3 ms·

Did you ever think teleporters could be the basis for an argument against souls? Holy shit, this is brilliant. Wow. May you post more?

GavinMcG 10y ago
I think someone downvoted you, because your comment could be read (uncharitably) as snide, rather than earnest. I don't have anything else re: Parfit to offer, but some more information should be findable with Google.
- pryelluw 10y ago
  Its real awe. Blew my mind. Ill make sure to research Parfit more, thanks.
ars 10y ago
> Holy shit, this is brilliant. Not really. How is that an argument against souls? Souls are not physical, nothing stops them from traveling to the new location of the body, or from being in more than one "place" at a time. Souls are also not indivisible. When you have reincarnation plus resurrection of the dead, which body get the soul? Answer: All of them. They each get a soul, and all those souls are linked, and yet individual. (This also answers the question about heaven and a widow/er - which soul would they be with? Answer: Both, a soul can "exist" more than once at a time.) A copy-transporter would just do the same thing, get a copy of the soul. So no, not a brilliant argument. See here http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-teleportation-video_cf40fd1b6.html http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-... for some more on the Jewish perspective on this.
- pryelluw 10y ago
  I just find it brilliant. You dont and thats OK. But Im not looking to debate religion. I do appreciate you posting your argument because it shows how my comment might be interpreted by a religious person (Im not religious). As someone who aims to communicate better, your comment is valuable feedback.
  - ars 10y ago
    > might be interpreted by a religious person By anyone. Once you entertain the concept of soul, then all the rest follows automatically. I don't see that someone non-religious could understand it any differently (other than not entertaining the concept of soul in the first place).
    - pryelluw 10y ago
      Good feedback, thx.
- Natsu 10y ago
  I've taken a rather non-traditional view that 'soul' is what people in the past used refer to as the 'program' that runs in our brain. So being copied by a hypothetical teleporter is no obstacle here. Besides, quantum teleportation notwithstanding, I'm not sure QM allows the reproduction of everything at once, which should be required to duplicate the entire pattern.
- ars 10y ago
  (Note: Just finished watching it, and despite the title, the linked video does not actually touch on this topic. Sorry for the irrelevant link.)

GavinMcG 10y ago

I think someone downvoted you, because your comment could be read (uncharitably) as snide, rather than earnest. I don't have anything else re: Parfit to offer, but some more information should be findable with Google.

pryelluw 10y ago
Its real awe. Blew my mind. Ill make sure to research Parfit more, thanks.

ars 10y ago

> Holy shit, this is brilliant. Not really. How is that an argument against souls? Souls are not physical, nothing stops them from traveling to the new location of the body, or from being in more than one "place" at a time. Souls are also not indivisible. When you have reincarnation plus resurrection of the dead, which body get the soul? Answer: All of them. They each get a soul, and all those souls are linked, and yet individual. (This also answers the question about heaven and a widow/er - which soul would they be with? Answer: Both, a soul can "exist" more than once at a time.) A copy-transporter would just do the same thing, get a copy of the soul. So no, not a brilliant argument. See here http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-teleportation-video_cf40fd1b6.html http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-... for some more on the Jewish perspective on this.

pryelluw 10y ago
I just find it brilliant. You dont and thats OK. But Im not looking to debate religion. I do appreciate you posting your argument because it shows how my comment might be interpreted by a religious person (Im not religious). As someone who aims to communicate better, your comment is valuable feedback.
- ars 10y ago
  > might be interpreted by a religious person By anyone. Once you entertain the concept of soul, then all the rest follows automatically. I don't see that someone non-religious could understand it any differently (other than not entertaining the concept of soul in the first place).
  - pryelluw 10y ago
    Good feedback, thx.
Natsu 10y ago
I've taken a rather non-traditional view that 'soul' is what people in the past used refer to as the 'program' that runs in our brain. So being copied by a hypothetical teleporter is no obstacle here. Besides, quantum teleportation notwithstanding, I'm not sure QM allows the reproduction of everything at once, which should be required to duplicate the entire pattern.
ars 10y ago
(Note: Just finished watching it, and despite the title, the linked video does not actually touch on this topic. Sorry for the irrelevant link.)