, and all that stuff pertaining to who your parents are (regardless of choice), lies within the study of the human body.

Or rather the principle of falsifiability within science. This is irrelevant however as the burden of truth lies with those who claim there is a human soul. If they can't be bothered to prove it then it falls into the realms of make-believe and superstition. You yourself already know this as fact, so stop playing games.

Until someone proves there is a human soul, then in the meantime it quite frankly does not exist. You're entitled to believe in an immortal ghost thingy of your own like an imaginary friend you may have, but never try and actually pass it off as irrefutable common-knowledge.

It's been said a million times before but simply put, our current developments in science are a long, long way away from proving anything beyond the 3 known dimensions. Theoretical particles are essentially just as make-believe as the human soul. Science can prove what gravity actually is no better than it can accurately - and without fail - read the predictability of humans.

I should note that I do believe quite heavily in science. In its current form, though, it is impossible for me to so easily accept it as...the Alpha and Omega of existence, I guess you could say.

[Egann]

Or rather the principle of falsifiability within science. This is irrelevant however as the burden of truth lies with those who claim there is a human soul. If they can't be bothered to prove it then it falls into the realms of make-believe and superstition. You yourself already know this as fact, so stop playing games.

Until someone proves there is a human soul, then in the meantime it quite frankly does not exist. You're entitled to believe in an immortal ghost thingy of your own like an imaginary friend you may have, but never try and actually pass it off as irrefutable common-knowledge.

You want proof of the Soul?

One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.

OK, this doesn't prove that the soul exists. It just proves that there are things which are real which cannot be studied empirically.

[Poore]

Until someone proves there is a human soul, then in the meantime it quite frankly does not exist. You're entitled to believe in an immortal ghost thingy of your own like an imaginary friend you may have, but never try and actually pass it off as irrefutable common-knowledge.

Prove, empirically, that reality is real without invoking a tautological argument (i.e. 'we define reality as what is real, therefore, it is real'), and I will concede the point. Otherwise, take your sense of intellectual superiority and supposedly unbiased worldview and shove it up your hypocritical ass.

[wisp]

Until someone proves there is a human soul, then in the meantime it quite frankly does not exist. You're entitled to believe in an immortal ghost thingy of your own like an imaginary friend you may have, but never try and actually pass it off as irrefutable common-knowledge.

Prove, empirically, that reality is real without invoking a tautological argument (i.e. 'we define reality as what is real, therefore, it is real'), and I will concede the point. Otherwise, take your sense of intellectual superiority and supposedly unbiased worldview and shove it up your hypocritical ass.

Wow, see this is why I hardly ever come in here anymore. Can we at least TRY to be a bit less abusive to each other?

[SOAP]

Until someone proves there is a human soul, then in the meantime it quite frankly does not exist. You're entitled to believe in an immortal ghost thingy of your own like an imaginary friend you may have, but never try and actually pass it off as irrefutable common-knowledge.

Prove, empirically, that reality is real without invoking a tautological argument (i.e. 'we define reality as what is real, therefore, it is real'), and I will concede the point. Otherwise, take your sense of intellectual superiority and supposedly unbiased worldview and shove it up your hypocritical ass.

I don't why questions like this get asked. Whenever someone questions God existence or the existence of an immortal human soul, it seems the automatic response is to question all of reality itself. If you call reality into question why bother asking that question? If reality itself needs to proven to exist why would that question matter to begin with? Nothing real. There's no world. There's no computer you're typing at. There's no you. There's no Spunky Monkey. The question becomes moot. Good job! What the hell were we talking about again? Oh nothing. Because nothing exists. Wow.

Questioning God's existence is not hypocritical because even you question the existence of other gods like Zeus, Ra, Odin, ect and no body pulls a "Well prove reality exists then" card on you. If Spunky Monkey is a hypocrite then so are you. Unless I'm guilty of using a strawman argument and you believe every single deity that man has ever worshiped actually exists. Otherwise, I don't see you having any ground to stand on to calling anyone a hypocrite.

Edited by SOAP, 20 July 2009 - 12:46 AM.

[Goose]

Golden Mod hammer time.

Official Warning to Poore. Telling someone to shove something up their own arse, unless they want to self diagnose their own proctology exam, is flaming.

No flaming.

NO FLAMING!

Once more and its a week ban from Contro. If it continues, then the bans get harsher, and Lena will destroy your existance.

[Poore]

Apologies, Goose. I was drunk and angry when I wrote that.

I don't why questions like this get asked. Whenever someone questions God existence or the existence of an immortal human soul, it seems the automatic response is to question all of reality itself. If you call reality into question why bother asking that question? If reality itself needs to proven to exist why would that question matter to begin with? Nothing real. There's no world. There's no computer you're typing at. There's no you. There's no Spunky Monkey. The question becomes moot. Good job! What the hell were we talking about again? Oh nothing. Because nothing exists. Wow.

Questioning God's existence is not hypocritical because even you question the existence of other gods like Zeus, Ra, Odin, ect and no body pulls a "Well prove reality exists then" card on you. If Spunky Monkey is a hypocrite then so are you. Unless I'm guilty of using a strawman argument and you believe every single deity that man has ever worshiped actually exists. Otherwise, I don't see you having any ground to stand on to calling anyone a hypocrite.

Re: the hypocritical comment, What I was specifically referencing was the fact that Spunky said, essentially, "It's common knowledge the human soul doesn't exist, so don't just say it's common knowledge that it does." I wasn't trying to question existence so much as I was trying to point out that we all make assumptions. Yes, I am a hypocrite - I'll acknowledge that fact. What I won't do is try to proclaim from some elitist, intellectual pedestal that I'm immune to being a hypocrite because I trust in the infallible perfection of Science, which is completely immune to assumptions and bias, and that this somehow gives me a monopoly on the truth.

I'm fine with people questioning God's existence - what I'm not fine with is someone who knows nothing about me or my personal experience claiming they can invalidate my beliefs through science even though it involves phenomena which are not testable or repeatable.

[spunky-monkey]

True, though as far as I can assess that would be the likely reasoning behind the whole "don't wanna not exist" you were talking about. That is something you'd have to ask each individual, though.

I'm not talking about self-destructive people with suicidal thoughts here. I'm arguing that if there is no afterlife how can Showsni possibly feel regret when we're all dead? The answer is: He can't.

Genetics, DNA, procreation, paternal, maternal, and all that stuff pertaining to who your parents are (regardless of choice), lies within the study of the human body.

*head-desk* My apologies Laz, I'm not supposed to be asking you to explain my own argument. Right let's get straight into this. If this is a universe of cause and effect (which it is I'll remind everyone) including all the biological implications arisen from numerous forces, internal and external, then the concept of free will outside philosophy is not just a mockery, but an unverifiable assertion as well.

Here's a hypothetical example:-
Little Johnny's mother told him from birth that if he believes with his heart and wills enough then he'll certainly become President of the United States America. Little Johnny works hard through his childhood, studying day after day to make this dream a reality. Little Johnny is so determined to be recognised by others for the job he has his father enrol him in a fancy private school to give him the best chance in life. On the first day of the academic year Little Johnny steps outside to greet the day, walking across the road he is hit by a car, instantly killing him, his life over. The cruel world denied Little Johnny's will to become President.

Now according to Poore, that story above didn't just happen, free-will is still in effect and I'm a compulsive liar. Do you see the logical fallacy in this yet?

You want proof of the Soul?

One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.

OK, this doesn't prove that the soul exists. It just proves that there are things which are real which cannot be studied empirically.

Well I can't fault you for trying Egann, which more than I can say for some people I know.

Re: the hypocritical comment, What I was specifically referencing was the fact that Spunky said, essentially, "It's common knowledge the human soul doesn't exist, so don't just say it's common knowledge that it does." I wasn't trying to question existence so much as I was trying to point out that we all make assumptions. Yes, I am a hypocrite - I'll acknowledge that fact. What I won't do is try to proclaim from some elitist, intellectual pedestal that I'm immune to being a hypocrite because I trust in the infallible perfection of Science, which is completely immune to assumptions and bias, and that this somehow gives me a monopoly on the truth.

I'm fine with people questioning God's existence - what I'm not fine with is someone who knows nothing about me or my personal experience claiming they can invalidate my beliefs through science even though it involves phenomena which are not testable or repeatable.

^He means me there.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 21 July 2009 - 09:47 AM.

[Poore]

Here's a hypothetical example:-
Little Johnny's mother told him from birth that if he believes with his heart and wills enough then he'll certainly become President of the United States America. Little Johnny works hard through his childhood, studying day after day to make this dream a reality. Little Johnny is so determined to be recognised by others for the job he has his father enrol him in a fancy private school to give him the best chance in life. On the first day of the academic year Little Johnny steps outside to greet the day, walking across the road he is hit by a car, instantly killing him, his life over. The cruel world denied Little Johnny's will to become President.

Now according to Poore, that story above didn't just happen, free-will is still in effect and I'm a compulsive liar. Do you see the logical fallacy in this yet?

Uh...what?

Interaction with other rational agents does not disprove the existence of any rational agents. Maybe you should clarify this, as it currently makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying that just because what someone believed didn't come true means that said belief did not hold some sort of personal truth for said individual that had a beneficial impact on their personal life? Because that would be one hell of an assumption.

Then again, if it suddenly starts undermining your argument, you'll deem it irrelevant and unscientific, so *shrug*.

Re: the hypocritical comment, What I was specifically referencing was the fact that Spunky said, essentially, "It's common knowledge the human soul doesn't exist, so don't just say it's common knowledge that it does." I wasn't trying to question existence so much as I was trying to point out that we all make assumptions. Yes, I am a hypocrite - I'll acknowledge that fact. What I won't do is try to proclaim from some elitist, intellectual pedestal that I'm immune to being a hypocrite because I trust in the infallible perfection of Science, which is completely immune to assumptions and bias, and that this somehow gives me a monopoly on the truth.

I'm fine with people questioning God's existence - what I'm not fine with is someone who knows nothing about me or my personal experience claiming they can invalidate my beliefs through science even though it involves phenomena which are not testable or repeatable.

^He means me there.

^He didn't deny it there.

[Jasi]

Come now, I thought we would end on a good note with Dinosaur Comics.

[Goose]

Note to Jasi. This discussion never ends. It goes on and on, spilling into every topic imaginable. It is endless. A chasm filled with the hearts and minds of the lost who live here for a time.

Selena and myself are mearly the current crypt keepers.

[Alastair]

Questioning God's existence is not hypocritical because even you question the existence of other gods like Zeus, Ra, Odin, ect and no body pulls a "Well prove reality exists then" card on you.

If only we could consign that well-worn card to the bottom of the deck, next to the "Science can't explain everything, so that proves God must have done it" card.

You want proof of the Soul?

One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.

OK, this doesn't prove that the soul exists. It just proves that there are things which are real which cannot be studied empirically.

Thanks Egann, this made me think.

You're right, this doesn't prove that the soul exists, but it does at least show that the lack of empirical evidence is not necessarily reason to doubt its existence. The only way that the soul should interact with the material Universe is through individual's consciousness (note that this is different to God - the qualities believers ascribe to God means that there should be some interaction between God and the Universe at large). However, the nature of the soul, in particular the immortality ascribed to it by most religions, is still debatable. Is there any reason to suppose that the soul continues to exist independantly of its body? To use Leibniz example, if the machine were deconstructed so that it could no longer think/sense/perceive, would you assume that its consciousness still existed?

[Egann]

^ Good questions. My theological up-bringing goes more along the lines of "Man IS a soul" rather than the more common "Man HAS a soul." The empirically studiable body is always associated with the un-empirically studiable consciousness, and separating the two into different essences misses the point because it's like trying to separate the heads from tails. They're both part of the same whole, a coin, or, in this case, a person.

This begs the question of what happens with life after death when the "soul" is separated from the body. I'll be honest, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. That's beyond my theological pay-grade.

Sure, at the end of Time when the New Heavens and the New Earth are made, everybody gets physically resurrected, so there's no problem THEN, but I have no clue what happens in the intermediate state. The separation of body and soul (I use this word only because I don't have a better one) as in death is unnatural.

[/theology]

To return to Leibniz's terms, a consciousness OUGHT to continue to "exist" even after it is no longer associated with a body because, while I won't say that it is "immaterial" per say, I will say that the substance that makes up consciousness is a simple substance apart from the physical substances of it's incarnation. Theoretically, though, it OUGHT to no longer be able to percieve as that it has nothing to percieve with. Does this mean the consciousness no longer exists if it can no longer percieve? I don't know. It's clearly lost one of it's defining aspects, but whether or not that single aspect defines the entirety of what is consciousness I just don't know.

[SOAP]

Questioning God's existence is not hypocritical because even you question the existence of other gods like Zeus, Ra, Odin, ect and no body pulls a "Well prove reality exists then" card on you.

If only we could consign that well-worn card to the bottom of the deck, next to the "Science can't explain everything, so that proves God must have done it" card.

Yes it's a tired argument but it bears repeating. So many times these debates center around the Christian God (and occasionally the "Abrahamic" God lest we forget people of other religions worship God too) that we forget that there's many other gods people worship. A Christian can easily write off these other gods as man-made yet I have yet to meet one that can give me a good enough reason why they're God is any different other than "faith" tells them God is real. This doesn't mean that people who worship other gods don't believe in their gods just as strongly. Your faith in one "truth" doesn't negate peoples' faith a totally different "truth." If all you have is your faith, then either all beliefs are equally valid or Christians are guilty of a hypocrisy. Atheist believes all gods are man-made so no hypocrisy is made. The only thing an atheist is guilty of is believing in one less god than a Christian does. If the Christian God deserves some sort of special treatment not allowed to the likes of Zeus or Ra then I'd like for a Christian to supply one.

I'm still waiting.

To return to Leibniz's terms, a consciousness OUGHT to continue to "exist" even after it is no longer associated with a body because, while I won't say that it is "immaterial" per say, I will say that the substance that makes up consciousness is a simple substance apart from the physical substances of it's incarnation. Theoretically, though, it OUGHT to no longer be able to percieve as that it has nothing to percieve with. Does this mean the consciousness no longer exists if it can no longer percieve? I don't know. It's clearly lost one of it's defining aspects, but whether or not that single aspect defines the entirety of what is consciousness I just don't know.

Ought to? Why is that and more importantly how is that? When I think of consciousness I think of computer software. Saying that consciousness can and should continue to exist is like saying my OS, my applications, and all my files can and still exist in some digital computer Heaven even after the hardware is completely fried beyond repair and no back-ups exist. Okay not a perfect example but I hope you understand where I coming from because I have no idea why you think the consciousness ought to exist even after death. I just don't buy this whole dissociation between mind and body.

Fortunately that's not the only interpretation of the afterlife. I'm not sure which branch of Christianity believes this or if might've been Judiasm or some other religion instead, but there's also the belief that when you die, you don't immediately go to Heaven (Or Hell). Everyone person who's ever lived and is saved are all ressurected at the same time on a new Earth and new Heaven. I can easily see this as all the information about you, your memories, your physical characteristics, your DNA, down to the last atom being copied from a specific time of your life and "pasted" in different time and space or a different universe entirely. It's a bit scificcy but hey it's something potentionally tangible that I can work with.

Edited by SOAP, 03 August 2009 - 06:04 AM.

[Poore]

Thought experiment:

A company invents a new teleportation device that allows people to travel thousands, millions, even billions of miles almost instantaneously. However, the device works by stripping apart the individual being transported atom-by-atom, a process which completely destroys the person's body, scanning each atom into a powerful computer, and reconstructing a perfect copy at the other end. This is a hypothetical, so assume that no errors will be made in the translation - the new copy will be a perfect duplicate of the original.

Would you use the device for travel?

[Reflectionist]

Thought experiment:

A company invents a new teleportation device that allows people to travel thousands, millions, even billions of miles almost instantaneously. However, the device works by stripping apart the individual being transported atom-by-atom, a process which completely destroys the person's body, scanning each atom into a powerful computer, and reconstructing a perfect copy at the other end. This is a hypothetical, so assume that no errors will be made in the translation - the new copy will be a perfect duplicate of the original.

Would you use the device for travel?

My temporal facepalm detector is blinking rapidly... but I'll bite.

Sure. Now, how the hell is this relevant to the discussion at hand? When someone posts something in a thread like this that appears to be completely irrelevant, or hypothetical, I often find myself facepalming at the 'logic' that goes on behind the story. It's contrived as hell. Christians excel at doing this; in fact, it's half of what you call preaching.

[Jasi]

Ooooh, the anticipation. I'm on the edge of my seat.

[SOAP]

Thought experiment:

A company invents a new teleportation device that allows people to travel thousands, millions, even billions of miles almost instantaneously. However, the device works by stripping apart the individual being transported atom-by-atom, a process which completely destroys the person's body, scanning each atom into a powerful computer, and reconstructing a perfect copy at the other end. This is a hypothetical, so assume that no errors will be made in the translation - the new copy will be a perfect duplicate of the original.

Would you use the device for travel?

I figured someone would bring that up. And no I wouldn't. I cringe every time some one gets "beamed up" on Star Trek. Even if you could copy a person, down to the last atom with all the memories intact, it's still just a copy.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Thought experiment:

A company invents a new teleportation device that allows people to travel thousands, millions, even billions of miles almost instantaneously. However, the device works by stripping apart the individual being transported atom-by-atom, a process which completely destroys the person's body, scanning each atom into a powerful computer, and reconstructing a perfect copy at the other end. This is a hypothetical, so assume that no errors will be made in the translation - the new copy will be a perfect duplicate of the original.

Would you use the device for travel?

No, because the new copy would still be a copy. You also forget one other thing. If you believe in a soul, how does the soul get teleported?

If the soul is physical, it is destroyed and the copy gets a copied soul. The original soul is destroyed.
If the soul is not physical, then how does it end up in the new body? Will it end up in the new body or will the new body be devoid of a soul?

No matter what, the teleportation device would spell the end of you and the creation of a new you. There is only one exception and that is if you invent some wishful thinking about how the soul will try to travel

[spunky-monkey]

You're right, this doesn't prove that the soul exists, but it does at least show that the lack of empirical evidence is not necessarily reason to doubt its existence.

Ah ha, no. Let's be rational about this - for non-believers the lack of empirical evidence is every reason to doubt the existence of the soul. We cannot assume things exist if people claim it exists, it has to be backed up with evidence first, otherwise how do we differentiate the real from the imaginary?

The only way that the soul should interact with the material Universe is through individual's consciousness. However, the nature of the soul, in particular the immortality ascribed to it by most religions, is still debatable. Is there any reason to suppose that the soul continues to exist independantly of its body? To use Leibniz example, if the machine were deconstructed so that it could no longer think/sense/perceive, would you assume that its consciousness still existed?

Way to shift the burden of proof. How are atheists supposed to know its nature if you're not sure, we only acknowledge the soul existing in the realms of superstition and fantasy. Another thing, when you say Leibniz's work, are you referring to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's work? Or the sum of its parts is greater than the whole? Philosophical arguments like if you disassemble a chair, is it regarded as a chair anymore? Or just parts of a chair? I'm not sure where you've got this extract from so please be more specific.

Sure, at the end of Time when the New Heavens and the New Earth are made, everybody gets physically resurrected, so there's no problem THEN, but I have no clue what happens in the intermediate state. The separation of body and soul (I use this word only because I don't have a better one) as in death is unnatural.

You may laugh at me but I've never bothered to ask this question - How does one go about getting resurrected? If it's the holy power of God reconstituting dead cells biologically and reversing the aging-process then that's one thing as far as theology is concerned (or rather two things), but how does that work for those who were cremated? Or vaporised in the atomic bombs that fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? There are literally no remains to resurrect.

The only thing an atheist is guilty of is believing in one less god than a Christian does.

Please clarify on why you think this is a bad thing.

A company invents a new teleportation device that allows people to travel thousands, millions, even billions of miles almost instantaneously. However, the device works by stripping apart the individual being transported atom-by-atom, a process which completely destroys the person's body, scanning each atom into a powerful computer, and reconstructing a perfect copy at the other end. This is a hypothetical, so assume that no errors will be made in the translation - the new copy will be a perfect duplicate of the original.

Would you use the device for travel?

Teleportation, the transfer of matter from one point to another, relatively instantaneously is pure science fiction, it doesn't exist outside fiction. It cannot exist in reality because it would violate the law of conservation of energy/mass which states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, i.e. mass and/or energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but transformed. In order to teleport from point A to point B, at point A you would cease to exist and at point B you would have been created from nothing- not one but two violations in the laws of thermodynamics.

[Reflectionist]

The only thing an atheist is guilty of is believing in one less god than a Christian does.

Please clarify on why you think this is a bad thing.

I'm very positive that he doesn't. At all. And I don't see anything in his statement that suggests that he does. Do try to keep from making those kinds of assumptions, please.

[Poore]

No, because the new copy would still be a copy. You also forget one other thing. If you believe in a soul, how does the soul get teleported?

If the soul is physical, it is destroyed and the copy gets a copied soul. The original soul is destroyed.
If the soul is not physical, then how does it end up in the new body? Will it end up in the new body or will the new body be devoid of a soul?

No matter what, the teleportation device would spell the end of you and the creation of a new you. There is only one exception and that is if you invent some wishful thinking about how the soul will try to travel

And if you don't believe in a soul (or consciousness), and are truly a materialist, then the new copy is you. Data is data, and if physical data is the only thing that exists, and your "consciousness" is an illusion, as many of the atheists on this board have claimed, then you should be fine with this technology.

It's a hypothetical. Everything is perfect. Imagine that - there is no chance for error. And still some of you wouldn't use the technology. Why? What are you afraid of? After all, science has given you the necessary wisdom to know that there is no soul, so if the physical data is the same, the being is the same. Period. Anything else is metaphysics, and thus you are acting unreasonably.

Thanks for pointing out the point of the exercise, though - unless you're a pure materialist (who would use the technology in a heartbeat), you have no room to criticize anyone who believes in a soul. Calling it a "consciousness" and waving your hands and saying, "We just don't know!" doesn't make it an unscientific, irrational belief (from a purely materialistic point of view).

You forgot the "thought experiment" part.

Not to mention that you could create the new person out of matter accumulated at the destination site - carbon, iron, etc. aren't that hard to come by.

Nice job evading the exercise by nitpicking details and trying to make yourself appear intellectual, though.

Sure.

Okay - why? I'd like the reasoning behind your answer. Oh, wait, that's right. You're too afraid to talk about your real beliefs because "it's not worth the effort". Sorry for inconveniencing you.

Now, how the hell is this relevant to the discussion at hand? When someone posts something in a thread like this that appears to be completely irrelevant, or hypothetical, I often find myself facepalming at the 'logic' that goes on behind the story. It's contrived as hell. Christians excel at doing this; in fact, it's half of what you call preaching.

It was a thought experiment. To get people thinking. Because I wanted to see what their responses were. And they were about what I expected.

[Selena]

Why is it that only a handful of people here can state their opinions without acting like jackasses about it? Come on. You're intelligent enough to have an argument without resorting to petty insults. Please do not do it again.

Actually, while I'm here, I'll say this to everyone rather than just Poore. Civility is not that hard if you take a minute to control knee-jerk reactions. Acting like an ass automatically ruins an otherwise healthy debate, because it causes people to act defensively rather than post in a rational manner. Which starts a defensive, emotional circle of topic fail that descends into an abyss of thread locking and moderator yelling.

So quit it. Please.

[SOAP]

For a second there, I thought Poore was responding to me. I got confused because I wasn't trying to be confrontational at all (this time at least).

While I don't believe in a soul (actually I do, I just equate it with human consciousness and don't see it as separate from the body.) I wouldn't say I'm purely materialistic but the mind and body are interconnected on a physical level. Somehow I just can't imagine going through a teleportation machine and then "waking up" in a totally different point in space. What I would imagine is no longer being concious anymore and someone elsewhere suddenly popping into existence with all my memories. For all intents and purposes and probably as far as everyone is concerned it is me. But I, the guy who entered the teleportation device, wouldn't be experiencing anymore. Just a guy who thinks he's me.

How's this for a thought experiment. Say someone entered a simmilar teleportation device except people can safely be scanned without destroying any atoms of the original. A copy is made elsewhere but the original remains intact. Say you're that person. Now if the soul or consciousness or whathave you can successfully copied without any jarring break in perception--as you perceive being in one place, some light flashes, now you're somewhere else instead of feeling like everything before the flash of light was some distant memory or dream--then what happens when the original and the copy continue to coexist? Would you share consciousness, see and feel what your copy goes through? Now I'm rambling off. It's all conjecture but I actually think it's interesting to think about.

Edit: Actually, now taht I think about, even though I am very attached to the body I'm in, it's not exactly technically right to call the person who entered the device me anymore than it's correct to call the physical body I had when I was ten yaers old. We lose and gain parts of of ourself over the years. Fallen hair. Dead skin cells. New cells. The atoms that made me up when I was a child aren't the same ones that make me up now. Heck, some of those atoms could be in you now for all I know. I still see it as gamble though. Don't we still retain the same neurons throughout our lives. I'd associate what makes me "me" with my brain if nothing else. If taht's gets destroyed then I don't know if I would consider an exact duplicate of me the same as me. Their brain could be simmilar but it's still a completely new person with a completely new brain.

Edit, Edit: @spunky I'm an atheist unless you couldn't tell. So no I don't consider it a bad thing. I was being sarcastic.

Edited by SOAP, 04 August 2009 - 07:29 PM.

[Steel Samurai]

The soul, as a spiritual object, would not be bound by physical spacetime.

[SOAP]

The soul, as a spiritual object, would not be bound by physical spacetime.

The soul, as an abstract, can certainly get away with that. Just like all abstracts, it do whatever you want it to.

[Jasi]

Interesting food for thought, to be sure. I think people would just have to get over the weirdness of it.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Out of interest, Selena, what exactly where you responding to?

I've read through Poore's repsonse and I think it's quite reasonable.

And if you don't believe in a soul (or consciousness), and are truly a materialist, then the new copy is you. Data is data, and if physical data is the only thing that exists, and your "consciousness" is an illusion, as many of the atheists on this board have claimed, then you should be fine with this technology.

It's a hypothetical. Everything is perfect. Imagine that - there is no chance for error. And still some of you wouldn't use the technology. Why? What are you afraid of? After all, science has given you the necessary wisdom to know that there is no soul, so if the physical data is the same, the being is the same. Period. Anything else is metaphysics, and thus you are acting unreasonably.

Thanks for pointing out the point of the exercise, though - unless you're a pure materialist (who would use the technology in a heartbeat), you have no room to criticize anyone who believes in a soul. Calling it a "consciousness" and waving your hands and saying, "We just don't know!" doesn't make it an unscientific, irrational belief (from a purely materialistic point of view).

He has reminded me of something I had completely forgotten. This isn't the first time I've come across this paradox. The first time I round, given the correct information, I reasoned that there was no reason not to use the teleporter. However, this time round, I reasoned otherwise based on false premises. With perfect tact, he has shown that I was wrong. The correct answer that I should have given was that I would have no hesitation to use the teleporter.

During our life span, we continuously replace brain cells over a seven year period. Brain cells that may store memories in the form of epigenetics or how they are connected, are replaced in a way that does not disrupt memory or even brain structure. The only difference between what happens naturally and the teleporter, is that the latter forces it all to happen all at once or at least in a relatively short timespan. There is no difference. With there being no soul and even no "consciousness", the new you on another planet is still you.

What if the machine breaks down and you remain where you are and a new copy is made elsewhere? Both are you. Mark that as point 0. Both copies cease to be alike after point 0.

Yes, this is a very interesting idea and I'm sure there are those who object to it. However, I would like to make one point, Poore.

Materialism is not necessarily the same as those who reject Cartesian dualism. The concept of materialism only posits that everything is made from matter and energy, since energy is interchangeable with matter (E=mc2). Therefore materialism does not necessarily reject the idea of dualism or the soul, as long as both concepts are rooted in material and that neither are non-material. Do not forget that Materialism is a very large philosophical position, bound to have various different schools that may have different aspects.

[Poore]

Out of interest, Selena, what exactly where you responding to?

I've read through Poore's repsonse and I think it's quite reasonable.

Thanks, though I still feel obliged to apologize for upsetting Selena. She has been fair-minded often enough in the past that I will defer to her judgement. That being said, it's no surprise that I often come off a bit abrasive because I am, in reality, a huge dick when it comes to arguments/debates, largely stemming from my hatred for censorship and political correctness. If I feel like I should be an ass to you, then that's what I do. It's just who I am. I try to tone it down the best I can.

He has reminded me of something I had completely forgotten. This isn't the first time I've come across this paradox. The first time I round, given the correct information, I reasoned that there was no reason not to use the teleporter. However, this time round, I reasoned otherwise based on false premises. With perfect tact, he has shown that I was wrong. The correct answer that I should have given was that I would have no hesitation to use the teleporter.

During our life span, we continuously replace brain cells over a seven year period. Brain cells that may store memories in the form of epigenetics or how they are connected, are replaced in a way that does not disrupt memory or even brain structure. The only difference between what happens naturally and the teleporter, is that the latter forces it all to happen all at once or at least in a relatively short timespan. There is no difference. With there being no soul and even no "consciousness", the new you on another planet is still you.

What if the machine breaks down and you remain where you are and a new copy is made elsewhere? Both are you. Mark that as point 0. Both copies cease to be alike after point 0.

It is an interesting paradox, though even if you don't beleive in a soul/consciousness, I tend to believe that the new you is still not you. It's really just the Ship of Theseus paradox applied to a human being.

Because there are so many parts to a ship AND a human being, I prefer to restate it as the 'grandfather's axe' problem. If your grandfather had an axe, and after he died, your father replaced the head of the axe, and after your father died, you replaced the handle, is it still the same axe? From a material standpoint, no -it's a completely different axe. But the idea of the axe remains the same, and it's identity in the minds of myself and, when he was still alive, my father, is still that of my grandfather's axe.

In my mind, slowly replacing parts of yourself while the whole remains intact is different from completely destroying and then recreating, but at this point (even if both parties don't believe in the soul) it's completely subjective and I don't think either party can claim a more 'correct' view of the subject.

Yes, this is a very interesting idea and I'm sure there are those who object to it. However, I would like to make one point, Poore.

Materialism is not necessarily the same as those who reject Cartesian dualism. The concept of materialism only posits that everything is made from matter and energy, since energy is interchangeable with matter (E=mc2). Therefore materialism does not necessarily reject the idea of dualism or the soul, as long as both concepts are rooted in material and that neither are non-material. Do not forget that Materialism is a very large philosophical position, bound to have various different schools that may have different aspects.

True, and I concede that I was not as clear as I should have been. When I talk about materialists, I typically mean those who do not consider the soul 'energy', as there is no scientific proof of the soul's energy. I've never met a materialist who actually believed in a soul, but I guess there's always a chance

Edit: This story really illustrates my point of view about this subject (from the WikiPedia article):

I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn't weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the ground twice in this century. "So it isn't the original building?" I had asked my Japanese guide.
"But yes, of course it is," he insisted, rather surprised at my question.
"But it's burnt down?"
"Yes."
"Twice."
"Many times."
"And rebuilt."
"Of course. It is an important and historic building."
"With completely new materials."
"But of course. It was burnt down."
"So how can it be the same building?"
"It is always the same building."
I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.

Edited by Poore, 05 August 2009 - 04:11 PM.