How do people STILL believe in a soul? - Page 4 - Religion, God, and Theology

Electrons are completely indistinguishable from each other (in the fullest sense possible). Yet we seem to have a somewhat fair understanding that there can be such a thing as two electrons that aren't the same electron. So I don't think the last line really works.

I don't mean to say (as per your example) that they're the *same* electron, just that both are electrons.

Quote:

You and I are both (presumably) human. But I'm sure there are all sorts of differences between us, yet we agree we're both human. I think that there are some details being swept under the rug with your concept of "100% indistinguishable" because of the vagueness of what it actually implies.

By 100% indistinguishable I mean exactly that, the same in every way (so far as anyone can, or ever will, tell)—physically identical.

Assume an alien race created and sent an exact copy of you to your doorstep. Is or isn't this alternate Aaron human?

Assume an alien race created and sent an exact copy of your doormat to your doorstep. Is or isn't this alternate doormat a doormat?

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 06-20-2012 at 03:58 PM.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:05 PM

#77

Mr Muck McFold

banned

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 974

Stupid pointless apes!

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:07 PM

#78

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I don't mean to say (as per your example) that they're the *same* electron, just that both are electrons.

Right. I'm just saying there's no inherent contradiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by you

For someone to do so it would seem they're holding contradictory views.

We cannot both say X=Y and X≠Y.

I think the last line *CAN* be said. Two things can be completely identical and be distinct, and this is not strange at all.

Quote:

By 100% indistinguishable I mean exactly that, the same in every way (so far as anyone can, or ever will, tell)—physically identical.

Assume an alien race created and sent an exact copy of you to your doorstep. Is or isn't this alternate Aaron human?

Assume an alien race created and sent an exact copy of your doormat to your doorstep. Is or isn't this alternate doormat a doormat?

Let's go back to your original statement, because I think something got lost in translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by you, two quotes lumped together and paraphrased

So, if a robot could be made such that it's 100% indistinguishable from human... it would be a human

What is a robot? What is a human? What do you mean by a robot that is 100% indistinguishable from human? Is it a robot?

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:12 PM

#79

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

We can go a bit further here.

Imagine there is a device which will scan you, read all the details on your atoms and 'teleport' a facsimile to another location by annihilating your atoms in one location and arranging a perfect copy in another location.

A strict materialist would probably reason that a perfect copy of you IS you. If you believe in a immaterial soul, then you would probably not want to try the teleporter.

1) Imagine you see various people go through the teleporter. Will you be able to tell whether or not they have a soul and, if so, by what means?
2) Same question, but you accidentally walk into the teleporter. Will you have a soul, and if not, how will you tell the difference?

I think the above is a slightly different question, namely "what is self"? The difference between the two topics, I think, could be served well with the hammer analogy: If a old hammer has had two different heads, and three different handles, in what way can it be said to be the same hammer?

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:26 PM

#80

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

What is a robot? What is a human? What do you mean by a robot that is 100% indistinguishable from human? Is it a robot?

What is a robot?: A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.

What is a human?: (we went over this earlier)

What do you mean by a robot that is 100% indistinguishable from human?: A (necessarily biological) machine that meets enough characteristics to be qualified as human.

Is it a robot? Yes, it's a robot and a human. I could say the same thing about "traditional" humans.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:27 PM

#81

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I think the above is a slightly different question, namely "what is self"?

What is the soul supposed to be if not 'self'?

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:32 PM

#82

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

What is the soul supposed to be if not 'self'?

I meant from the materialist's viewpoint.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:36 PM

#83

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

I'm interested in the theists properly defining the soul (as per my request to RLK which is still unanswered) so I can avoid strawmanning

Quote

06-20-2012 , 04:52 PM

#84

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

So now we're starting to unwind what appears to be a more intricate web of words that not everyone would agree with. Specifically, very few people would consider "traditional humans" to be a robot.

Under the broad definitions that you seem to be applying here, I would agree that the duplicate me would be a "human" and a "robot" and a "duplicate" and probably a "me" as well. Though I would have to admit at this point that I'm not really sure if any of this is meaningful.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:05 PM

#85

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

To put it another way, most materialists would agree humans are some sort of biological machine. Robots, by definition, are machines capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. Therefore, humans are a type of robot, even if it seems silly to classify them as such.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:10 PM

#86

Mr Muck McFold

banned

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 974

Stupid pointless Robots!

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:11 PM

#87

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

That's fine, I'm just not sure if those who don't define robot to encompass humans are being intellectually honest. Every definition of robot I've found would seem to encompass living organisms, so long as you can include biological functions under the umbrella of "machinery".

The broadening of definitions continues... You ought to see how far this trail goes.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:15 PM

#88

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

You changed your post.

But now we're getting somewhere. There is a sense in which the narrowing of definitions begins to make sense. The phrasing here opens up the ability to say something like the alien duplicate is a type of human. Would you agree?

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:18 PM

#89

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

The broadening of definitions continues... You ought to see how far this trail goes.

Bah! I deleted that because I didn't want to go down that path. Awe well.

In an event, I'm not sure what the issue is. Countless people have (correctly IMO) described living organisms as biological machines.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:21 PM

#90

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I suppose it would apply, but it seems only as meaningful as saying you're a type of human, I'm a type of human, etc. I would say the duplicate Aaron is the same type as you are.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:27 PM

#91

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I suppose it would apply, but it seems only as meaningful as saying you're a type of human, I'm a type of human, etc. I would say the duplicate Aaron is the same type as you are.

I would say I'm an original human and that the duplicate is a duplicate human, and that these are different types.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:32 PM

#92

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I would say I'm an original human and that the duplicate is a duplicate human, and that these are different types.

If they are physically identical then they would be different types only in timeline. I think that's fair and might have a lot to do with how I would define "self" because I cannot yet articulate a reasonable materialistic definition.

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 06-20-2012 at 05:44 PM.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:40 PM

#93

Mr Muck McFold

banned

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 974

How do people STILL believe in a soul? i think the thread title is wrong, should it not be why do people STILL believe in a soul?

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:48 PM

#94

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

If they are physically identical then they would be different types only in timeline. I think that's fair (and might have a lot to do with how I would define "self" because I can't come up with a reasonable materialistic definition).

I think this is where the concept of a soul really begins. Even though there's no reasonable materialistic concept of a "self" there's a experiential (maybe even a functional?) sense in which the "self" really exists.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 06-20-2012 at 05:50 PM. Reason: You edited, but not substantively...

Quote

06-20-2012 , 05:57 PM

#95

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I think this is where the concept of a soul really begins.

What is your concept of a soul?

Quote:

Even though there's no reasonable materialistic concept of a "self" there's a experiential (maybe even a functional?) sense in which the "self" really exists.

I agree but think its tangential to the issue at hand. (And there may be a reasonable materialistic concept of "self", I just don't know what it would be. At some point in the future I'll start a thread on this topic. Pretty interesting IMO)

Quote

06-20-2012 , 08:35 PM

#96

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

What is your concept of a soul?

The most concise way of saying it is that the soul is that which experiences reality.

I have additional theological conceptions which extend this basic definition, but are unnecessary for the concept of the soul. Also, these ideas are not grounded in the actual "experience" of the soul, but are cognitively developed additions.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 08:42 PM

#97

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you, consciousness is the soul?

Quote

06-20-2012 , 08:54 PM

#98

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I'm not sure I'm understanding you, consciousness is the soul?

What is consciousness? (For you to answer, even though I give my answer below.)

Consciousness is a state of experiencing the universe, but that which is doing the experiencing is the soul.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 09:19 PM

#99

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

What is consciousness? (For you to answer, even though I give my answer below.)

Consciousness is a state of experiencing the universe, but that which is doing the experiencing is the soul.

I think the standard definition would be fine. Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

I'm not understanding why you're separating the soul from consciousness? Why the extra step?

EDIT: Perhaps to avoid a potential conflict I might change 'state' for 'act' (so that you don't need the soul to 'act' on the state).

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 06-20-2012 at 09:25 PM.

Quote

06-20-2012 , 10:32 PM

#100

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I don't see why they would be the same.

Quote:

EDIT: Perhaps to avoid a potential conflict I might change 'state' for 'act' (so that you don't need the soul to 'act' on the state).

You seem to recognize here that a "quality" or "state" is somehow distinct from an "act" (which is still not the same as the thing that acts, or experiences, or the thing that is in a state, or that which has the quality).

Quote

Page 4 of 28

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 4 of 28

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last