Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[SirQuiamus]

Ah. I suspect the critical difference here is that I see no need to savescum in order to resurrect the fort. Does that sound about right to you?

I'm sure that's theologically correct, but it makes no sense to me.


...Anyway, I find it easier to understand Descan's scifi-fantasy, rather than the whole simulation-thing. My deepest conviction is that consciousness is a by-product of the substrate itself, but the pattern-simulation-approach sounds like an attempt to reproduce the by-product while discarding the thing itself – like hand-crafting a series of DF screenshots with Mspaint. Isn't the abstract, disembodied pattern rather similar to what Christians have traditionally called the "soul?" Something that magically persists after the thing is gone?   

[Frumple]

It holds the same information, but it's just not the same.

... well, the binding wouldn't be. The book itself would still be the same thing, unless your ratty old one had pages missing or somethin'.

It's not what I'd call a good comparison. Binding doesn't really have a substantiative effect on a book -- one's as good as another, generally, and incidental affectation for a particular binding is more human insanity than anything meaningful. Human body on the other hand has a very substantiative effect on how we store, process, and recall information. You take the information in one body and stick it in another and it's not going to be the same information, because the new container will literally cause the information to change.

[wierd]

I believe the actual biblical reference is "God breathed the breath of life into it (the clay form of man), and he became a living soul." Or something akin to that.

Edit:

Actual quotation from KJV genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, a spirit is the abstract "data" of the person, The body is the physical substrate, and the "soul" is the unity of the two, as best I have been able to determine.  More populist interpretations make "spirit" and "soul" interchangeable however.

[origamiscienceguy]

I believe the actual biblical reference is "God breathed the breath of life into it (the clay form of man), and he became a living soul." Or something akin to that.

So, a spirit is the abstract "data" of the person, The body is the physical substrate, and the "soul" is the unity of the two, as best I have been able to determine.  More populist interpretations make "spirit" and "soul" interchangeable however.

That is correct.

But "spirit" and "soul" are not the same thing. Every human has a soul, but they receive the holy spirit once they believe. (ever since Pentecost)

[Arx]

'Spirit' and 'Holy Spirit' aren't the same thing either. There are unholy spirits, and possibly mundane ones. Whether people have spirits is an interesting but probably entirely academic question.

[Frumple]

Is a soul, iirc. From what I recall, the original interpretation saw no difference between a soul and the flesh. Soul was less some kind of odd immaterial thing than it was simple animating force, back then. Or at least the living part was. Pretty sure that's (one of) the basis(/bases) of physical reincarnation beliefs within the denominations, actually...

[origamiscienceguy]

'Spirit' and 'Holy Spirit' aren't the same thing either. There are unholy spirits, and possibly mundane ones. Whether people have spirits is an interesting but probably entirely academic question.

I was referring to the spirit that is often confused with the soul. Should have clarified more.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[TD1]

It holds the same information, but it's just not the same.

... well, the binding wouldn't be. The book itself would still be the same thing, unless your ratty old one had pages missing or somethin'.

It's not what I'd call a good comparison. Binding doesn't really have a substantiative effect on a book -- one's as good as another, generally, and incidental affectation for a particular binding is more human insanity than anything meaningful. Human body on the other hand has a very substantiative effect on how we store, process, and recall information. You take the information in one body and stick it in another and it's not going to be the same information, because the new container will literally cause the information to change.

I'm speaking less about the actual binding, more about sentimental value. Sure you could get a new book, but it wouldn't have the same feeling attached. You wouldn't acknowledge it as the same, though it holds the same information. Sure, you could get a new body, but....

[Descan]

Descan's scifi-fantasy

?

[wierd]

(Replacement of body =/= not same body thus not same feeling, thus not same)

My neighbor lady has a below knee amputation. She is the same person as before, she just now has a prosthetic leg. A sufficiently high quality prosthetic (such as a cloned organ) would feel exactly the same as the original.

[TD1]

Fine and dandy. It would most likely still be seen as a new extension, but sure, she may see it as the same. Now give her an entirely new body (and speaking in terms of a Christian afterlife, an entire change in scenery.)

The leg would not be seen as the same as the old one, IMO, but even if it were, a body is an entirely different thing. There is a sense of self associated with a whole body that is not associated with limbs.

[Angle]

BEHOLD, MORTALS! SPIRITUALITY!

[Arx]

Eh. I agree with him on most of it, except that I have a massively different impression of his 'step 3'. At that point, I tend more towards thinking things like 'why am I even out shopping?' 'It would make no difference in the long run if I were to stab this cashier.' and 'In the long run, there's no reason I can't just walk out of here with the stuff now.'

It's a much more sane model of atheist spirituality than most I can remember.

Of course, I disagree with significant portions of his representation of 'science' and 'spirituality', but I've never seen a thing like that made by an atheist that I have agreed with. It doesn't help that since he's proud of not having studied the Torah, he's unlikely to have fact checked the various holy books before writing it up.

[i2amroy]

That's definitely interesting, and I can definitely see it for his particular definition of the word "spirituality". What I find more interesting is his related next post. His "truthism" that he speaks of there is extremely similar to a slightly more scientific take on Buddhism. His step 3 only being able to result in love is basically identical to the Buddhist philosophy of loving kindness.

That said I think his "religion" and a variety of other similar religions (like Buddhism) miss something. They seek to silence your mind, to quiet the "animals" that he speaks of and deny them any control over the body. But they miss that it's those same animals that allow for the creation of art or music. While the howling of the monkeys in our brains might be distracting, it's that same howling that occasionally takes two random sounds and puts them together to form a new word. We should know how to silence the monkeys, but the end goal shouldn't be to silence them totally, but should rather be to control them. Studies in people with brain damage have shown that without emotions, without those animals there to help guide you, people end up spending hours trying to decide what type of chips to buy at the grocery store. Like it or not we need those animals, and without them we look only at a world devoid of art, devoid of passion, and where even simple decisions paralyze us. They shouldn't control us nor cloud our perceptions, but it's important to recognize that the end goal is not to evict them.

(Just my two cents. To be honest when I started this post it looked nothing like this, but this is how it turned out so here it is. )