Ehhhh........ Shall we begin?

*****************************
You see the sun rise from the east. You watch it set during the noon. You watch as it sets in the west.
There is nothing you can do, doctors do not advise you to strain yourself. You see, you have kidney failure and while the cause is not yet certain, you definitely know you need a donor.
But perhaps there is a little hope. Teempakguy has finally completed his new cloning device: one that can clone humans perfectly. It has been tested on dead people and it has worked perfectly! However, you do not know if it will work for you but hope seems slim.
Alas, malvisguy12 and other religionists has cautioned against this; accusing the inventor of playing God and trying to "destroy your soul."
Now, you are in a quandary. Should you enter the clone machine and come out healed or stay on the hospital bed waiting for God's time?? Science or Faith
Science wins. You agree to be cloned and the operation works perfectly. The old you, the diseased one is destroyed and a new one is forming using the atoms of the old one and everything, everything is implanted in your new body.
Your family celebrates. Your narrow escape from death calls for a celebration, and as your family gather round, you notice how everyone has changed. Look at Tade() your brother. So shy and clumsy. Now he's all tall and graceful. Could this really have been the Tade you knew 8 months ago? Of course it is. So he's become more refined but he's still your brother, right?
Then it hits you : Am I really the same person who knew this boy 8 months ago? Am I this boy's brother or am I actually a newborn human being, only some hours old, despite the memories I have? Did I die in the cloning machine?
Did I die in the machine? Of course not, here I am, alive! But someone died in the machine. Tade's brother. Then I'm not Tade's brother. But I am! So then who am I? And who died
In the following days, your spirit is more confused than the people who expect to find 72 virgins in heaven. You are trying to determine who you are. Perhaps you are a just 5 weeks old, perhaps not. You never really liked philosophy anyway.
You think to yourself.
Here I am looking at the 2762'th word in this article. I'm alive, I'm awake. I see words on my phone/tab/laptop. How do I see? Through my eyes of course. How do I know they're my eyes. Stupid question. They're attached to my eye socket which is attached to my skull, a part of my body. Wait, how do I know it's my body. Am I the owner? In a sense, yes. I can do what I like with it. It is even an investment in a way becaus I can sell part of it to someone as long as I am alive. I can even legally transfer ownership of my body to a medical school (If I hear for Naija ) once I'm dead.
So if I own this body, then I guess I'm something more than this body. If I say, "I am the owner of this body," I would acheive nothing, except for maybe a few odd stares and a sermon from a religious person in the area I said that.
But I own this body. I'm the controller. But I am my body. That makes me the controlled. Can one exist as both the controller and the controlled. What controls the earth : The sun. What controls the sun? Itself. Oh crap, this is why you always hated philosophy.
You ask yourself whether it was possible to exchange yourself (and your body) for a stronger and healthier body.
You say that's impossible.
But you just did. No, you're still Tade's brother. Just in a new............vessel. So why then do you have all these doubts
What then would happen if your brain is transplanted to another body and the proceedure is succesful. Of course, this is impossible. But we all watch Nollywood movies, don't we?
It seems then that if you are transplanted into another body, you would go with it. So, are YOU a brain?? Which of the statement below makes sense more
I have a brain.
I am a brain.

Which seems more right? Are you a brain? Do you control? Are you the controlled?? What, really, does anyone know about these things.



Damn, I knew I should never have gone for philosophy.
*****************************



Sorry guys if you are going crazy. This shows you that you should never, ever open a thread by SirWere.

An update coming 16 hours from now. Of course, that can mean 12 years on Saturn :-/

Are u a brain or do u have a brain?
Great write-up. These are the questions!

Does the heart have anything to do with thoughts and emotions?

LB: I love philosophy, driving men mad since time immemorial!

Nice thread!

Anyway, I would like to Liken the concept of The human body to that of a city. i

consider Paris. what IS Paris? well, you know Paris is a french City. so obviously, it's everything.

But what if we demolished a building in Paris, would it then not be Paris anymore?

Of course it would still be Paris, you say. It's just a building. But then, what happens if we demolish ten buildings? how about twenty? how about everything? would it still be Paris?

well, you think . . . I suppose it would still be Paris . . . Only without the buildings . . .


So, in the case of humans, we need to realize that we are not one entity. We are not ONE THING.

we are, likened to Paris, an entire City. the death of one blood cell doesn't change the fact that you are you. the loss of your limbs, the replacement of your internal organs, None of this change the fact that you are you.

What then changes the fact that you are you? what makes you . . . something else?

Seeing as I just started a course in philosophy recently and I don't have much knowledge of the terminology, I will go ahead and invent mine. I assert, that there are two types of Identity.

1. Cumulative Identity: This is the more general form of Identity. It is a loose form of what and who we are. Things like our names, our tattoos, our experiences . . . Cumulative Identity increases over time. for instance, my 11 year old sef doesn't know Calculus, my fourteen year old sef does. Now, I laugh at both of them, because I know VECTOR calculus. in the same manner, my twenty year old sef, will deride me as he may know tensor calculus. , however, we are all the same person, Generally, we are all called <insert real name here> we all are Nigerian, and we share certain experiences. there is a continuous progression from me to them, and the entire graph, is called cumulative Identity by me. In my opinion, This is the safest identification of identity. as the other is more depressing.

2. Instantaneous Identity: To Illustrate this, Let us assume that I, my fourteen year old version, my twenty year old version, and my eight year old version, were called to reason together. now, we will quickly find that there is anarchy and pandemonium. the first fight that would probably arise would be when my eight year old sef found out that I no longer like watching TV anymore. . Anyway, This makes us realize that the cumulative identity is the SUM of the entirety of another Identity. which is the instantaneous.


Now, my point is this, Our Identity is a continuous process which is continually shaped as we move on. which brings us to the question. are you a brain or do you have a brain, well, Who are you? Well, you are your Cumulative Identity. Now, where does your cumulative Identity stem from? well, we know that the cumulative identity is the sum of the instantaneous Identity. And we know, that the Instantaneous Identity is shaped by our senses, which are processed by the brain, and thoughts, which are generated in the brain, It then follows, that you, my friend, are simply a history of brain activity. you don't even have the luxury of claiming you are a brain, my friend. Your brain is what is making you. you are a product of your brain. you are not your brain. your brain is a hardware which stores you. the software.

you can be copied. yes. so, in the case of the clone, yes you are indeed you. You are not some unique individual with a distinct soul. you are simply a History of brain activity. So, who died in that machine? Well, to answer that question, copy a file to another folder and delete the original. What file got deleted? the original, what remains, the replica, what is the difference between the replica and the original? nothing. This shows that what we think is us is a label. we can be copied. and it will still be us.

we only refuse to accept that because we believe we are something more. we have to be more. perhaps we have souls, perhaps we have some immutable quality, some supernatural side, which can not be copied, ever.

to this i reply,

let us have a God. which will judge every version of you by age. for instance, if you are fifteen, we will judge fifteen "souls"
if we do this, we find, some souls are worthy, and some souls perish. even though they are supposed to be the same person, If even the "soul" is not invincible to change, how can it be invincible to replication?



let the philosophers review my submission. and Sirwere . . . i say again, NICE THREAD!

Why na, Teempakguy; why You're stealing my explanation(s). Anyways, the scenario is like, what if they built paris, to the last block in Nigeria (okay, that's a stretch) because the real Paris was destroyed by a nuclear attack. Is the new Paris still the same Paris or..............
As for identities, I don't really know. Perhaps Freemanan can help here.

Teempakguy:
Nice thread!

Anyway, I would like to Liken the concept of The human body to that of a city. i

consider Paris. what IS Paris? well, you know Paris is a french City. so obviously, it's everything.

But what if we demolished a building in Paris, would it then not be Paris anymore?

Of course it would still be Paris, you say. It's just a building. But then, what happens if we demolish ten buildings? how about twenty? how about everything? would it still be Paris?

well, you think . . . I suppose it would still be Paris . . . Only without the buildings . . .


So, in the case of humans, we need to realize that we are not one entity. We are not ONE THING.

we are, likened to Paris, an entire City. the death of one blood cell doesn't change the fact that you are you. the loss of your limbs, the replacement of your internal organs, None of this change the fact that you are you.

What then changes the fact that you are you? what makes you . . . something else?

Seeing as I just started a course in philosophy recently and I don't have much knowledge of the terminology, I will go ahead and invent mine. I assert, that there are two types of Identity.

1. Cumulative Identity: This is the more general form of Identity. It is a loose form of what and who we are. Things like our names, our tattoos, our experiences . . . Cumulative Identity increases over time. for instance, my 11 year old sef doesn't know Calculus, my fourteen year old sef does. Now, I laugh at both of them, because I know VECTOR calculus. in the same manner, my twenty year old sef, will deride me as he may know tensor calculus. , however, we are all the same person, Generally, we are all called <insert real name here> we all are Nigerian, and we share certain experiences. there is a continuous progression from me to them, and the entire graph, is called cumulative Identity by me. In my opinion, This is the safest identification of identity. as the other is more depressing.

2. Instantaneous Identity: To Illustrate this, Let us assume that I, my fourteen year old version, my twenty year old version, and my eight year old version, were called to reason together. now, we will quickly find that there is anarchy and pandemonium. the first fight that would probably arise would be when my eight year old sef found out that I no longer like watching TV anymore. . Anyway, This makes us realize that the cumulative identity is the SUM of the entirety of another Identity. which is the instantaneous.


Now, my point is this, Our Identity is a continuous process which is continually shaped as we move on. which brings us to the question. are you a brain or do you have a brain, well, Who are you? Well, you are your Cumulative Identity. Now, where does your cumulative Identity stem from? well, we know that the cumulative identity is the sum of the instantaneous Identity. And we know, that the Instantaneous Identity is shaped by our senses, which are processed by the brain, and thoughts, which are generated in the brain, It then follows, that you, my friend, are simply a history of brain activity. you don't even have the luxury of claiming you are a brain, my friend. Your brain is what is making you. you are a product of your brain. you are not your brain. your brain is a hardware which stores you. the software.

you can be copied. yes. so, in the case of the clone, yes you are indeed you. You are not some unique individual with a distinct soul. you are simply a History of brain activity. So, who died in that machine? Well, to answer that question, copy a file to another folder and delete the original. What file got deleted? the original, what remains, the replica, what is the difference between the replica and the original? nothing. This shows that what we think is us is a label. we can be copied. and it will still be us.

we only refuse to accept that because we believe we are something more. we have to be more. perhaps we have souls, perhaps we have some immutable quality, some supernatural side, which can not be copied, ever.

to this i reply,

let us have a God. which will judge every version of you by age. for instance, if you are fifteen, we will judge fifteen "souls"
if we do this, we find, some souls are worthy, and some souls perish. even though they are supposed to be the same person, If even the "soul" is not invincible to change, how can it be invincible to replication?



let the philosophers review my submission. and Sirwere . . . i say again, NICE THREAD!

SirWere:
Why na, Teempakguy; why You're stealing my explanation(s). Anyways, the scenario is like, what if they built paris, to the last block in Nigeria (okay, that's a stretch) because the real Paris was destroyed by a nuclear attack. Is the new Paris still the same Paris or..............
As for identities, I don't really know. Perhaps Freemanan can help here.

Actually, Ironically, it wouldn't be paris anymore. as the two cities now differ by location and climate.

The cumulative Identity of paris is largely based on it's location,(it's in france) and it's Climate.(it's cold.) bringing that to nigeria makes such an intense shift in the identity that It would amount to intellectual dishonesty to assert that it is indeed Paris. but then, interestingly, the effiel tower, which is in paris, would be Also the effiel tower anywhere in the world.

Also, sorry for stealing your explanations, but . . . they say philosophy is an interactive field. so . . . let's talk by all means. also, freemanan, where you dey nah . . .

Another Philosophical question I often see around is, What is the difference between a Real universe and a simulated one? hence, how do we know we're not living in a simulation?

The paris scenario is.........well, it's how you look at it. In a glance, paris will be the same because,like I said, each structure would resemble the real paris. BUT; to one who knew the "old" Paris, It's a dud.
Apology accepted.
The simulation argument is quite, well, scary. Unfortunately, it has a fatal flaw. If we were living in a simulated world, we wouldn't be able to create simulations.

Besides, which sort of programmer would program the world this way
That programmer needs to get sacked and even executed immediately!!!!!
On second thought though, he would be forced to end this program causing Rapture Ragnarok.

Teempakguy:
Actually, Ironically, it wouldn't be paris anymore. as the two cities now differ by location and climate.

The cumulative Identity of paris is largely based on it's location,(it's in france) and it's Climate.(it's cold.) bringing that to nigeria makes such an intense shift in the identity that It would amount to intellectual dishonesty to assert that it is indeed Paris. but then, interestingly, the effiel tower, which is in paris, would be Also the effiel tower anywhere in the world.

Also, sorry for stealing your explanations, but . . . they say philosophy is an interactive field. so . . . let's talk by all means. also, freemanan, where you dey nah . . .

Another Philosophical question I often see around is, What is the difference between a Real universe and a simulated one? hence, how do we know we're not living in a simulation?

Ok, I'm back. Weed? Check. Restraint? Check. Okay, then. Let's delve into yourself
*****************************
You wake up the next morning still feeling confused about yourself and so you continue soul searching. Soul searching.......
With a start you remember what the religionist told you about you "Losing your soul." Then, you disregarded it. Now, however........ You wonder; when you entered the machine, did your soul split? Did Tade's brother soul die in the machine and now you have a 5 weeks old soul? Or did Tade brother's soul switch bodies and left the body before it was destroyed? Do you have two souls or worse, none?
You go out and ask some people about the meaning of a soul :

Hardcore Scientist (johnydon: Total nonsense, the soul is nothing more than a figment of some sick imagination which people try to preserve by asking for forgiveness of a sin, whereas the better thing to do is to rectify your error.

Softcore scientist (teempak): How can you ask me to define a thing I cannot see, anaylze and observe

Christian (malvisguy): Your soul is the copy of your body which will go and answer for all the sins you have committed in this world. YOU BETTER REPENT AND SAVE YOUR SOUL(S)!!!!!
Now, no explanation is satisfactory for you. You get home and lay down, dejected. The prospect of being souless or having two souls is an unwelcome prospect.
But then it hits you : How can man create a soul. You head out again to get answers

Hardcore scientist : Of course man can create a soul, since it never existed in the first place.

Soft scientist: Ermm....... Can you create a flying pig?

Christian: No one, except the almighty can create a soul. Don't let anybody deceive you. ACCEPT JESUS NOW!!!!

Now, you are even more dejected. Since man cannot create a soul and Tade's brother died in that machine, you are soulless. But this is intresting. It gives you the freedom to do anything, anything with no repercussions whatsoever. Of course telling a judger "Look, I don't have a soul will get you nothing more than an uneasy silence and perhaps some years in a psychatric hospital. But you get another idea : If man cannot create a soul, how can he destroy one.

Hardcore scientist : stop wasting my time.

Soft scientist: Of course! I can surely destroy a soul the same way you can hunt for flying pigs.

Christian : No one can destroy your soul; surely the moment your souls leaves you, you're dead. REPENT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!

As intriguing as the answers are, they still don't answer your question. But now you're in a quandary. Are you soulless or double soul? You can't be soulless because man cannot destroy a soul. You can't have two souls because Man cannot create a soul. Oh dear, why on earth did I ever agree to a cloning?
But now there is a twist. Teempak and his group of scientists made two copies of you. Unfortunately, the other copy of you is paralyzed from neck down. You go and visit.........you. Wow, you look so weak. But wait, should I say, you look so healthy. I try to project my.............awareness into me version 2.0. For the sake of sanity(a mad me is useless) I call the other me, John while I call myself Charles.
I tried to say "Charles, grow a beard." Nothing.
I tried again "The sun is shining over there." It then hit me, how do I know where "there" is. Can I think one place while meaning another. I altogether abandon the project and turn to go home. This is depressing.
However, the scientists stop me. They explain to me that the reason while John is that way is because his brain was not formed completely (Apparently, NEPA took the light during the process). However, if I agreed, they can copy the missing parts of Johnny's brain from mine, therefore completing his cloning. He assured me that the cloning device has been perfected so there is no fear of my brain being destroyed.
At first, I rejected the offer until it hit me. What if something happened to me; I mean Charles. Teempak has already told me he can't clone a cloned body. Also I was curious, what will happen if I have two functional brains. The idea sounds good. Infact, I'm going to do it tommorow.

******************************
Sorry guys, I must chop. Besides, there is a level where the whole thing can turn to a sci-fi movie/novel and I've danced too close to that edge. Till the next 16hours.

Teempakguy:
Nice thread!

Anyway, I would like to Liken the concept of The human body to that of a city. i

consider Paris. what IS Paris? well, you know Paris is a french City. so obviously, it's everything.

But what if we demolished a building in Paris, would it then not be Paris anymore?

Of course it would still be Paris, you say. It's just a building. But then, what happens if we demolish ten buildings? how about twenty? how about everything? would it still be Paris?

well, you think . . . I suppose it would still be Paris . . . Only without the buildings . . .


So, in the case of humans, we need to realize that we are not one entity. We are not ONE THING.

we are, likened to Paris, an entire City. the death of one blood cell doesn't change the fact that you are you. the loss of your limbs, the replacement of your internal organs, None of this change the fact that you are you.

What then changes the fact that you are you? what makes you . . . something else?

Seeing as I just started a course in philosophy recently and I don't have much knowledge of the terminology, I will go ahead and invent mine. I assert, that there are two types of Identity.

1. Cumulative Identity: This is the more general form of Identity. It is a loose form of what and who we are. Things like our names, our tattoos, our experiences . . . Cumulative Identity increases over time. for instance, my 11 year old sef doesn't know Calculus, my fourteen year old sef does. Now, I laugh at both of them, because I know VECTOR calculus. in the same manner, my twenty year old sef, will deride me as he may know tensor calculus. , however, we are all the same person, Generally, we are all called <insert real name here> we all are Nigerian, and we share certain experiences. there is a continuous progression from me to them, and the entire graph, is called cumulative Identity by me. In my opinion, This is the safest identification of identity. as the other is more depressing.

2. Instantaneous Identity: To Illustrate this, Let us assume that I, my fourteen year old version, my twenty year old version, and my eight year old version, were called to reason together. now, we will quickly find that there is anarchy and pandemonium. the first fight that would probably arise would be when my eight year old sef found out that I no longer like watching TV anymore. . Anyway, This makes us realize that the cumulative identity is the SUM of the entirety of another Identity. which is the instantaneous.


Now, my point is this, Our Identity is a continuous process which is continually shaped as we move on. which brings us to the question. are you a brain or do you have a brain, well, Who are you? Well, you are your Cumulative Identity. Now, where does your cumulative Identity stem from? well, we know that the cumulative identity is the sum of the instantaneous Identity. And we know, that the Instantaneous Identity is shaped by our senses, which are processed by the brain, and thoughts, which are generated in the brain, It then follows, that you, my friend, are simply a history of brain activity. you don't even have the luxury of claiming you are a brain, my friend. Your brain is what is making you. you are a product of your brain. you are not your brain. your brain is a hardware which stores you. the software.

you can be copied. yes. so, in the case of the clone, yes you are indeed you. You are not some unique individual with a distinct soul. you are simply a History of brain activity. So, who died in that machine? Well, to answer that question, copy a file to another folder and delete the original. What file got deleted? the original, what remains, the replica, what is the difference between the replica and the original? nothing. This shows that what we think is us is a label. we can be copied. and it will still be us.

we only refuse to accept that because we believe we are something more. we have to be more. perhaps we have souls, perhaps we have some immutable quality, some supernatural side, which can not be copied, ever.

to this i reply,

let us have a God. which will judge every version of you by age. for instance, if you are fifteen, we will judge fifteen "souls"
if we do this, we find, some souls are worthy, and some souls perish. even though they are supposed to be the same person, If even the "soul" is not invincible to change, how can it be invincible to replication?



let the philosophers review my submission. and Sirwere . . . i say again, NICE THREAD!

gud, I love your reasoning. I just have one simple question to your illustration, if say Paris is destroyed completely, given a period of 1000 years, will it still remain Paris?? what was Paris city in d last 1000 years?? what actually is Paris in your illustration. thank you boss

Well, Op there is a bit of inconsistency in your write up but I will address the issue of the soul.

As a pantheist and a pluralist, I believe that the soul is a representative of the body and vise versa. Let me break this down.

According to Plato's world of forms, objects and materials are reflection of ideas and souls. They aren't real. The fact that a car is blue doesn't men that that blue car is the blue itself but its just a reflection of the colour blue since colours are abstract entities. Same with beauty, someone can be beautiful but can't be beauty itself....


So, the soul is the part of realities. they are the same.

If all the 'information' in your brain titled 'PAUL RAYMOND' is formatted or extracted and put in a flash drive while you're still alive, and even downloaded into another brain, what will be your reality? I suppose your mind will become as blank as that of a newly born. Supposing you being a christian pastor<before the informations were removed> are dumped in a mosque in saudi arabia having no knowledge of anything what will be your reality?
My guess... You'll learn to take your first step, to pronounce words, to see, to feel, to count, to understand what you hear, all over again you have to learn every single thing, and probably become muslim, maybe a sheik bowing to Allah you'll be called 'IBRAHIM MUSTAFA'.
If IBRAHIM MUSTAFA meets the new PAUL RAYMOND in a bus and they converse, what will be the experience if they start blasting each other in their respective beliefs and refuse to agree? Will mustafa suddenly realise that he's speaking with his former self?
My answer... The memory of him being paul is no more, that information is lost so they'll argue to the death. So in essence i agree that we recognise ourselves by our accumulated knowledge and that knowledge is us. If that knowledge is transfered elsewhere so are we. I agree that we are neither a brain nor do we have a brain. We are just the information in the brain. And the central point of the information is what i call the 'soul'. It serves the purpose of the sun in the solar system. But if information in the brain can be lost while the brain is still alive, then a new history of brain activity can be created in the empty brain- a new information, a new personality and a new soul will have to emerge.

matrix600:
If all the 'information' in your brain titled 'PAUL RAYMOND' is formatted or extracted and put in a flash drive while you're still alive, and even downloaded into another brain, what will be your reality? I suppose your mind will become as blank as that of a newly born. Supposing you being a christian pastor<before the informations were removed> are dumped in a mosque in saudi arabia having no knowledge of anything what will be your reality?
My guess... You'll learn to take your first step, to pronounce words, to see, to feel, to count, to understand what you hear, all over again you have to learn every single thing, and probably become muslim, maybe a sheik bowing to Allah you'll be called 'IBRAHIM MUSTAFA'.
If IBRAHIM MUSTAFA meets the new PAUL RAYMOND in a bus and they converse, what will be the experience if they start blasting each other in their respective beliefs and refuse to agree? Will mustafa suddenly realise that he's speaking with his former self?
My answer... The memory of him being paul is no more, that information is lost so they'll argue to the death. So in essence i agree that we recognise ourselves by our accumulated knowledge and that knowledge is us. If that knowledge is transfered elsewhere so are we. I agree that we are neither a brain nor do we have a brain. We are just the information in the brain. And the central point of the information is what i call the 'soul'. It serves the purpose of the sun in the solar system. But if information in the brain can be lost while the brain is still alive, then a new history of brain activity can be created in the empty brain- a new information, a new personality and a new soul will have to emerge.

But then isn't that sorta...........blasphemous.

Freemanan:
Well, Op there is a bit of inconsistency in your write up but I will address the issue of the soul.

As a pantheist and a pluralist, I believe that the soul is a representative of the body and vise versa. Let me break this down.

According to Plato's world of forms, objects and materials are reflection of ideas and souls. They aren't real. The fact that a car is blue doesn't men that that blue car is the blue itself but its just a reflection of the colour blue since colours are abstract entities. Same with beauty, someone can be beautiful but can't be beauty itself....


So, the soul is the part of realities. they are the same.

Uhmmm...... Can you expantiate

SirWere:

But then isn't that sorta...........blasphemous.

its just a conjecture and i'm even begining to believe it. Besides no be una start am?

The conception about the soul being created the day the body was is wrong ;(

Aceed:
The conception about the soul being created the day the body was is wrong ;(

what is the right conception then about the creation of the soul, was it created before or after the body was created?.

Aceed:
The conception about the soul being created the day the body was is wrong ;(

Really So when was the soul created. Science doesn't believe in souls......so forget that branch.

Using religion, christianity, in particular, Adam was created with a soul. This is basic.

SirWere:
The paris scenario is.........well, it's how you look at it. In a glance, paris will be the same because,like I said, each structure would resemble the real paris. BUT; to one who knew the "old" Paris, It's a dud.
Apology accepted.
The simulation argument is quite, well, scary. Unfortunately, it has a fatal flaw. If we were living in a simulated world, we wouldn't be able to create simulations.

Besides, which sort of programmer would program the world this way
That programmer needs to get sacked and even executed immediately!!!!!
On second thought though, he would be forced to end this program causing Rapture Ragnarok.

This is the kind of universe you get when the programmer is also the graphics designer.

SirWere:
But then isn't that sorta...........blasphemous.

Which part is blasphemous?

Finding the soul is an irrelevant discourse. Emphasis should be given to things that can be verified and are pragmatic to man.

Existentialists will also say, why find the soul instead of the man itself? That the existence of a man is the paramount thing and the things that helps his existence, every other things are secondary, especially things that define his essence - the soul. "Existence precedes essence",

The Logical positivists might shut down NL if they see this thread. That how can we discuss irrelevant issues ? This thing lacks verifiability so why are we even looking for it? That even when we find it, can it pass through scientific verification? Can it be a justified truth that will be generally accepted like the laws of motion? If no, then its a useless search.

The idealists and Pluralists like myself will save the day tho.... That the metaphysical controls the physical and that the soul and the physical and material world are intertwined. One cannot exist independent of the other, and debunking the metaphysical is committing a philosophical suicide....

My definition of the soul is not some substance which rises and travels faster than even quantum wrap to get to a mystical paradise. My defintion of soul is the you that makes you more than your body and brain. I realize now that this thread about souls is K-legged. Perhaps I would open another thread on consciousness and sense of self.

Freemanan:
Finding the soul is an irrelevant discourse. Emphasis should be given to things that can be verified and are pragmatic to man.

Existentialists will also say, why find the soul instead of the man itself? That the existence of a man is the paramount thing and the things that helps his existence, every other things are secondary, especially things that define his essence - the soul. "Existence precedes essence",

The Logical positivists might shut down NL if they see this thread. That how can we discuss irrelevant issues ? This thing lacks verifiability so why are we even looking for it? That even when we find it, can it pass through scientific verification? Can it be a justified truth that will be generally accepted like the laws of motion? If no, then its a useless search.

The idealists and Pluralists like myself will save the day tho.... That the metaphysical controls the physical and that the soul and the physical and material world are intertwined. One cannot exist independent of the other, and debunking the metaphysical is committing a philosophical suicide....

Candybob:


Which part is blasphemous?

Come on! The religious definition of a soul is some substance which cannot be seen, heard or tested in anyway and rises up after our death, travelling faster than light to get to a mystical paradise/prison. Okay, now this thread sounds..........

Cc: SirWere


I have gone through the article,however because my battery is dangerously low, I have to put off giving my thoughton the matter for another time.

Rest assured though that I shall give my input as soon as I can get some electrical power.

SirWere:
My definition of the soul is not some substance which rises and travels faster than even quantum wrap to get to a mystical paradise. My defintion of soul is the you that makes you more than your body and brain. I realize now that this thread about souls is K-legged. Perhaps I would open another thread on consciousness and sense of self.

Do that.

Does the soul exist?

To answer that,we need to answer the rather obvious question:

What is the soul?

Tough one,that.

Even the dictionary varies on definition. Some interchange it with the term "Spirit",some call it the "Psyche".

Because this thread is philosophical in nature,I will come at it from an angle that includes religion.

To be clear I am a Christian,so there would be a hint of bias.

In my opinion,yes the soul exists.

In fact,to believe in the existence of God is to believe in the existence of the soul.

The 2 concepts,God and the soul are inalienable from each other.

In the creation story,we are told that after God formed man from the dust of the earth,he input His breath into him,and man became a living soul.

Now that we have established who made the soul,we can build up on that subsequently.

Quite simply,the soul is that immaterial part of man which is immortal and is the subject of human freedom & conciousness.

T.B.C...

In Scripture the term
"soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.

But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man,
that which is of greatest value in him,
that by which he is most especially in
God’s image.

That said,can a clone have a soul?

Because the soul is given by God,and is His essence in man,the answer is no. This question will have practical application however IF man can successfully acheive cloning. Until such a time when we have proof of such,the debate is imo,dead on arrival.

Sheikwonder:
Does the soul exist?
To answer that,we need to answer the rather obvious question:
What is the soul?
Tough one,that.
Even the dictionary varies on definition. Some interchange it with the term "Spirit",some call it the "Psyche".
Because this thread is philosophical in nature,I will come at it from an angle that includes religion.
To be clear I am a Christian,so there would be a hint of bias.
In my opinion,yes the soul exists.
In fact,to believe in the existence of God is to believe in the existence of the soul.
The 2 concepts,God and the soul are inalienable from each other.
In the creation story,we are told that after God formed man from the dust of the earth,he input His breath into him,and man became a living soul.
Now that we have established who made the soul,we can build up on that subsequently.
Quite simply,the soul is that immaterial part of man which is immortal and is the subject of human freedom & conciousness.
T.B.C...

Sheikwonder:
In Scripture the term
"soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.
But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man,
that which is of greatest value in him,
that by which he is most especially in
God’s image.
That said,can a clone have a soul?
Because the soul is given by God,and is His essence in man,the answer is no. This question will have practical application however IF man can successfully acheive cloning. Until such a time when we have proof of such,the debate is imo,dead on arrival.

Stop. Just stop, dude.

Haba. this is not the religion section. this was meant to be a philosophical thread. not a theological one. nobody is asking you about the concept of the spiritual soul. which has not been proved to exist anyway. the issue on ground is, What is the sense of self? how does It work?

Obviously, a clone will have a sense of self. Some twins are clones of themselves at the cellular level. they have "souls" of themselves. put in mind here that we are not talking about anything religious. please and please. kindly allow religion to remain in the religion section, while rationality, remains in the science section.


thanks.


Now, On that Note, I would like to ask you a question. that relates to the questions being discussed here.

"what are the philosophical implications of a successful head transplant?"

Hmm......... If a brain transplant is successful, it will crush any belief that we are tied down to this body because we can well, live forever.
However,it think it will also bring mass depression to mankind because it proves that well, it proves we are nothing more than a brain.

Thank god it's not possible:p

Teempakguy:
Stop. Just stop, dude.

Haba. this is not the religion section. this was meant to be a philosophical thread. not a theological one. nobody is asking you about the concept of the spiritual soul. which has not been proved to exist anyway. the issue on ground is, What is the sense of self? how does It work?

Obviously, a clone will have a sense of self. Some twins are clones of themselves at the cellular level. they have "souls" of themselves. put in mind here that we are not talking about anything religious. please and please. kindly allow religion to remain in the religion section, while rationality, remains in the science section.


thanks.


Now, On that Note, I would like to ask you a question. that relates to the questions being discussed here.

"what are the philosophical implications of a successful head transplant?"

So your stance is "We will answer that when it happens"? Okay

Sheikwonder:
In Scripture the term
"soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.

But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man,
that which is of greatest value in him,
that by which he is most especially in
God’s image.

That said,can a clone have a soul?

Because the soul is given by God,and is His essence in man,the answer is no. This question will have practical application however IF man can successfully acheive cloning. Until such a time when we have proof of such,the debate is imo,dead on arrival.

Cc: Teempakguy

You have fired the first salvo,and I shall respond in kind.

I ask again:What is the soul?

If you can give me a definition which is void of any element of the spiritual,then I shall even slightly consider your previous post.

The soul is an abstract concept,it is immaterial.It isn't made up of ions or neutrons,it is not even matter.

Science deals with the observable. As Erwin Schroedinger put it,"Nothing is real unless it is observed".

The topic of the thread is "Finding the soul....",yet you don't want me to talk about the spiritual soul? What shall we talk about then,the physical soul? Does that even sound right?


If you cannot bear to talk about religion in a philosophy thread,then you shouldn't even be here,because all religion is built around one form of philosophy or another.

Don't pretend like you can discuss the soul without it's spiritual element in a philosophical thread,are you for real??


Pfft...

Sheikwonder:
Cc: Teempakguy

You have fired the first salvo,and I shall respond in kind.

I ask again:What is the soul?

If you can give me a definition which is void of any element of the spiritual,then I shall even slightly consider your previous post.

The soul is an abstract concept,it is immaterial.It isn't made up of ions or neutrons,it is not even matter.

Science deals with the observable. As Erwin Schroedinger put it,"Nothing is real unless it is observed".

The topic of the thread is "Finding the soul....",yet you don't want me to talk about the spiritual soul? What shall we talk about then,the physical soul? Does that even sound right?


If you cannot bear to talk about religion in a philosophy thread,then you shouldn't even be here,because all religion is built around one form of philosophy or another.

Don't pretend like you can discuss the soul without it's spiritual element in a philosophical thread,are you for real??


Pfft...

hehehehe what?
The first salvo ke? this is a discussion nah . . . not a debate or a battle.


anyway. Religion is a subset of philosophy. hence, it is quite possible to talk philosophy without including religion. I have in fact watched quite many philosophical talks where Religion was only mentioned in passing. and others where it wasn't mentioned at all.
we already have a religion section. what will it benefit us to Import Ideas from there into the science section again instead of just opening topics there?

But then i guess I will blame Sirwere for naming the thread a soul finding thread, when what he meant was the sense of self and identity.

So . . . you asked for a non-religious definition of the soul? and you declared that i would have to provide one for you to consider my Advice.

Well, This borders on physicalism. The belief that every phenomenon observe is the direct result of something that is physical and tangible. Light is made of photons. sound is made of moving objects. everything is connected to kinetic energy. motion. And so far, physicalism has been proven right in all our scientific discovery yet. We have not yet observed "spooky action at a distance." even magnets cannot work without transferring photons. a visible object, between objects.

So what is the soul? well, I believe the soul is The result of our inevitable ego and our tendency to anthropomorphize objects. The fact remains that we are yet, just very complex beings. who have achieved the highest level of Self awareness. Chimpanzees are self aware. We are just more so. and chimpanzees are rated at the level of an average 2.5 year old human.

It is now up to you to claim that the chimpanzee has no soul because it is not human. but if you claim so, then the 2 year old human has no soul either. because It is actually less aware of itself than a chimpanzee is. which then begs the other question. Is the soul an upgrade? like . . . you're just an animal until you reach a certain age and you can finally get a soul of your own. oh joy.

The question here now is, If the chimpanzee and the 2 year old human possess the same level of self awareness, why do we claim that one has a soul and that the other doesn't? doesn't this register as . . . pride? these animals are our cousins after all.

So in the end, we must conclude that the soul is our poor explanation for our incredibly and uniquely high self awareness. which in itself is a product of the incredibly powerful powerful optimization system which is the human brain. We're highly social organism who also happen to be intelligent. it follows that the easiest and faster way to survive as a species is, we must know we exist in order to know our position in the world, in comparison to every one else.

I think, therefore I am, Rene Descartes said. Perhaps our "Soul", our sense of self and our awareness . . . is merely the latest evolutionary breakthrough . . . thank you.

SirWere:
Hmm......... If a brain transplant is successful, it will crush any belief that we are tied down to this body because we can well, live forever.
However,it think it will also bring mass depression to mankind because it proves that well, it proves we are nothing more than a brain.
Thank god it's not possible:p

Oh It Is possible. very possible in fact. so many evidences in the favor. it has been performed on animals, which are really just our distant family members, , It has been repeatedly proved that the brain Is the center of self, It has been proved that any body part can be easily replaced. And more so, Scientists are actually attempting to do the surgery. they wouldn't try it if they knew it had no chance of success. And no, It probably wouldn't bring mass depression to mankind . . . at least, not the smart ones.

Cc: Teempakguy

So what is the soul? well, I believe the soul is The result of our inevitable ego and our tendency to anthropomorphize objects.

So in the end, we must conclude that the soul is our poor explanation for our incredibly and uniquely high self awareness.


I take it that you stand by the bolded assertions, and as such I can draw my conclusions from there.


The first and obvious conclusion,is that you are a soulless creature.

The next conclusion is that you do not believe in God,for as earlier stated,all souls come from God.

So we have an Atheist who is also soulless.[Your condition really is depressing]

Evidently,you are from the school of thought that believes that [sic] "every phenomenon observe is the direct result of something that is physical and tangible."




As I type this,I am sitting in a room filled with a 3 light bulbs. Some of this bulbs are rated higher than others i.e 60W,100W & 120W. This is very much evident in the intensities of their respective brightness.

I suppose then that one can say that the reason why the 100W bulb shines brighter than the 60W bulb is because the 100W bulb has attained a higher level of "self awareness". The 100W bulb gets lit up as a result of it's connection to power,but I guess it is too conceited to see it that way. Because the bulb is "self aware",it knows that it just consists of a glass tube and a tungsten filament. By evolving,it has the ability to spontaneously generate light without power.

Of course,the other bulbs are sensible enough to see that they are useless without a source of power. They may not see it,but they know it is there. Not this 100W bulb though. In fact,the 100W bulb believes that "every phenomenon observed is the direct result of something that is physical and tangible". Because all he can see and feel are a filament and a glass tube,he arrives at the conclusion that his light stems from being a "a very complex being who has achieved the highest level of self awareness".

The 120W bulb who has been silent all this while tries to talk some sense into the 100W bulb,"We only come on because we are connected to a power source,once that source is cut off,we are useless. In fact,the only reason you can even begin to ponder and talk this nonsense about 'self awareness' is because you are still connected.All that counts for nought once the plug is pulled."

"Oh shut up",the 100W bulb retorts. "You of all people,with a "higher self awareness" should not be talking this rubbish,you should be....."

I can't hear what the 100W bulb is saying anymore as I discover that the 100W bulb is flickering. I have to change this bulb and sure enough,I do.


And there is light ,peace,and quiet.

Teempakguy:
hehehehe what?
The first salvo ke? this is a discussion nah . . . not a debate or a battle.


anyway. Religion is a subset of philosophy. hence, it is quite possible to talk philosophy without including religion. I have in fact watched quite many philosophical talks where Religion was only mentioned in passing. and others where it wasn't mentioned at all.
we already have a religion section. what will it benefit us to Import Ideas from there into the science section again instead of just opening topics there?

But then i guess I will blame Sirwere for naming the thread a soul finding thread, when what he meant was the sense of self and identity.

So . . . you asked for a non-religious definition of the soul? and you declared that i would have to provide one for you to consider my Advice.

Well, This borders on physicalism. The belief that every phenomenon observe is the direct result of something that is physical and tangible. Light is made of photons. sound is made of moving objects. everything is connected to kinetic energy. motion. And so far, physicalism has been proven right in all our scientific discovery yet. We have not yet observed "spooky action at a distance." even magnets cannot work without transferring photons. a visible object, between objects.

So what is the soul? well, I believe the soul is The result of our inevitable ego and our tendency to anthropomorphize objects. The fact remains that we are yet, just very complex beings. who have achieved the highest level of Self awareness. Chimpanzees are self aware. We are just more so. and chimpanzees are rated at the level of an average 2.5 year old human.

It is now up to you to claim that the chimpanzee has no soul because it is not human. but if you claim so, then the 2 year old human has no soul either. because It is actually less aware of itself than a chimpanzee is. which then begs the other question. Is the soul an upgrade? like . . . you're just an animal until you reach a certain age and you can finally get a soul of your own. oh joy.

The question here now is, If the chimpanzee and the 2 year old human possess the same level of self awareness, why do we claim that one has a soul and that the other doesn't? doesn't this register as . . . pride? these animals are our cousins after all.

So in the end, we must conclude that the soul is our poor explanation for our incredibly and uniquely high self awareness. which in itself is a product of the incredibly powerful powerful optimization system which is the human brain. We're highly social organism who also happen to be intelligent. it follows that the easiest and faster way to survive as a species is, we must know we exist in order to know our position in the world, in comparison to every one else.

I think, therefore I am, Rene Descartes said. Perhaps our "Soul", our sense of self and our awareness . . . is merely the latest evolutionary breakthrough . . . thank you.




Oh It Is possible. very possible in fact. so many evidences in the favor. it has been performed on animals, which are really just our distant family members, , It has been repeatedly proved that the brain Is the center of self, It has been proved that any body part can be easily replaced. And more so, Scientists are actually attempting to do the surgery. they wouldn't try it if they knew it had no chance of success. And no, It probably wouldn't bring mass depression to mankind . . . at least, not the smart ones.

@bolded, I have opened another thread on consciousness and sense of self. I finally found out that the "soul" has been corrupted/based by/on religious concepts. That's the reason for the "when we get to that bridge, we will cross it" stance of SheikWonder.

Now, concerning the brain, a brain transplant is impossible because, well, our bodies is uniquely designed to function with our brain. The moment our brain is removed our heart stops beating, lungs stop breathing, and if the brain loses oxygen for more than 30 seconds, well....... It's a dummy!

Perhaps the thing we should discuss is "what if we find a way to glean off our identity from our brain and place it on some supercomputer; then "upload" us into another brain??" Will our identity accept such a transfer? We have so many memories about our former bodies that the "switching of bodies will figuratively make us a baby again. Besides, doesn't that give rise to a double identity of sorts Those are the question eh


**Bows out of thread**