7 ms·

I hope everyone do see the implication of creating a soul, then kill it 25 years later? Possibly repeatedly? That sounds almost as bad as a horcrux.

jaaron 15y ago
Would you feel different if the cloned body (or body parts) were grown in a fashion such that it was never intelligent or aware? Such as without a full brain or even without a head? Would it then be a soul?
- joering2 15y ago
  Thats why I didnt want to mention that or answer to loup. I didnt not wanted to end up with religion debate on whether there is God and Soul, and if Soul can be transferred etc. This was pure speculation on how to live forever. That is, if you could live happily ever after knowing you tricked your twin-brother/sister and gave him falling apart body with a 5 years life-expectancy. We are getting really into science fiction now. Perhaps if you could somehow monitor and capture every single signal sent from human brain to its body from the moment brain formed itself (I know there is a flaw here...), then if you could record that transmission for 25 years, perhaps (Im really in year 2350 now, I think) you could program a computer that would re-play that transmission into a growing body (to mimic brain) and as a result at age 25 had a healthy body without human brain. This, I think, would cut-off all skeptics that believe Soul is attached to mind, not body itself.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    Maybe I shouldn't have use the word "soul". My vision is, we do not have souls, we are souls. Body + Brain = Soul, so to speak. Death is when that soul is irrevocably destroyed (meaning, even the information required to reconstruct it is lost forever). So, while convoluted, your solution sounds like it is acceptable. Be careful however to play a record of a past life, instead of, say, actually simulating a brain in a silicon chip, Gunm style. Because that simulation would most certainly be a soul as well (I don't believe in philosophical zombies).
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      Err… I don't get the downvotes… feedback please? Edit: nevermind.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  Of course it wouldn't be a soul. I'd be totally okay with that.
gnaritas 15y ago
> the implication of creating a soul There are no implications to flights of fantasy, there is no soul, the body is a complex biological machine and there's no reason we can't either learn to prevent the machine from breaking or learn to grow another for spare parts.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  Actually, I agree with you. It's just that "soul" is the name I give to that complex biological machine. And I think it's only fair. Though the word "soul" is mostly used in conjunction with dualistic assumptions, it has a deeper meaning that is fairly independent of dualism: Your soul is whatever makes you who you are. Your soul is what really matters about you. Whether the soul is separate from the body and survives it is another question. I also have a specific reason to use that word: its emotional impact. For instance, one reason I think we should stop death is because it means the destruction of the soul. Even a devout Christian would understand my concerns (and go on to reassure me, but that's another story). I don't want to let religion hijack this word.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    Religion isn't hijacking the word, it's their word, you seem to be the one hijacking it. You can't take your own personal definition of word and expect to communicate well. That we're even having this discussion proves that. Worse, you admit to using the word for its emotional impact and seem proud that deceiving a Christian by using it would work, this utterly intellectually dishonest.
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      Okay, I am the one who hijack the word[1]. But I don't think this is deception. I use the greater emotional impact because it is the one that actually match reality. I would say "destruction of the soul" to a Christian because only that would convey the right idea. If I say "death", the guy would think about going somewhere else instead of true death. That would be deception (or at least miscommunication). For the same reason, I don't like to say "passed away", "gone", or "departed". Plain "died" is more accurate. [1]: I'm not the only one. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/191761 http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/191761 (Argument by authority, I know, but really, this view looks sound.)

jaaron 15y ago

Would you feel different if the cloned body (or body parts) were grown in a fashion such that it was never intelligent or aware? Such as without a full brain or even without a head? Would it then be a soul?

joering2 15y ago
Thats why I didnt want to mention that or answer to loup. I didnt not wanted to end up with religion debate on whether there is God and Soul, and if Soul can be transferred etc. This was pure speculation on how to live forever. That is, if you could live happily ever after knowing you tricked your twin-brother/sister and gave him falling apart body with a 5 years life-expectancy. We are getting really into science fiction now. Perhaps if you could somehow monitor and capture every single signal sent from human brain to its body from the moment brain formed itself (I know there is a flaw here...), then if you could record that transmission for 25 years, perhaps (Im really in year 2350 now, I think) you could program a computer that would re-play that transmission into a growing body (to mimic brain) and as a result at age 25 had a healthy body without human brain. This, I think, would cut-off all skeptics that believe Soul is attached to mind, not body itself.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  Maybe I shouldn't have use the word "soul". My vision is, we do not have souls, we are souls. Body + Brain = Soul, so to speak. Death is when that soul is irrevocably destroyed (meaning, even the information required to reconstruct it is lost forever). So, while convoluted, your solution sounds like it is acceptable. Be careful however to play a record of a past life, instead of, say, actually simulating a brain in a silicon chip, Gunm style. Because that simulation would most certainly be a soul as well (I don't believe in philosophical zombies).
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    Err… I don't get the downvotes… feedback please? Edit: nevermind.
loup-vaillant 15y ago
Of course it wouldn't be a soul. I'd be totally okay with that.

gnaritas 15y ago

> the implication of creating a soul There are no implications to flights of fantasy, there is no soul, the body is a complex biological machine and there's no reason we can't either learn to prevent the machine from breaking or learn to grow another for spare parts.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
Actually, I agree with you. It's just that "soul" is the name I give to that complex biological machine. And I think it's only fair. Though the word "soul" is mostly used in conjunction with dualistic assumptions, it has a deeper meaning that is fairly independent of dualism: Your soul is whatever makes you who you are. Your soul is what really matters about you. Whether the soul is separate from the body and survives it is another question. I also have a specific reason to use that word: its emotional impact. For instance, one reason I think we should stop death is because it means the destruction of the soul. Even a devout Christian would understand my concerns (and go on to reassure me, but that's another story). I don't want to let religion hijack this word.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  Religion isn't hijacking the word, it's their word, you seem to be the one hijacking it. You can't take your own personal definition of word and expect to communicate well. That we're even having this discussion proves that. Worse, you admit to using the word for its emotional impact and seem proud that deceiving a Christian by using it would work, this utterly intellectually dishonest.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    Okay, I am the one who hijack the word[1]. But I don't think this is deception. I use the greater emotional impact because it is the one that actually match reality. I would say "destruction of the soul" to a Christian because only that would convey the right idea. If I say "death", the guy would think about going somewhere else instead of true death. That would be deception (or at least miscommunication). For the same reason, I don't like to say "passed away", "gone", or "departed". Plain "died" is more accurate. [1]: I'm not the only one. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/191761 http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/191761 (Argument by authority, I know, but really, this view looks sound.)