File: 1615628453260.png (927.06 KB, 1118x1080, 559:540, vlcsnap-2021-03-12-22h42m4….png) ImgOps iqdb
If so, why do you believe you have a soul and what is this soul you have according to you?
If not, why don't you believe you have a soul and what is a soul according to you?
If not, why don't you believe you have a soul and what is a soul according to you?
Soul is a ill defined wishy washy term that doesn't have even close to a useful meaning to even investigate properly.
In other words it is poorly thought out made up bullshit to cope with death and the fact that the body and mind are impermanent.
Obviously I don't believe in the concept of soul and it doesn't objectively exist and doesn't even seem a coherent or specific enough idea to be possible for it to exist.
In other words it is poorly thought out made up bullshit to cope with death and the fact that the body and mind are impermanent.
Obviously I don't believe in the concept of soul and it doesn't objectively exist and doesn't even seem a coherent or specific enough idea to be possible for it to exist.
Soul is a useful concept in so far as it describes our current inability to explain consciousness. Retarded materialists would like to believe that they could reduce everything to the physical and their hubris goes so far as to deny that there even is such a thing as consciousness. "It is merely an illusion" – and yet they fail to realize that an illusion has to be experienced by something, it cannot exist separate from a subject.
Soul is just a word for the immaterial in human consciousness that allows it to exist. Is it incoherent? Well, yeah, that's the point. If we could define it, it would cease to be immaterial and you could simulate it with a good enough machine.
Soul is just a word for the immaterial in human consciousness that allows it to exist. Is it incoherent? Well, yeah, that's the point. If we could define it, it would cease to be immaterial and you could simulate it with a good enough machine.
>>177723
Oh so it 100% ends at brain death and is more of a imperfect analogy for contentiousness then anything that actually exist.
Also, almost no one, especially when talking about metaphysical bullshit, would agree with such a definition.
Oh so it 100% ends at brain death and is more of a imperfect analogy for contentiousness then anything that actually exist.
Also, almost no one, especially when talking about metaphysical bullshit, would agree with such a definition.
>>177726
Reason and cognitive ability sets us apart from animals. Not whatever the fuck a soul is supposed to be.
Reason and cognitive ability sets us apart from animals. Not whatever the fuck a soul is supposed to be.
I don't think we have a soul. I believe that the body and mind are linked, one and the same. To infer spiritual significance into our mind is silly and primitive, honestly.
File: 1615676382308.png (1.3 MB, 2364x1845, 788:615, hu tao.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>177693
There's empirical evidence for thoughts, feelings, memories, and sensations, because they can be observed in the physical world. There's no empirical evidence for a soul, self, or entity because those don't physically exist. The problem is we experience the world as a unified self, as something greater than the sum of its parts, therefore we're compelled to assert the soul exists.
There's empirical evidence for thoughts, feelings, memories, and sensations, because they can be observed in the physical world. There's no empirical evidence for a soul, self, or entity because those don't physically exist. The problem is we experience the world as a unified self, as something greater than the sum of its parts, therefore we're compelled to assert the soul exists.
How would I even begin to believe that?! I can't even get a solid answer on what a soul even IS!
The soul is an outdated concept that used to refer to a person's conscience. That's why some people will say about a murderer that "he has no soul" because he did something really bad in their eyes. He is reduced to the status of an animal because he has committed an act that signifies the lack of a conscience.
File: 1615678733668.png (24.13 KB, 913x505, 913:505, a.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>177739
>I can't even get a solid answer on what a soul even IS!
Identity is the term used in mathematics. What makes x = x true.
When we look at a butterfly the physical reality is random molecules spasming with no purpose. There's no observation of the same butterfly from moment to moment, because the sameness of the butterfly is a metaphysical category that's unobservable. What makes butterfly = butterfly across time is its identity, its "being" or "soul", which exists apart from the material butterfly.
>I can't even get a solid answer on what a soul even IS!
Identity is the term used in mathematics. What makes x = x true.
When we look at a butterfly the physical reality is random molecules spasming with no purpose. There's no observation of the same butterfly from moment to moment, because the sameness of the butterfly is a metaphysical category that's unobservable. What makes butterfly = butterfly across time is its identity, its "being" or "soul", which exists apart from the material butterfly.
>>177730
Technically all humans are animals so yes.
Also a retard is still capable of better reason and cognition then lower animals.
Technically all humans are animals so yes.
Also a retard is still capable of better reason and cognition then lower animals.
File: 1615691195312.png (151.95 KB, 400x222, 200:111, 6a019b00fed410970b01b8d0a9….png) ImgOps iqdb
Your soul is the object, the shadow is your physical manifestation.
File: 1615706847055.jpg (748.34 KB, 999x999, 1:1, 1547118964915.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>177726
the word animal literally comes from the word soul in latin, "anima". animals most definitely have souls as in they are animated, the soul is what animates things. everything from a human all the way down to a rock has a soul because all is animated and all has rhythm to some degree.
what really sets us apart from animals is conscience, not to be confused with consciousness. conscience is the knowledge of right and wrong is what every human is capable of knowing, but a squirrel isnt capable of. if you wouldnt do it to yourself, dont do it to someone else, thats how simple the difference between right and wrong is.
>>177722
>our current inability to explain consciousness
more like your current inability. consciousness is awareness of the outside world and yourself and being able to reflect on those things. the fundamental reason why scientists dont think consciousness exists is that they believe the universe is disconnected, as in there is no ether that permeates everything, and i know that the ether has to exist. imagine for a second that there are only 2 particles in the universe and theyre a distance apart. how does gravity attract them if there is literally nothing in between them? the particles have to be in contact with each other somehow to tell each other to attract. with this invisible ether permeating everything established its very easy to believe that consciousness exists within the ether, the one immaterial thing that for sure exists.
the word animal literally comes from the word soul in latin, "anima". animals most definitely have souls as in they are animated, the soul is what animates things. everything from a human all the way down to a rock has a soul because all is animated and all has rhythm to some degree.
what really sets us apart from animals is conscience, not to be confused with consciousness. conscience is the knowledge of right and wrong is what every human is capable of knowing, but a squirrel isnt capable of. if you wouldnt do it to yourself, dont do it to someone else, thats how simple the difference between right and wrong is.
>>177722
>our current inability to explain consciousness
more like your current inability. consciousness is awareness of the outside world and yourself and being able to reflect on those things. the fundamental reason why scientists dont think consciousness exists is that they believe the universe is disconnected, as in there is no ether that permeates everything, and i know that the ether has to exist. imagine for a second that there are only 2 particles in the universe and theyre a distance apart. how does gravity attract them if there is literally nothing in between them? the particles have to be in contact with each other somehow to tell each other to attract. with this invisible ether permeating everything established its very easy to believe that consciousness exists within the ether, the one immaterial thing that for sure exists.
I used to be skeptical until I was subjected to involuntary astral projection. It's one thing to believe in some superstition about a soul, another thing entirely to experience being that soul having seperated from your body and being in the same nonphysical dimension you instantly remember as that place you were right before you were born in human form.
Astral projection being the proof that we have a soul?
What I am worried about is that after I experience physical death, I would retain all the memories of when I was alive. Why would I want that? I want to forget everything.
What I am worried about is that after I experience physical death, I would retain all the memories of when I was alive. Why would I want that? I want to forget everything.
File: 1615734829344.jpg (109.63 KB, 956x1263, 956:1263, ghostchill.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>177759
People already lose memories from amnesia or brain injury, so it seems unlikely memories as we understand them would persist after death. If you were to lose all your memories today you would still be you, so clearly the self isn't contingent on memory.
People already lose memories from amnesia or brain injury, so it seems unlikely memories as we understand them would persist after death. If you were to lose all your memories today you would still be you, so clearly the self isn't contingent on memory.
File: 1615738530947.png (59.15 KB, 2044x1184, 511:296, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>177755
Animals are conscious, and inanimate objects are conscious. It's a different level of consciousness compared to human consciousness.
Animals are conscious, and inanimate objects are conscious. It's a different level of consciousness compared to human consciousness.
>>177763
You're going to have define conscious for me, cause I don't see how inanimate things can be conscious.
You're going to have define conscious for me, cause I don't see how inanimate things can be conscious.
>>177759
I feel the same fear. I wish either to disappear forever, or, at least, to forget everything. Because remembering this life would mean that I am immortal, meaning, there is no escape from this material realm, ever.
I feel the same fear. I wish either to disappear forever, or, at least, to forget everything. Because remembering this life would mean that I am immortal, meaning, there is no escape from this material realm, ever.
>>177764
soul: what animates things
consciousness: awareness of the world and yourself. a higher level of consciousness is reflecting on the world and yourself.
conscience: knowledge of right and wrong
the double slit experiment proved that matter at the smallest level is conscious, meaning aware. in that case it was aware that it was being observed. now if we know that at least electrons are conscious, since everything has some electrons in it, everything must be conscious.
soul: what animates things
consciousness: awareness of the world and yourself. a higher level of consciousness is reflecting on the world and yourself.
conscience: knowledge of right and wrong
the double slit experiment proved that matter at the smallest level is conscious, meaning aware. in that case it was aware that it was being observed. now if we know that at least electrons are conscious, since everything has some electrons in it, everything must be conscious.
>>177768
its literally what the words animate and animal derive from. re Aristotle's De Anima
its literally what the words animate and animal derive from. re Aristotle's De Anima
>>177769
also anima can be translated as breath or air. note that in genesis it says "god breathed the breath of life into adam, and then he became a living soul". up until that point he was just a form made of dust.
also anima can be translated as breath or air. note that in genesis it says "god breathed the breath of life into adam, and then he became a living soul". up until that point he was just a form made of dust.
File: 1615759365016.jpg (71.68 KB, 900x530, 90:53, Dandelion_topNteaser.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
We don't have souls. We, stripped of all senses, and mental and physical outgrowths, are souls, or rather, are THE soul, along with every other particle in the universe. It is >>177755 (the ether). It is the immanent God. It is pure being without need: truly immortal and eternal.
According to my experience, we never possess a soul, but we share a universal soul-field that roots every physical thing, including the particles of our brain. Another way to view it would be as an infinitesimally small point within a sphere, whose surface would be a cloud-like universe of particles, with quintillions of fine strings connecting the point to every particle that exists and ensoulling it, animating it perhaps, like a seeding dandelion in structure. It is beyond physical, but linked to physicality in a way that I do not have words to articulate.
>>177759
No memory or personality is retained, as these things are rooted in the material brain and the flesh rots when you die. Look to the experiences of those who have suffered physical brain damage and undergone rapid personality change for proof of how personality and the physical brain are inseparable.
According to my experience, we never possess a soul, but we share a universal soul-field that roots every physical thing, including the particles of our brain. Another way to view it would be as an infinitesimally small point within a sphere, whose surface would be a cloud-like universe of particles, with quintillions of fine strings connecting the point to every particle that exists and ensoulling it, animating it perhaps, like a seeding dandelion in structure. It is beyond physical, but linked to physicality in a way that I do not have words to articulate.
>>177759
No memory or personality is retained, as these things are rooted in the material brain and the flesh rots when you die. Look to the experiences of those who have suffered physical brain damage and undergone rapid personality change for proof of how personality and the physical brain are inseparable.
File: 1615789679989.jpg (125.18 KB, 1000x483, 1000:483, zarathustra.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Back in the uni days I heard this thought experiment:
Imagine you are in the future and you can make digital copy of your mind, save it, and later copy it into perfect biological clone of yourself.
As a result of this, there will be duplicate version of you existing - both psychologically and biologically identical to you.
But the question is: do YOU BELIEVE that it would be still YOU?
If the answer you gave instinctively is "no", you believe in the soul.
For soul is understood as something extra, neither body nor mind, that constitutes your personal identity.
Soul is the concept that doesn't even need to be connected to any religious faith. Just like in the case of Aristotle, who understood soul as form of the body of each living organism
Imagine you are in the future and you can make digital copy of your mind, save it, and later copy it into perfect biological clone of yourself.
As a result of this, there will be duplicate version of you existing - both psychologically and biologically identical to you.
But the question is: do YOU BELIEVE that it would be still YOU?
If the answer you gave instinctively is "no", you believe in the soul.
For soul is understood as something extra, neither body nor mind, that constitutes your personal identity.
Soul is the concept that doesn't even need to be connected to any religious faith. Just like in the case of Aristotle, who understood soul as form of the body of each living organism
>>177774
That argument is a false dichotomy.
Reason I know is because the issues associated with it occasionally come up with transhumanism, mind uploading, and teleportation through replicators.
Its about the problem of the continuity of consciousness. Where if "you" die, just because there is a exact replica replacement doesn't mean the "you" that died has a continuity of consciousness.
Externally there isn't a difference but internally the one that is dead is most certainly dead and doesn't experience the consciousness up the replica.
It isn't about soul or anything metaphysical. It's just inescapable hard logic. The replication no matter how perfect isn't you and you are not the replication.
A glass that is identical to another glass is not that identical glass even if it's the same and has the same function.
Not sure if I made what I am trying to say clearly though.
That argument is a false dichotomy.
Reason I know is because the issues associated with it occasionally come up with transhumanism, mind uploading, and teleportation through replicators.
Its about the problem of the continuity of consciousness. Where if "you" die, just because there is a exact replica replacement doesn't mean the "you" that died has a continuity of consciousness.
Externally there isn't a difference but internally the one that is dead is most certainly dead and doesn't experience the consciousness up the replica.
It isn't about soul or anything metaphysical. It's just inescapable hard logic. The replication no matter how perfect isn't you and you are not the replication.
A glass that is identical to another glass is not that identical glass even if it's the same and has the same function.
Not sure if I made what I am trying to say clearly though.
File: 1615814468294.png (423.14 KB, 500x542, 250:271, marisa.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>177776
>It isn't about soul or anything metaphysical. It's just inescapable hard logic.
Logic is a branch of metaphysics, because logic doesn't physically exist.
>It isn't about soul or anything metaphysical. It's just inescapable hard logic.
Logic is a branch of metaphysics, because logic doesn't physically exist.
Soul is the unity of mind and body, of flesh and spirit. We don't posess a soul but we are soul. Consciousness is the experience of constant separation of mind and body and we always try to reestablish that premordial unity yet only achieve it in very few moments since we're trapped as conscious observers of ourselves. When we die we reunite with the world soul though there is no conscious observer to tell us what that's like.
>>177776
So if your consciousness is shut off – discontinued – and then you wake back up, does that mean that the person who wakes up is an entirely different person than the person who fell asleep? There is no continuation of consciousness after all.
So if your consciousness is shut off – discontinued – and then you wake back up, does that mean that the person who wakes up is an entirely different person than the person who fell asleep? There is no continuation of consciousness after all.
>>177791
just because someone seems different doesnt mean its not the same person. you could wake up tomorrow and be a flamboyant faggot but you would still be you. you are not your personality or your brain or your consciousness, these are just things you have. its like that question about the boat. if you replace one wooden plank on a boat, how many does it take for the boat to no longer be the original boat? the answer is that even one plank makes it no longer the boat it originally was. your personality can change completely but its still you.
>>177776
>It isn't about soul or anything metaphysical
consciousness isnt physical, so yeah you are talking about metaphysics. if a replica is 100% physically identical (the brain too), and you dont think its you, then there must be a metaphysical difference.
just because someone seems different doesnt mean its not the same person. you could wake up tomorrow and be a flamboyant faggot but you would still be you. you are not your personality or your brain or your consciousness, these are just things you have. its like that question about the boat. if you replace one wooden plank on a boat, how many does it take for the boat to no longer be the original boat? the answer is that even one plank makes it no longer the boat it originally was. your personality can change completely but its still you.
>>177776
>It isn't about soul or anything metaphysical
consciousness isnt physical, so yeah you are talking about metaphysics. if a replica is 100% physically identical (the brain too), and you dont think its you, then there must be a metaphysical difference.
>>177791
>and then you wake back up
That is the problem.
You don't wake back up.
The replica wakes up in this example and you are dead.
The original is dead, the duplicate replaces it.
It is it, and you are you. Just because something is the same as something else doesn't mean they are one in the same.
For example cars on a production lot.
They are identical but one car is not the other car. It is just the same as the other car.
Again, nothing to do with the car having soul or something. It has to do with simply the reality of the situation. Something that is the same as something else doesn't make it one in the same.
The argument of the thought experiment is that if something is similar enough they are one in the same, which isn't at all true.
>>177798
>if a replica is 100% physically identical
two objects being 100% identical doesn't make them 1 object. They are still separate objects.
What about this aren't you getting.
>if a replica is 100% physically identical
two objects being 100% identical doesn't make them 1 object. They are still separate objects.
What about this aren't you getting.
>>177801
First, this >>177801. Second, the instance my brain has been copied the copy is no longer identical to the original because the copy does not experience any of the things I do from that point on. You take a thing, clone it, and from that point on, since change keeps occurring - and it is different change for both iterations - they are now their own unique things. I am not the me I was five minutes ago before I read your post and that copy of my brain will no longer be an exact copy of my brain the moment I look at that storage medium containing a copy of my brain structure from five minutes ago because that copy is not involved in or affected by the original observing its own copy in the way the original is.
First, this >>177801. Second, the instance my brain has been copied the copy is no longer identical to the original because the copy does not experience any of the things I do from that point on. You take a thing, clone it, and from that point on, since change keeps occurring - and it is different change for both iterations - they are now their own unique things. I am not the me I was five minutes ago before I read your post and that copy of my brain will no longer be an exact copy of my brain the moment I look at that storage medium containing a copy of my brain structure from five minutes ago because that copy is not involved in or affected by the original observing its own copy in the way the original is.
>>177801
okay im starting to understand that were on two different wave lengths. since you dont believe in things outside the physical world you dont understand what i mean by "you". if you dont even believe you are conscious then theres nothing to discuss here, you just completely reject the existence of the immaterial and thats that.
>>177802
>I am not the me I was five minutes ago before I read your post
yes you are, its just your ideas have changed. thinking you are your ideas is what leads to such vitriolic hate during political discussions, its called ego identification. people start thinking that they ARE democrats and they cling to the ideas because they think without the ideas they arent anything.
okay im starting to understand that were on two different wave lengths. since you dont believe in things outside the physical world you dont understand what i mean by "you". if you dont even believe you are conscious then theres nothing to discuss here, you just completely reject the existence of the immaterial and thats that.
>>177802
>I am not the me I was five minutes ago before I read your post
yes you are, its just your ideas have changed. thinking you are your ideas is what leads to such vitriolic hate during political discussions, its called ego identification. people start thinking that they ARE democrats and they cling to the ideas because they think without the ideas they arent anything.
>>177806
Now you are just strawmanning.
If you have person 1.
You make a duplicate of person 1 to make person A.
You now have two people. Person 1 and person A.
Person 1 is identical in every way to person A
They are the same.
Person 1 is not person A.
Person 1 is person 1
Person A is person A.
If person 1 leaves person A doesn't become person 1. They are still person A.
While they are the same they are still separate entities with separate bodies and separate minds.
Being the same does not make them one in the same.
Do you understand what I am saying now?
I was using objects before since those are things in the real world that are identically made on production lines to get the point across.
Just because one object being made on a production line is the same as the other doesn't mean they are one in the same.
Please tell me you understand because I really can't break this down any more simply.
Now you are just strawmanning.
If you have person 1.
You make a duplicate of person 1 to make person A.
You now have two people. Person 1 and person A.
Person 1 is identical in every way to person A
They are the same.
Person 1 is not person A.
Person 1 is person 1
Person A is person A.
If person 1 leaves person A doesn't become person 1. They are still person A.
While they are the same they are still separate entities with separate bodies and separate minds.
Being the same does not make them one in the same.
Do you understand what I am saying now?
I was using objects before since those are things in the real world that are identically made on production lines to get the point across.
Just because one object being made on a production line is the same as the other doesn't mean they are one in the same.
Please tell me you understand because I really can't break this down any more simply.
>>177808
I think his point is that person A, having all the memories and exact thoughts of person 1, would think himself as person 1, not person A. There would be no break in consciousness from the duplication of person 1 into person A.
I think his point is that person A, having all the memories and exact thoughts of person 1, would think himself as person 1, not person A. There would be no break in consciousness from the duplication of person 1 into person A.
>>177810
But that is still at most valid for a single, planck-time approaching moment be true and likely only in the mind of person A. The moment person 1 and person A face each other they will realize that, while A's origin is a certain point in the mental development of 1, they have departed from each other and will experience even that very first moment differently from each other and from - at the very latest that point on - be fundamentally differenciated by their experience of that moment onwards.
To put it drastically in a stupid way, if I clone you and drop that copy into the isekai harem fantasy you have ever wanted and then that the copy out a year in real time later to meet with you - would you two still be the same person? Of course not. If I reduce that time to any short frame you'd like? Still the same. You are fundamentally different beings, regardless the copy having branched off from a point in your own mental development as the original. I just don't see where the problem with understanding is here to be honest.
But that is still at most valid for a single, planck-time approaching moment be true and likely only in the mind of person A. The moment person 1 and person A face each other they will realize that, while A's origin is a certain point in the mental development of 1, they have departed from each other and will experience even that very first moment differently from each other and from - at the very latest that point on - be fundamentally differenciated by their experience of that moment onwards.
To put it drastically in a stupid way, if I clone you and drop that copy into the isekai harem fantasy you have ever wanted and then that the copy out a year in real time later to meet with you - would you two still be the same person? Of course not. If I reduce that time to any short frame you'd like? Still the same. You are fundamentally different beings, regardless the copy having branched off from a point in your own mental development as the original. I just don't see where the problem with understanding is here to be honest.
>>177808
i get what youre saying but youve kind of defeated the point of the initial question. its meant to ask if you believe you are the product of your mind and the physical world, or if you exist outside the physical world.
>>177810
youve completely missed my point, and arrived at the opposite conclusion too.
i get what youre saying but youve kind of defeated the point of the initial question. its meant to ask if you believe you are the product of your mind and the physical world, or if you exist outside the physical world.
>>177810
youve completely missed my point, and arrived at the opposite conclusion too.
>>177810
There thoughts or feelings doesn't change anything nor even factor in to them not being one in the same.
Even if Person A thinks they are person 1 it doesn't make them person 1 nor does it make person one and person A one entity.
There thoughts or feelings doesn't change anything nor even factor in to them not being one in the same.
Even if Person A thinks they are person 1 it doesn't make them person 1 nor does it make person one and person A one entity.
>>177812
>i get what youre saying but youve kind of defeated the point of the initial question
I know, because the initial question is a illogical false dichotomy meant to push someone towards a equally illogical conclusion.
No matter how you phase it the funimental fact of the matter is no matter how similar two things are, it doesn't make those two things one in the same. It's a flawed argument that is made to try and trick people into taking a side on a particular issue.
You see similar types of tricks all the time in apologetics and they always fall apart when you focus on simple logical principles.
>i get what youre saying but youve kind of defeated the point of the initial question
I know, because the initial question is a illogical false dichotomy meant to push someone towards a equally illogical conclusion.
No matter how you phase it the funimental fact of the matter is no matter how similar two things are, it doesn't make those two things one in the same. It's a flawed argument that is made to try and trick people into taking a side on a particular issue.
You see similar types of tricks all the time in apologetics and they always fall apart when you focus on simple logical principles.
>>177814
Wouldn't two truly identical objects necessarily have to occupy the same exact space. Wouldn't that entail that multiple identical objects cannot exist?
I imagine two number 1s. One on the left and one on the right:
1 1
They are differentiated by their positioning, though in all other aspects they are identical, so they are not truly identical. Can then identical objects even be imagined let alone exist? I am assuming that position is an attribute of an object, like in most software.
Perhaps identity is actually just a very high degree of similarity
Wouldn't two truly identical objects necessarily have to occupy the same exact space. Wouldn't that entail that multiple identical objects cannot exist?
I imagine two number 1s. One on the left and one on the right:
1 1
They are differentiated by their positioning, though in all other aspects they are identical, so they are not truly identical. Can then identical objects even be imagined let alone exist? I am assuming that position is an attribute of an object, like in most software.
Perhaps identity is actually just a very high degree of similarity
>>177815
>Wouldn't two truly identical objects necessarily have to occupy the same exact space.
No.
>Wouldn't that entail that multiple identical objects cannot exist?
No.
>I am assuming that position is an attribute of an object
I think that assumption is incorrect which is why I am saying no.
>Wouldn't two truly identical objects necessarily have to occupy the same exact space.
No.
>Wouldn't that entail that multiple identical objects cannot exist?
No.
>I am assuming that position is an attribute of an object
I think that assumption is incorrect which is why I am saying no.
>>177816
If you took it to it's logical conclusion then the whole thought experiment falls apart because it would be a totally impossible situation by your own defined terms and definitions.
Like a triangle with 4 sides.
If you took it to it's logical conclusion then the whole thought experiment falls apart because it would be a totally impossible situation by your own defined terms and definitions.
Like a triangle with 4 sides.
>>177815
Identity is but a point of reference. When you have two equally manufactured hammers and want to put a nail in the wall in the wall we refer to these as identical. They have the very same function. Considering you investigate a murder and one of those two hammers is said to have been used to hit the victim then we do not consider the hammers as identical. One of them will be seen as the killer's weapon.
In short, identity commonly describes a sameness of abstract attributes (function, color, shape, weight and so on) however when it comes to concrete objects there's always an irreducible singularity that separates them. Singularity just means identity with itself, not with an abstract idea and also not with a similar object.
As a person we are always identical with ourselves as this knowledge, that we are who we are, persists regardless of time, space and experience. This doesn't have to be a metaphysical phenomenon though. It could be related to our physical manifestation.
Identity is but a point of reference. When you have two equally manufactured hammers and want to put a nail in the wall in the wall we refer to these as identical. They have the very same function. Considering you investigate a murder and one of those two hammers is said to have been used to hit the victim then we do not consider the hammers as identical. One of them will be seen as the killer's weapon.
In short, identity commonly describes a sameness of abstract attributes (function, color, shape, weight and so on) however when it comes to concrete objects there's always an irreducible singularity that separates them. Singularity just means identity with itself, not with an abstract idea and also not with a similar object.
As a person we are always identical with ourselves as this knowledge, that we are who we are, persists regardless of time, space and experience. This doesn't have to be a metaphysical phenomenon though. It could be related to our physical manifestation.
>>177804
dude.. I was in the same class wuth what people call "identical twins" for years
They were not identical, neither psychologically nor even physically. They were simillar, but distinctively different at the same time.
The kind of likeness the though experiment is talking about is something totally different
dude.. I was in the same class wuth what people call "identical twins" for years
They were not identical, neither psychologically nor even physically. They were simillar, but distinctively different at the same time.
The kind of likeness the though experiment is talking about is something totally different
>do you believe you have a soul?
no, it's a mythological concept to make humans seem like they are more special than non-human animals
they aren't
no, it's a mythological concept to make humans seem like they are more special than non-human animals
they aren't
>>177962
Aristotle thought there are three kinds of souls - plants, animals and humans all have souls, but with different abilities
He even defined human as animals, but as animals with reason
Also, if there is nothing special about humans compared to other animals, why we don't see civilisations and cultures created by other species?
Aristotle thought there are three kinds of souls - plants, animals and humans all have souls, but with different abilities
He even defined human as animals, but as animals with reason
Also, if there is nothing special about humans compared to other animals, why we don't see civilisations and cultures created by other species?
>>177963
>Aristotle thought
Aristotle was incorrect and existentially just making stuff up and spitballing.
> if there is nothing special about humans compared to other animals, why we don't see civilisations and cultures created by other species?
Totally explainable without using the supernatural explanation of soul.
It is also debatable that your statement is even true since it could be argued certain animals have what could be defined as a culture.
>Aristotle thought
Aristotle was incorrect and existentially just making stuff up and spitballing.
> if there is nothing special about humans compared to other animals, why we don't see civilisations and cultures created by other species?
Totally explainable without using the supernatural explanation of soul.
It is also debatable that your statement is even true since it could be argued certain animals have what could be defined as a culture.
>>177992
It is a useful term for concepts that are outside of nature like souls and spirits.
Things that don't objectively exist but that people have made up and believe in anyway.
It also clearly isn't meaningless, you just don't like it in context.
It is a useful term for concepts that are outside of nature like souls and spirits.
Things that don't objectively exist but that people have made up and believe in anyway.
It also clearly isn't meaningless, you just don't like it in context.
>>177993
>It is a useful term for concepts that are outside of nature like souls and spirits
the word youre looking for is metaphysical. also it would be great if you could go back and read the thread before you spew all your shit everywhere.
>It is a useful term for concepts that are outside of nature like souls and spirits
the word youre looking for is metaphysical. also it would be great if you could go back and read the thread before you spew all your shit everywhere.
>>177994
If you are unable to have a civil discussion and get triggered by words you don't like you need to leave this thread and board.
You are behaving unacceptably.
If you are unable to have a civil discussion and get triggered by words you don't like you need to leave this thread and board.
You are behaving unacceptably.
>>177996
if you dont want to read the thread before posting thats fine, just dont get all pissy when people dont want to explain shit twice for you. and your retardation surrounding the word supernatural doesnt bother me at all, im just not going to play make believe with you on the definition of the word.
if you dont want to read the thread before posting thats fine, just dont get all pissy when people dont want to explain shit twice for you. and your retardation surrounding the word supernatural doesnt bother me at all, im just not going to play make believe with you on the definition of the word.
>>177991
>>177992
understanding of the term "soul" is usually very spiritual
Aristotle didn't think about the soul as spiritual being from different world (that was pretty much Plato's understanding
Aristotle was pretty much naturalist, BUT he was convinved pure material world (atomistic world of Democrates) would be just a mess without structure, so he came up with definition of the soul as "form of the body". Human form/soul is immaterial, but it's not immortal
>>177992
understanding of the term "soul" is usually very spiritual
Aristotle didn't think about the soul as spiritual being from different world (that was pretty much Plato's understanding
Aristotle was pretty much naturalist, BUT he was convinved pure material world (atomistic world of Democrates) would be just a mess without structure, so he came up with definition of the soul as "form of the body". Human form/soul is immaterial, but it's not immortal
File: 1616414681331.png (166.87 KB, 800x678, 400:339, 2.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>177992
>"Supernatural" is a meaningless term. All that exists is part of nature.
You presumably believe this is a meaningful, logically coherent, and truthful statement. Can you point to where meaning and logic exist in nature? If they don't exist in nature, what do you believe you're writing about when you make this argument?
>"Supernatural" is a meaningless term. All that exists is part of nature.
You presumably believe this is a meaningful, logically coherent, and truthful statement. Can you point to where meaning and logic exist in nature? If they don't exist in nature, what do you believe you're writing about when you make this argument?
>>178012
if you want to deny the existence of truth and logic theres nothing anyone can say to stop you, youre literally beyond reasoning with. this is the most fundamental decision anyone could ever make, to believe that the truth exists and is knowable, or that it isnt (aka solipsism). you could say that theres no reason to believe reasoning exists, but you also literally cant reason a case for the other side of things, so reason wins by default i guess.
if you want to deny the existence of truth and logic theres nothing anyone can say to stop you, youre literally beyond reasoning with. this is the most fundamental decision anyone could ever make, to believe that the truth exists and is knowable, or that it isnt (aka solipsism). you could say that theres no reason to believe reasoning exists, but you also literally cant reason a case for the other side of things, so reason wins by default i guess.