4 ms·

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" i

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.)
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    Reasonable response, so let me explain further; it's deceptive because that's not what most people mean by should and by using the word you're giving them a false impression of what you're trying to say. The fact is you're not going to go into this explanation of what you mean by soul in every conversation and many of those people wouldn't grok the implications of what you're saying on their own beliefs; you said soul, and then a bunch of nerdy babble, and they'll just remember you said soul and they agree with that part. Imagine that every time you say soul, nearly everyone hears "immortal soul", because that's basically the truth. Find a better word to communicate what you really think, soul is not that word. The truth is what you're describing is "mind", not soul. It may be pretty to redefine a word, or take a different personal meaning, but it does not aid communication, it hampers it and deceives those who aren't willing to dig deeper into a discussion.
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      Point taken. I'll be careful from now on. Nevertheless, how do I talk about true death to a believer in immortal souls? The best path I found so far is something like "imagine that your soul is actually destroyed when you die". It focuses directly on what I want to talk about: true death, the real deal, not some half-death with an escape hatch. The advantage with this approach is that it emphasises the common ground between monotheists and transhumanists: true death is simply not acceptable. Therefore if it is a problem, and we have any chance of fixing it, then we must take that chance. It also avoids some problems: If I say we don't have (immortal) souls, then he may soon draw conclusions I'm totally not about (worst case, he could think I'm a nihilist). If I avoid the word "soul" altogether, he could think I'm afraid of the afterlife.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        People who believe in immortal souls don't believe in true death, you can't talk to them about it anymore than you can get them to imagine there's no god; they can't, it's just outside their worldview. These are people that can't be reasoned with because these beliefs aren't based on reason. Adapting their language but meaning different things by the words doesn't help you communicate, it only feels that way, because they're agreeing based on what they think those words mean, not with what you mean by them.

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.)
- gnaritas 15y ago
  Reasonable response, so let me explain further; it's deceptive because that's not what most people mean by should and by using the word you're giving them a false impression of what you're trying to say. The fact is you're not going to go into this explanation of what you mean by soul in every conversation and many of those people wouldn't grok the implications of what you're saying on their own beliefs; you said soul, and then a bunch of nerdy babble, and they'll just remember you said soul and they agree with that part. Imagine that every time you say soul, nearly everyone hears "immortal soul", because that's basically the truth. Find a better word to communicate what you really think, soul is not that word. The truth is what you're describing is "mind", not soul. It may be pretty to redefine a word, or take a different personal meaning, but it does not aid communication, it hampers it and deceives those who aren't willing to dig deeper into a discussion.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    Point taken. I'll be careful from now on. Nevertheless, how do I talk about true death to a believer in immortal souls? The best path I found so far is something like "imagine that your soul is actually destroyed when you die". It focuses directly on what I want to talk about: true death, the real deal, not some half-death with an escape hatch. The advantage with this approach is that it emphasises the common ground between monotheists and transhumanists: true death is simply not acceptable. Therefore if it is a problem, and we have any chance of fixing it, then we must take that chance. It also avoids some problems: If I say we don't have (immortal) souls, then he may soon draw conclusions I'm totally not about (worst case, he could think I'm a nihilist). If I avoid the word "soul" altogether, he could think I'm afraid of the afterlife.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      People who believe in immortal souls don't believe in true death, you can't talk to them about it anymore than you can get them to imagine there's no god; they can't, it's just outside their worldview. These are people that can't be reasoned with because these beliefs aren't based on reason. Adapting their language but meaning different things by the words doesn't help you communicate, it only feels that way, because they're agreeing based on what they think those words mean, not with what you mean by them.