Must be shared and discussed.

The solution:

Some people believe that subjective experience is prima facie. That qualia is an intrinsic property of reality. That first-person-ness is axiomatic. These people have a soul.

On the other hand, some people believe that the phenomenon is wholly emergent. That subjectivity may be merely illusory, but in any case may be explained in totality as a product of physical laws, even if our understanding of those laws is incomplete. Well, those people have no soul, and are mere automatons responding to external stimuli.

You're welcome. Feel free to shower me with accolades at your convenience.


Edit:

For those of you wondering (everyone), the answer is "YES!" we have decided to take this movement from a mere Reddit comment to full-blown religion / sex cult. You'd be getting in on the ground floor, here, folks. At present, u/jamilioo has achieved the rank of Level II Enlightened Being District Manager. There are other positions at this rank available, but if your territory coincides or overlaps with theirs, you can be Level III Enlightened Being *Assistant* District Manager, until such time as you are reassigned to a new district.

There has also been question as to what the "level" designates, if both positions in the hierarchy are "enlightened beings." To clarify, we must remember that *all* beings endowed with qualia are enlightened...which is to say that a Level II Enlightened Being District Manager is a district manager, of enlightened beings, presently at Level II. Level I is an administrative role overseeing all districts, and Level 0 is reserved for those who have received my "gift." (That means my dick, in case I'm being too subtle).

All this will be explained in the User Handbook coming out in July.

In. Just tell me where to send bank details to

With three easy installments of $6, $60 and $600, you pay only $666 and you're in on the ground floor; grass roots: Level III Enlightened Being Suburb Manager.

Here you have the priviledge of interacting with outsiders, sharing some laughs and doing the missionary work. Dont be mistaken though. The soulless can't be saved. Rarely, if ever, do they transition over.

Many simply get lost in the purgatory of compatibilist gibberish. These are beyond saving altogether. Think of it this way: in dollars and sense, it takes too many dollars to save any one person; this makes no sense. Wisely, we keep those dollars instead.

Rather, the missionary work is Socratic in nature. Questions, followed by more questions, some jokes and human connection, to little purpose at all. The goal, if any - good conversation, and perhaps, a lot of alcohol and sex.

Did you know that if you let go of control, you still have control? Really, just listen to your breathe for a minute then take a deep one.

Getting in on the ground floor of a new religion (that it comes w/ a sex cult is a nice touch) sounds very profitable. I will have to consult w/ my financial adviser.

Zenoism is better.

Some interest in the first part. After the edit: wtf is this ****.

I'm confused

The subjective perspective through which you experience is the common denominator to all experience of the world. Without it, is there a world?

If you answer yes, you may be soulless. If you answer no, I don't know or I can't know, you may have a soul.

This is one of a set of 10 questions we are presently revising to better identify who belongs.

Your input would be much appreciated.

Some are born to sweet delight. Some are born to endless night. I wish I may I wish I might.


PairTheBoard

So you could have a soul but me not?

Or you have a master universal enjoy the superride soul! Which is exactly how a physicist enjoys life.

Do you expect that at some point in the future, where science is far advanced, we will be able to explain subjectivity through our understanding of physical laws? By subjectivity i mean everything from the sense of narrative that your life may have, to the feeling and implicit beliefs that you're freely making choices, that those choices matter.

Yes.

Soulless.

Fear not though, you're in good company. Zenoism, for example, may be more suited to your needs. Scientism, of the Masque kind, may be more fitting for you too.

I'm just trying to figure out what's right. That's my mantra.

Googled the two. For me zenonism comes closer than scientism. But science is a big part of getting there.

"I don't know" or "possibly" may be a better answer in that case.

Yes, it's about perceived probabilities, trying to tune them in.

I don't think consciousness and subjective experience are supernatural. So, as natural phenomenon I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a natural explanation for them which we might someday discover. However, the implications such an explanation might have for concepts like the soul might seem as magical to us today as electricity, relativity, computers, and quantum physics would be to a cave man.



PairTheBoard

It would be a truly backwards-ass universe to discover what's within by looking with out.

Look outside one's self to learn of the human, the saying is "Man is the microcosmic expression of the macrocosm". The religious would state that we are made in the "Image of G-d".

Conversely, look within to gain knowledge of of the without.This is actually easier to somehow comprehend such that through our inner abilities of thinking, feeling and willing we relate to the outside world. In the modern view we are mostly immersed within thinking, or head knowledge or that which is "without heart", in the future further to go.

I think "the heart" will be naturally included. Part of why I'm not a pure scientist. Through trial, thinking, feeling, communication and error, we'll be better at getting it.

Thanks. Always suspected something was a little off with Daniel Dennett.

Vee, do you think you either have or have not a soul depending on how you think? So if you think you have, you have, otherwise not?

I'd say if you think you have one, you drag me with you. And if I think I haven't, how could I then assign you one?

People don't have souls; a person is a soul. For any x, if x has no soul, x is merely an object as opposed to an objectified subject.