And then they begin to diverge in to two separate people, who are distinct individuals, but still both you.
It’s not that complicated. So long as you don’t start imagining metaphysical hallucinations like “souls” because people want to pretend the “after life” is a thing because they’re scared of no longer being.
We can’t prove conscious entities do or don’t have souls. Asserting we don’t, as if it’s some kind of self-evident fact, is as arrogant as religious people asserting that we do.
Present me a rigorous definition of the concept, then a coherent evidence based argument for why we should even consider the concept as a potential, and then a series of experiments to prove or disprove the concept.
I will be chatting with the invisible, immaterial and mute elephant that lives in my living room until you do.
Point to the comment made before my edit. I clarified my comment after posting it, no comment was made prior to my edit.
There may have been one I did not see. As is the nature of federate platforms and de-federated instances. Or, perhaps even, a comment from someone I blocked previously.
The elephant crap was not in the original comment. That’s not just a typo, mate. If you’re incapable of admitting something so trivial, and deflect by bringing up previously blocking people, like that has anything to with it, you’re certainly not worth any more of my time.
That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.
But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.
everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe
This is the only way that makes sense to approach it. Either it is and there’s an objective truth and consistency to reality, or it isn’t and there’s literally infinite possibilities so any single possibility is infinitely unlikely and there’s no reason to assume any of them are valid.
Where did I say there’s no objective truth to the universe? Say I drew some pictures on small pieces of paper and arranged them adjacent to each other on a table, and then placed my hand flat on the table, then invited you to look. You can see pictures on the table, I then ask you whether there are any pictures under my hand. You (should) answer that you don’t know. You not knowing whether there are pictures under my hand or not does nor change the objective truth of their existence. The hand represents what we don’t know about the universe, and you (at least currently) don’t have the technology to lift it.
An assertion that something does not exist does not need to be proven, since it is inherently a challenge to someone else’s assertion to something existing.
A negative can not be proven, if someone wishes to insist that a concept be considered, the burden of evidence fall upon them.
That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.
P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.
I know about the teapot, and it seems you’ve also missed the point. Did you not notice where I said it was as arrogant to claim we do have souls as fact?
We know we have consciousness, that’s not a far-fetched untestable thing like a microscopic teapot in orbit. You accept that you have it as true, but it’s basically impossible to prove, because how would an unconscious biological machine that reacts to all physical stimuli the same as a human be any different from a conscious one? We lack an explanation for why biological machines give rise to consciousness and why the universe is aware of itself. That’s not an extraordinary claim. Why does awareness exist at all? Why does the universe not do everything it does now without being aware?
I recommend reading Blindsight. One of the few novels that actually changed the way I think (in this case about consciousness)
And yeah, it’s real in the same sense as a sense of smell is real. It’s just a byproduct of how our brains work. Copy the brain, copy the consciousness.
The belief that it’s a byproduct of the physics of our brains is just that, a belief. It’s not provable even if we both think it’s the most likely cause.
I think knowing about drugs able to cause ego death, we’re already close to a proof. Like, if it can be temporarily disabled without long term effects, what else can it be than a feeling.
I think we can only get closer if we understand the human brain much better than we do.
And then they begin to diverge in to two separate people, who are distinct individuals, but still both you.
It’s not that complicated. So long as you don’t start imagining metaphysical hallucinations like “souls” because people want to pretend the “after life” is a thing because they’re scared of no longer being.
Yeah, they’d become more of a sibling as time goes on.
If there WERE a soul, well, that soul would get replicated, too!
We can’t prove conscious entities do or don’t have souls. Asserting we don’t, as if it’s some kind of self-evident fact, is as arrogant as religious people asserting that we do.
Present me a rigorous definition of the concept, then a coherent evidence based argument for why we should even consider the concept as a potential, and then a series of experiments to prove or disprove the concept.
I will be chatting with the invisible, immaterial and mute elephant that lives in my living room until you do.
Poor etiquette to significantly edit your comment without noting so, especially after it’s already received a reply.
Point to the comment made before my edit. I clarified my comment after posting it, no comment was made prior to my edit.
There may have been one I did not see. As is the nature of federate platforms and de-federated instances. Or, perhaps even, a comment from someone I blocked previously.
The elephant crap was not in the original comment. That’s not just a typo, mate. If you’re incapable of admitting something so trivial, and deflect by bringing up previously blocking people, like that has anything to with it, you’re certainly not worth any more of my time.
That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.
But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.
This is the only way that makes sense to approach it. Either it is and there’s an objective truth and consistency to reality, or it isn’t and there’s literally infinite possibilities so any single possibility is infinitely unlikely and there’s no reason to assume any of them are valid.
Where did I say there’s no objective truth to the universe? Say I drew some pictures on small pieces of paper and arranged them adjacent to each other on a table, and then placed my hand flat on the table, then invited you to look. You can see pictures on the table, I then ask you whether there are any pictures under my hand. You (should) answer that you don’t know. You not knowing whether there are pictures under my hand or not does nor change the objective truth of their existence. The hand represents what we don’t know about the universe, and you (at least currently) don’t have the technology to lift it.
An assertion that something does not exist does not need to be proven, since it is inherently a challenge to someone else’s assertion to something existing.
A negative can not be proven, if someone wishes to insist that a concept be considered, the burden of evidence fall upon them.
That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.
P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.
So… you define the concept of soul as being comparable with sentience?
Do you mean sentience or sapience?
They don’t know what they mean, they’re just regurgitating entry-level thought experiments.
Russell’s teapot. You can’t prove the non-existence of literally infinite things, yet you probably assume that they don’t exist.
The burden of proof is on the one claiming that something exists.
I know about the teapot, and it seems you’ve also missed the point. Did you not notice where I said it was as arrogant to claim we do have souls as fact?
We know we have consciousness, that’s not a far-fetched untestable thing like a microscopic teapot in orbit. You accept that you have it as true, but it’s basically impossible to prove, because how would an unconscious biological machine that reacts to all physical stimuli the same as a human be any different from a conscious one? We lack an explanation for why biological machines give rise to consciousness and why the universe is aware of itself. That’s not an extraordinary claim. Why does awareness exist at all? Why does the universe not do everything it does now without being aware?
I recommend reading Blindsight. One of the few novels that actually changed the way I think (in this case about consciousness)
And yeah, it’s real in the same sense as a sense of smell is real. It’s just a byproduct of how our brains work. Copy the brain, copy the consciousness.
The belief that it’s a byproduct of the physics of our brains is just that, a belief. It’s not provable even if we both think it’s the most likely cause.
I think knowing about drugs able to cause ego death, we’re already close to a proof. Like, if it can be temporarily disabled without long term effects, what else can it be than a feeling.
I think we can only get closer if we understand the human brain much better than we do.