#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
For those who believe in a soul, why?
To those the believe that is a soul, or perhaps some other non-corporeal aspect of our lives, why do you believe this? What is your evidence or logic behind such a belief?
Add New Argument |
1
point
I like to believe that we're more than the makeup of our brain, sending electric impulses, and our genetics and personal experiences. As in, if someone were to somehow replicate all that of someone I knew and replace them with the copy, that wouldn't sit right with me. The copy, however well made, wouldn't feel the same (like it's a different soul). Of course, you wouldn't even notice a perfect clone replacement, being a perfect clone and all, so this feeling doesn't really hold up against logic, or anything really, apart from my irrational heart. But who wants to think that, once (if?) we reach some technological level that allows this to happen, we can just just keep replacing each other? It's just a nice, probably ultimately wrong, thought. But nice all the same. I will tag this as support since you got right to the heart of my thought process on this one: that belief in the soul is, at its heart, just a big warm fuzzy. That being said, it makes me a bit sad that people choose to believe in something that has no scrap of evidence, just because the belief makes them happy. 1
point
Do you have to feel satisfied to learn? Me, personally, when I learn something that dissatisfies me, I strive to learn more: to make it better. What means more to you: a fantasy world that you cannot change or a $#!+ world that you could make better? Also, which is more realistic? 1
point
Sure, but your attitude isn't really shared by a majority of people, which is really the root of this question, no? For people to accept that there is no soul, you'd have to teach them first to think objectively, to be unafraid of letting go of what we think we know now and search for evidence, for real fact. Which is really quite a difficult task. Or maybe now is the time to redefine what we believe to be a soul? Sure, but your attitude isn't really shared by a majority of people, which is really the root of this question, no? Root of the question, yes! This, right here, is the stick up my ass, the fly in my ointment. Rationality has always been undermined, I get that. But the more I step outside of my house, the more I see that it is being vilified. For people to accept that there is no soul That isn't what I'm asking them to do. I'm asking them to ask themselves, objectively, WHY they believe in it. Or maybe now is the time to redefine what we believe to be a soul? No, the definition of soul is fine. Should we also redefine the unicorn and Autobots? My thought process involves detaching people from imaginary constructs, not trying to convince folk that nobody has thought of them... I don't know if I believe in a soul as supposed by you or anyone else but.....If a "Transporter"device was invented, similar to what was imagined by the creators of Startrek, no matter how many people safely used it, I wouldn't be interested at all in using it to get from one pace to another. Would you? One can assume that if such technology was widely available and heavily used, if it somehow twisted or changed our personalities, or left us "without a soul", that such side effects would be well documented. Provided such a condition did not exist, I would have no problems using the tech. I don't know if I believe in a soul as supposed by you or anyone else I used "soul" because in the Western, English-speaking world, this term is the most famous way to get my point across. However, in my debate description, I did also say "or perhaps some other non-corporeal aspect of our lives". Metaphysical specifics aside, I am speaking of a completely unproven concept that has permeated virtually all cultures in history. I'm just asking why modern believers believe. It seems like you are comfortable assuming that an exact replica of you is truly still you. I would not be comfortable making such an assumption. Even if there was no known way to tell the difference between the person sent and the one who arrives, it wouldn't stop me from thinking of it as a situation where one person is dematerialized in one place and another person albeit just like them was materialized in another location. this term is the most famous way to get my point across. Can you please tell me what point you'd like to make about believing in a soul? I am a little slow to catch on sometimes in my debate description, I did also say "or perhaps some other non-corporeal aspect of our lives" Ok. I consider that the ideas that I entertain, and the ones I accept and attempt to propagate, are "real parts" so to speak of who I am. I think each individual makes a continually developing impression on the very fabric (for lack of a better word) of reality and that this impression as far as I can tell will continue in one form or another endlessly. If I called that continually developing impression on reality a soul and said that I believed that souls exist in this sense, would that conform closely enough with the unproven concept of soul that you see permeating virtually all cultures? It seems like you are comfortable assuming that an exact replica of you is truly still you. Who is talking about replicas here? Assuming we're going with the Star Trek idea of teleportation, and it appears you are, it is simply the disassembling of parts and reassembling them in their exact configuration at the other end. By definition, a replica, is not composed of the exact same constituent parts as the original, therefore the two could exist simultaneously if the original is still around. In this hypothetical, the original never gains a duplicate, it just shuffles around space and returns its exact original state at the end. Think about it, if you completely disassembled a car, and then put it back together perfectly at some later point, would that be a replica, or just the original returning to its natural state? As far as my comfort with assuming that there would be no change, well that depends on how big a leap I have to make. If such tech was rolled out next year, I doubt I'd be eager to be one of the guinea pigs. However, if it exists as presented in Star Trek; that is, used by billions of people across the galaxy every day for a couple centuries with no known inherent detriments; well, it sounds like a safe assumption to me. Can you please tell me what point you'd like to make about believing in a soul? Well, the first step is as said in the description: figure out why people who believe in souls do so. The second is to examine the thought processes behind it. I suspect that at the root of the belief for many people is simply that they would feel happier or more comfortable believing that there is some unique, essentially immortal component of their being. Others might believe in this concept purely because of religious indoctrination, or due to ignorance of the now well-documented fact that pretty much every aspect of our personality matrix has physical components and sources. That being said, I'm also hoping to hear new perspectives and maybe have to do some research before I respond. I think each individual makes a continually developing impression on the very fabric (for lack of a better word) of reality and that this impression as far as I can tell will continue in one form or another endlessly. If I called that continually developing impression on reality a soul and said that I believed that souls exist in this sense, would that conform closely enough with the unproven concept of soul that you see permeating virtually all cultures? I think that in order for me to truly analyze this, I would need you to be a little more detailed in your description, perhaps provide examples. However, if I understand what you are trying to get at, here are my responses: A) I do not believe that this corresponds to the generally understood notion of soul. I believe a better description is the other word you used for it: impression. A soul if generally understood to be a precise something, though perhaps a something that cannot really be qualified or quantified. But what you appear to be talking about is more of a gestalt of cause-and-effect and maybe memory. To me, this isn't really a "thing" in the traditional sense, although it can be conceptualized as a purely mental construct. If there is something I'm missing, please fill me in, but as I see it, this isn't really on the topic I am debating. B) Even assuming that we could agree to call this a soul, what you are describing is "continually developing", therefore in a presumably constant state of change. If that is the case, why would potential soul changes from teleportation even matter since it is going to change anyway in reaction to your decisions and experiences. Indeed, how could this concept even be detrimentally effected by such teleportation? Who is talking about replicas here? We are now. And I hope in regards to your opening question it doesn't seem too irrelevant.:) I suppose we may also be talking about originals and counterfeits. Inability to detect a counterfeit does not make the counterfeit an original Think about it, if you completely disassembled a car, and then put it back together perfectly at some later point, would that be a replica, or just the original returning to its natural state? But is the comparison between an inanimate object that's been designed and built and something organic adequate here? I don't think so. However, if it exists as presented in Star Trek; that is, used by billions of people across the galaxy every day for a couple centuries with no known inherent detriments; well, it sounds like a safe assumption to me. argumentum ad populum or due to ignorance of the now well-documented fact that pretty much every aspect of our personality matrix has physical components and sources. I wonder if you agree with the statement: "There are no facts only interpretations" ~Nietzsche It almost sounds like you believe that there are aspects of reality that are non-physical. To be clear.. I don't. That being said, I'm also hoping to hear new perspectives and maybe have to do some research before I respond. I can only offer my personal perspective, paltry as it may be. I think that in order for me to truly analyze this, I would need you to be a little more detailed in your description, perhaps provide examples. I will offer more details as I am provoked. I do not believe that this corresponds to the generally understood notion of soul. Then for argument's sake, please explain the generally understood notion of soul. A soul if generally understood to be a precise something, though perhaps a something that cannot really be qualified or quantified. Like a personality? this isn't really on the topic I am debating. I apologize if there's nothing interesting to discuss in this digression. We can drop it whenever you find nothing worth responding to. :) Here's a quote I picked out for you. “Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ~ Edgar Allan Poe why would potential soul changes from teleportation even matter since it is going to change anyway in reaction to your decisions and experiences. I am not sure that it would matter. I just strongly doubt that it would really be me on the other side. Is that because I believe that I have a soul? It appears that we are stuck (as happens so often, don't you think?) with the problem of poorly defined terms. We are now. Perhaps you are, but I am not. Find a duplicate that is capable of existing at the same time, not counting PIS abnormalities made to advance the particular episode, then we are in the same page. Inability to detect a counterfeit does not make the counterfeit an original Lack of distinguishable differences could though. If a trained expert does not see the counterfeit, its currency still has value, yes? But is the comparison between an inanimate object that's been designed and built and something organic adequate here? What's the difference? A carbon molecule or two. And actually, if you talk to oil majors or O-Chem experts, one carbon isn't even enough to distinguish between organic and inorganic. Care to debate chemistry? I suspect I would win :P As far as designed and built, our "design", and therefore the things we design are natural processes. The line of delineation we make between "designed" and "random" is little more than a human ego trip. argumentum ad populum Not so. A.A.P. designates scenarios where the means or result are not likely to be observed by the populace in question. Case in point: Due to a series of news articles, 750 people in your neighborhood believe that somewhere on your street lives a serial killer. But hidden cameras at each end of the street reveal that 1000 people walk down your street every day, without getting killed. AAP says it a dangerous street. Recorded observations say otherwise... I wonder if you agree with the statement: "There are no facts only interpretations" ~Nietzsche I rather like the statement, but, no, I do not agree. Facts exist independent of observation...excluding certain observations in Quantum Physics, which, as yet, have not been directly corroborated as truth.. It almost sounds like you believe that there are aspects of reality that are non-physical. To be clear.. I don't. How did you draw that conclusion? I'm pretty sure my stance has been antagonistic towards that stance from the get-go. Why else would a man like me post this debate? (although, you don't know me yet, so treat the prior statement as a hypothetical)... I can only offer my personal perspective, paltry as it may be. Not necessarily paltry...just incomplete. I will offer more details as I am provoked. Or as capable. I am starting to suspect that you haven't given this subject as much thought as you would like me to believe? Like a personality? Perhaps, perhaps not. Your lines of delineation are not clearly marked. To be fair, that happens often when people talk of soul... Then for argument's sake, please explain the generally understood notion of soul. Personal existence, sans physicality. What you describe is like memoirs of a sculptor compared to a sculpture. Both valuable, but certainly not the same thing. Here's a quote I picked out for you. “Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ~ Edgar Allan Poe Good quote. I concur. It appears that we are stuck (as happens so often, don't you think?) with the problem of poorly defined terms. Perhaps. Perhaps what I've just said, or what you are about to say will clarify terms a bit more? Perhaps you are, but I am not. oh right... you weren't talking you were typing when you keyed in "By definition, a replica, is not composed of the exact same constituent parts as the original" Find a duplicate that is capable of existing at the same time, not counting PIS abnormalities made to advance the particular episode, then we are in the same page. If you want to inject lingo from your particular field of study to convince me of your intellectual superiority have at it. You forgot to type "look it up!" I have no doubt you are better informed about SOME things than me. Lack of distinguishable differences could though. If a trained expert does not see the counterfeit, its currency still has value, yes? Things that are regarded to have value, have value. Value is assigned and does not exist without someone to assign it. Lack of noticeable differences can cause experts to be wrong. What's the difference? A carbon molecule or two. And actually, if you talk to oil majors or O-Chem experts, one carbon isn't even enough to distinguish between organic and inorganic. If you claim that between an automobile and a person there is only a difference of a carbon molecule or two, you either don't have a very good understanding of chemistry or you mistyped. Care to debate chemistry? I suspect I would win :P And who will be the judge of that? :B As far as designed and built, our "design", and therefore the things we design are natural processes. The line of delineation we make between "designed" and "random" is little more than a human ego trip. I agree. In retrospect I should have left out the bit about the inanimate object being designed, it was an unnecessary distraction from the point I was making. Not so. A.A.P. designates scenarios where the means or result are not likely to be observed by the populace in question. Case in point: Due to a series of news articles, 750 people in your neighborhood believe that somewhere on your street lives a serial killer. But hidden cameras at each end of the street reveal that 1000 people walk down your street every day, without getting killed. AAP says it a dangerous street. Recorded observations say otherwise... So as long as we can't tell there's a problem (based on a presumed unfailing ability to record everything of importance) onward ho! argues the biotech engineer who ever so confidently meddles with the worlds food supply. I rather like the statement, but, no, I do not agree. Facts exist independent of observation We disagree then. Perhaps we can debate that sometime. How did you draw that conclusion? I didn't conclude. But I suppose your use of the word "physical" weakly implied that there could be non-physical "components and sources" of the personality matrix that you imagine we've got wrapped up (well pretty much) all neat and tidy. Not necessarily paltry...just incomplete. Thank you and whose isn't!? Those in possession of pretty much all the well documented facts ? I am starting to suspect that you haven't given this subject as much thought as you would like me to believe? So much for my plan to trick you into thinking that I deserve your respect! Personal existence, sans physicality. What you describe is like memoirs of a sculptor compared to a sculpture. Both valuable, but certainly not the same thing. I see so according to your understanding of the term, a physicalist such as myself cannot believe in a soul. oh right... you weren't talking you were typing when you keyed in "By definition, a replica, is not composed of the exact same constituent parts as the original" Perhaps you don't understand the hypothetical technology, or the relatively feasible theories behind it? Problem A; transferring matter into energy. Not really that hard, considering matter is, essentially, little more than heavily compacted energy. Problem B: Transferring said energy into a code that can be translated at another point. We are actually really good at that. Just read this response or turn on your TV for examples. Problem C: returning said coded energy to matter. Okay, that one is tough. Right now. Thankfully, progresses marches on... If you want to inject lingo from your particular field of study to convince me of your intellectual superiority have at it. Actually, that was not from my field of study. That was geek lingo. Since you were the one to bring Star Trek into the conversation, I presumed that you were a geek. My bad :P Things that are regarded to have value, have value. Value is assigned and does not exist without someone to assign it. If a certain value exists, it is likely to be assigned at some point. The more it troubles human existence, the more likely it is to be discovered. Lack of noticeable differences can cause experts to be wrong. Example? If you claim that between an automobile and a person there is only a difference of a carbon molecule or two, you either don't have a very good understanding of chemistry or you mistyped. I was simply referring to your apparent lack of understanding as to what the word "organic" means. As a wise man once told me: "look it up!" And who will be the judge of that? :B Good question. The chemists on this site appear to be few and far between. Sigh. That's not even my best subject... So as long as we can't tell there's a problem (based on a presumed unfailing ability to record everything of importance) onward ho! argues the biotech engineer who ever so confidently meddles with the worlds food supply. No act of creation is without destruction. No moment of joy flies through the night sky without sorrow emanating from somewhere in the immediate domain. We don't even know what we do not know yet! But what do we know? What we know. Using that knowledge and the understanding that we may be wrong is the clearest path to finding our own mistakes. Taking current knowledge with the understanding that we may one day be proven wrong is the ultimate act of "taking one for the team." It is also known as "being a scientist". We disagree then. Perhaps we can debate that sometime. There exists between us, atypican, a plot of sand. Consider the line drawn. But I suppose your use of the word "physical" weakly implied that there could be non-physical "components and sources" of the personality matrix that you imagine we've got wrapped up (well pretty much) all neat and tidy. I cannot speak of your instincts as a whole. But when it comes to me, you appear to try to read between the lines when such a thing isn't necessary. You aren't the only one, but it grows tiresome. So much for my plan to trick you into thinking that I deserve your respect! You have my respect, and you have had it for a while. But I believe that your thought processes on this matter, while interesting and unique, are immature. I see so according to your understanding of the term, a physicalist such as myself cannot believe in a soul. My apologies. It sure seemed to me as if you did believe in such a thing, albeit by your own definition. Perhaps you don't understand the hypothetical technology, or the relatively feasible theories behind it? Relatively feasible compared to what? Problem A; transferring matter into energy. Not really that hard, considering matter is, essentially, little more than heavily compacted energy. Understanding matter to be "heavily compacted" energy does not make converting matter into energy a simple matter. The amount of energy released if all the atoms in a human body were divided into subatomic particles would exceed the amount of energy released by all atomic bombs detonated thus far. Not to mention the amount of energy required to split stable atoms smaller than plutonium uranium etc. Problem B: Transferring said energy into a code that can be translated at another point. So here you are admitting that the hypothetical technology we're discussing does not actually transfer matter but rather deconstructs, encodes, and in another location constructs a duplicate based on encoded instructions. We are talking about replicas here, pardon me typing. Actually, that was not from my field of study That's false on it's face. I presumed that you were a geek. My bad :P In my experience geek or not everyone excels in some areas and neglects others. I know plenty of people classified as geeks who when you get them off their favored subjects are as dumb as a stump. If a certain value exists, it is likely to be assigned at some point. This statement relates to our disagreement. Which I hope to address in a separate debate. Example? Meteorologists predicting the weather comes to mind. I was simply referring to your apparent lack of understanding as to what the word "organic" means. The word has different usage definitions that I have been aware of for quite some time actually. See usage definition 3a at the Merriam Webster Site......I'll give you a tip, when most people use the word organic in everyday conversation they are not referring to 3b but rather 3a just like I was. Sigh. That's not even my best subject... Well I am just happy to hear you now admit that it indeed was in your field of study. No act of creation is without destruction. So then is your logic that we shouldn't bother concerning ourselves with specifically what gets destroyed? Taking current knowledge with the understanding that we may one day be proven wrong is the ultimate act of "taking one for the team." It is also known as "being a scientist". But what about scientists who don't have a problem putting huge groups of people at risk should their theories be proven wrong? The ones who don't appear to be concerned too much at all with thinking "what if we're wrong" ie Biotech engineers IMO There exists between us, atypican, a plot of sand. Consider the line drawn. I've got a debate about it where Zombee made some pretty good arguments on your side, perhaps you can take up where she left off. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ You aren't the only one, but it grows tiresome. And I was hoping to be irritating dammit! I believe that your thought processes on this matter, while interesting and unique, are immature. Thank you - If my immaturity leaves me open to make improvements to how I think, I would prefer to keep it. I don't want too much ossification in my organs of intelligence now do I? Relatively feasible compared to what? Compared to many concepts presented in soft science fiction generally and Star Trek specifically. Understanding matter to be "heavily compacted" energy does not make converting matter into energy a simple matter. Why not? Matter is all heading there anyway. Matter is not as stable as energy it it all seeks to return to its natural, energetic, state. All we are talking about here is speeding up the process. Not unlike many of the enzymes that hang out in your cells keeping you alive. The amount of energy released if all the atoms in a human body were divided into subatomic particles would exceed the amount of energy released by all atomic bombs detonated thus far. True. Which makes teleporters a renewable resource. We are talking about replicas here, pardon me typing. What we are talking about here is phase changes, admittedly on a higher level than we are used to. When it comes to daily phase changes, H2O is the best object lesson: take 1 pound of ice and isolate it in a chamber where absolutely no H2O may escape. Warm it up. Water. More? Vapor. Turn down the temp until 90+% condenses back into water. Is this a replica of the original water? Every molecule accounted for? Now, if you freeze it again, I grant, things get more complex. Solids are locked in, not fluid like water or vapor. The crystals will form differently, sure. So you might argue that this isn't the same block of ice that it was originally, even though it has the same number of H2O molecules. BUT...what if we had a way of making sure that when the final phase change happens, that every last H2O returns to its original position? Is the ice a replica of the original block? That's false on it's face. Fine, if being able to navigate online forums run by geeks is a field of study, than I admit to some skill in that field. In my experience geek or not everyone excels in some areas and neglects others. I know plenty of people classified as geeks who when you get them off their favored subjects are as dumb as a stump. I have no debate with this. What, exactly, is the point? Meteorologists predicting the weather comes to mind. I'll give you half credit for this. The problem with meteorology is that it is EXTREMELY complex. At our current levels of technology, nobody can trace a molecule through a cloud, much less identify and trace every constituent element to any given weather system. However if we could, meteorology would be much more efficient. Some sciences have surpassed this level of efficiency, some have not. You just have to understand where the chosen field exists on the continuum. Poetically, there are subfields of physics that occupy both extremes... I'll give you a tip, when most people use the word organic in everyday conversation they are not referring to 3b but rather 3a just like I was. Cool. Ask "most people" what "life" means. "I'll give you a tip," even biologists, people who make their livings on this subject, have debates on what delineates living things from non-living things. Are viruses alive? Well I am just happy to hear you now admit that it indeed was in your field of study. Sigh. We changed subjects here. I'll take geekery as something I have some credentials arguing, but not chemistry... So then is your logic that we shouldn't bother concerning ourselves with specifically what gets destroyed? Oh absolutely we should bother ourselves with what gets destroyed. But we should never delude ourselves into believing that nothing does. It is all priorities, atypican. As far as who assigns those priorities? That is more of a political debate... The ones who don't appear to be concerned too much at all with thinking "what if we're wrong" ie Biotech engineers IMO Guess what, not all biotech engineers work for Monsanto... I've got a debate about it where Zombee made some pretty good arguments on your side, perhaps you can take up where she left off. I promise to check on it soon, but don't expect a reply from me. Zombee is beyond my level. I suspect she covered all of the important bases. And I was hoping to be irritating dammit! I have been on this site a dozen times since you posted, but haven't responded until now, because I needed time to think. Regardless of whether you are irritating or not, you have earned my attention and respect. Thank you - If my immaturity leaves me open to make improvements to how I think, I would prefer to keep it. I don't want too much ossification in my organs of intelligence now do I? My apologies...immature was an inappropriate word for this conversation. I should have said "incomplete". Why not? It just doesn't logically follow All we are talking about here is speeding up the process. ie killing someone? True. Which makes teleporters a renewable resource. Perhaps you forget that for stable atoms (the vast majority in a human body) it will also require an amount of energy to split them commensurate with what's released. Is this a replica of the original water? No. It is the same water. Is the ice a replica of the original block? I would say that it is possible to recreate the block of ice in such a way as you describe, (and yes I think it's reasonable to regard it as a replica) , but not being able to account for a difference does not guarantee that there is no difference. What, exactly, is the point? It's just what popped into my head at the time. The problem with meteorology is that it is EXTREMELY complex. I've got this nagging suspicion that hidden complexities play into all aspects of reality. even biologists, people who make their livings on this subject, have debates on what delineates living things from non-living things. Are viruses alive? Good point. So I wonder if with that in mind you might be able to think differently about the existence of souls that can "live on" after someone is declared dead. It is all priorities, atypican. In a word what is your first priority? As far as who assigns those priorities? That is more of a political debate... So what body politic sets yours for you? :) It just doesn't logically follow Deductive or inductive? ie killing someone? Given that this whole debate that we are having hinges on the main cast of each series, usually, walking out of the pad hale and healthy, then I'd say death does not occur. How many times was Spock "killed" in the original series? perhaps you forget that for stable atoms (the vast majority in a human body) it will also require an amount of energy to split them commensurate with what's released. If you are talking about the phase change between matter and energy, then I must remind you that if what you speak of were true, nuclear plants would not be economically sound, that a-bombs would be redundant. If you are actually referring of the return of energy to matter, well, the energy is there in the first place, hence my prior statement. (and yes I think it's reasonable to regard it as a replica) Okay then, why? The original molecules in the original position equates a replica? Perhaps one of us does not know the meaning of the word? I've got this nagging suspicion that hidden complexities play into all aspects of reality. Well, sir, I'll happily grant you that. What I will not grant you is the idea that, just because there are "unknowns" means that we shouldn't work with and evaluate the "knowns". That is what you are saying, yes? So I wonder if with that in mind you might be able to think differently about the existence of souls that can "live on" after someone is declared dead. Quite the opposite, actually. I remember sitting in my first advanced bio class, a few minutes after I had finished up an Ochem class...and I realized...the only definition between life and non-life is one that our own semantics derive. Its all chemistry. What separates a cow from a piece of malachite? Chemical interactions. We form our own form because of the elements involved and the environmental factors that mixed it all up. That is all. We, being sentient and alive, love to differentiate between the two concepts. But why? Warm fuzzies? In a word what is your first priority? Knowledge. So what body politic sets yours for you? :) My life to this point. Deductive or inductive? Neither the main cast of each series, usually, walking out of the pad hale and healthy Granted that's how it appears. But just because we are unable to describe a difference does not mean that there is no unperceived difference. To assume such is a great source of folly. How many times was Spock "killed" in the original series? I don't see how it could be disproven that every time the "transporter" was used one person was killed, and a remarkably precise copy of them was generated. I must remind you that if what you speak of were true, nuclear plants would not be economically sound, that a-bombs would be redundant. The technology is reliant upon huge, unstable, highly radioactive atoms. It requires MUCH LESS energy to bring them to critical mass compared to the relatively tiny, relatively stable atoms that make up a human body. Okay then, why? Because I do not assume that the perfect sequestering of matter supposed in your example can in reality occur. My thinking is that all matter exists in a constantly interactive relationship. The original molecules in the original position equates a replica? That such repositioning of molecules can be done with such precision that our instruments are unable to measure and account for a difference I don't doubt. Neither do I doubt there will be differences we are unaware of and cannot account for. Perhaps one of us does not know the meaning of the word? I admit it. I don't know the meaning of the word. I have my beliefs about the meaning, but philosophically I am agnostic. :) Well, sir, I'll happily grant you that. So then of your water example you must admit that it cannot be absolutely isolated yes? we shouldn't work with and evaluate the "knowns". That is what you are saying, yes? No. I am just not for placing complete trust in "knowns" the only definition between life and non-life is one that our own semantics derive. I haven't read a satisfactory definition of life myself either. :) Its all chemistry. What separates a cow from a piece of malachite? Chemical interactions. The laws of chemistry I indeed do believe are the selfsame immutable laws of reality. But I also believe that something special (albeit poorly defined) is happening that sets apart "living" things from other things that do not "live". We, being sentient and alive, love to differentiate between the two concepts. But why? Warm fuzzies? I don't think so. I think we perceive a difference we aren't that good at describing. Knowledge. hmm. revealing. The word I would pick is: Health Granted that's how it appears. But just because we are unable to describe a difference does not mean that there is no unperceived difference. To assume such is a great source of folly. also Neither do I doubt there will be differences we are unaware of and cannot account for. Conversely, I believe that to assume there is more to something than there appears to be without evidence or at least a means of investigating your hypothesis is an even greater source of folly. This is not to say that there aren't detrimental things out there that we can't currently perceive. But if they truly exist and cause a problem, they will be noticed sooner or later. Many of the environmental issues we have were initially propagated by ignorance of the cause-and-effect relationships found around us. The technology we have that made our lives easier was hurting the world around us and we didn't notice for some time. But now we know. And now that we do we can try to find ways the mitigate or, hopefully, reverse our mistakes, preferably at little cost to economic concerns or to convenience. Our research is more focused, and we are starting to learn things about our world that we would have never imagined before we had cause to investigate. We are problem-solvers, it is how we advance. Of course, we might already be too late. But I think that's more of a problem of willful ignorance than our previous actions. And willful ignorance will never be defeated by more willful ignorance. And failure to act because of a fear of something that we can't find evidence for or test for is willful ignorance..../soapbox... I don't see how it could be disproven that every time the "transporter" was used one person was killed, and a remarkably precise copy of them was generated. It doesn't have to be disproven. It is similar to the argument of whether God exists. It would be far more efficient and rational to find proof of something than to attempt to discredit it. If you have no proof that someone has died, why tell them that they have? The technology is reliant upon huge, unstable, highly radioactive atoms. It requires MUCH LESS energy to bring them to critical mass compared to the relatively tiny, relatively stable atoms that make up a human body. Well, you make a fair point there. But if a proper catalyst can be found, it should be possible to release the potential energy with a lower input of energy. Not exactly current tech, but easier for me to imagine than to return the matter to energy later. My thinking is that all matter exists in a constantly interactive relationship. I agree with you. Which brings up an interesting point. We are constantly changing. I don't know how old you are, but chances are you don't have very many of the cells left that you were born with. It's not just that you have more, its that the ones you had at birth have almost all died and been replaced by now. But you don't need a lifetime to change. You don't even need a second. Every second, every living cell experiences thousands to billions of reactions. Many are metabolic, but there is a hell of a lot more going on concurrently. So I guess the key of your debate hinges on the idea that the disruption of that continuous flow, and then the restart, would constitute a replica. By that understanding, the screenplay I am writing, which changes a bit every time I work on it, becomes a replica every time I save-turn off computer-turn on computer-open file. But in my head, it is still the same, albeit evolving, screenplay as it has always been, even if I don't get back to it until a few years later. A replica, to me, would be when I back it up on an external drive. I don't know the meaning of the word. I have my beliefs about the meaning, but philosophically I am agnostic. :) It would appear that you are linguistically agnostic too :) So then of your water example you must admit that it cannot be absolutely isolated yes? Given that I know a little bit about the crazy field of quantum physics, I can only concur that it cannot be absolutely isolated. But I do think it can be practically isolated. We may never know everything, but we do the best we can with what we know. And if it provides results, that is a benefit, as well as being one step closer to the absolute. No. I am just not for placing complete trust in "knowns" And well you shouldn't. But it isn't about complete trust. Should you have complete trust that there isn't a fire on your roof right now? No. Should you spend the rest of your life staring at your roof? No. I haven't read a satisfactory definition of life myself either. :) I'm not sure there is one. At least not for thoughtful people like us. The laws of chemistry I indeed do believe are the selfsame immutable laws of reality. Essentially. Although I would argue that it is more accurate to state that the laws of chemistry are simply specialized responses to the laws of physics. But, potato potahto. But I also believe that something special (albeit poorly defined) is happening that sets apart "living" things from other things that do not "live". Which is pretty much what this debate is all about. So...ahem...WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? I don't think so. I think we perceive a difference we aren't that good at describing. I think I used to. But the more I've learned, the less likely I am to do so. Not that I am a better person for it. Just...I went down this path and I have changed. hmm. revealing. The word I would pick is: Health I'm certainly not going to knock health. Indeed, they can be quite symbiotic: knowledge can make you healthier, a healthy person can live longer to attain more knowledge. Both are great. But here is why I place more emphasis on knowledge: No matter how healthy I am, I will die. But if I gain knowledge, and then spread it, it could outlive me. The inventors of most things we are familiar with have been in the ground for a very long time. But their inventions continue to benefit us, as well as raising our gestalt knowledge higher than any level of health an individual could achieve. to assume there is more to something than there appears to be without evidence or at least a means of investigating your hypothesis is an even greater source of folly. How did you determine that? So I guess the key of your debate hinges on the idea that the disruption of that continuous flow, and then the restart, would constitute a replica. Thanks. Which is pretty much what this debate is all about. So...ahem...WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? Because I notice similarities. I suspect that at the root of the belief for many people is simply that they would feel happier or more comfortable believing that there is some unique, essentially immortal component of their being. I think the root of the belief can be an understanding that we can live on, but not in exactly the same manner as before. 1
point
Tell me, what is passion? And how do you know that it, or any aspect of our personality/emotional life is not dictated by the physical architecture of our nervous system. How can one put their heart and soul into something, if they have no soul? Because of poor semantics... Side: What drives passion
1
point
Merriam-Webster defines passion as : 3) the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces The nervous system is internal not external and therefore cannot be the force. Side: What drives passion
Interesting definition. Particularly in light of the fact that neither dictionary.com nor the dictionary on my computer use it, nor do people using it in daily speech. Plus it makes no sense. I always have the capacity to be acted on by external agents or forces. Does that always mean I am always passionate? Side: What drives passion
1
point
Webster is one of the oldest dictionaries, first published in 1806. I suggest you use a source that has been around longer than the Internet. In fact you can learn all about Merriam-Webster at the follow link. True artist know this to be the meaning of Passion. It is not my fault that you are not diversified enough to know anything outside your little piece of the world. "Art is not a thing; it is a way." ~Elbert Hubbard "The true artist will let his wife starve, his children go barefoot, his mother drudge for his living at seventy, sooner than work at anything but his art" George Bernard Shaw Side: What drives passion
Webster is one of the oldest dictionaries, first published in 1806. Mostly irrelevant, except perhaps in the case of archaic word usages no longer in common speech. True artist know this to be the meaning of Passion. I've heard and read many artists speak of passion. Never have I heard them refer to it in the context of "the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces." Neither of the quotes below relate to it. Have any that do? Side: What drives passion
1
point
|