7 ms·

I played this after playing the No vehicles in the park one the other day. When I got to the question about the soul I saw it as misleading and confidently sel

I played this after playing the No vehicles in the park one the other day. When I got to the question about the soul I saw it as misleading and confidently selected the other option because previously the teleportation worked, and IIRC the other option had 30% success, both of which disproved the existence of a soul.

powerset 3y ago
Yeah the soul question seemed unfair, in the sense that I answered the first two with the assumption there is no soul, but the third question asks to assume a soul exists, so there's no way to answer it and stay consistent with my previous two answers
- brookst 3y ago
  Same. If you accept the game's assertion that souls and reincarnation have been proven, it go e's you a hard time for changing your answer based on new evidence. Very strange for a game purporting to explore beliefs.
- Ukv 3y ago
  I thought that initially, but I think the question is intentional in only describing (as stated facts, rather than as implied by labelling of "call it a soul") its properties as something immaterial that floats between humans/animals very slightly affecting their character - without asserting that it's "the real you". E.G: A family heirloom might travel between people on death and slightly affect the character of whoever's wearing it through self-perception, but (under the assumption that what I value is self-preservation) I wouldn't sacrifice my physical brain containing the only copy of my personality/memories/etc. in order to save it. I'd guess what it's testing would then be whether you identify this thing with a pre-existing belief of an immaterial you, or already believe you are physical(ly instantiated patterns) and that this thing is just incidental - like any other environmental impact on yourself.
apocalypstyx 3y ago
It depends on a certain consideration. If you take the argument (which I can't remember who laid it out) that (in Christian metaphysics, was the example) the experience of the individual (self) is replicable by God but the unique soul is not, consciousness experience (memories and sense of self) can be replicated by definition but the soul (necessarily unique) cannot. So soul and conscious experience must be distinct. The conclusion was that everything that makes an individual an individual as known (memories, experience, perception, personality) perishes with death and only the soul continues on and is completely distinct from the individual sense of self. So there is no experience of "heaven" by the self. Such is immaterial from the point of view of consciousness. A version of this is what I took to be laid out by the 3rd question. On this basis, the continuation of the soul is irrelevant with regards to the self. The death of the soul would be as immaterial to the self as the soul's continuation to "heaven" would be to consciousness.

powerset 3y ago

Yeah the soul question seemed unfair, in the sense that I answered the first two with the assumption there is no soul, but the third question asks to assume a soul exists, so there's no way to answer it and stay consistent with my previous two answers

brookst 3y ago
Same. If you accept the game's assertion that souls and reincarnation have been proven, it go e's you a hard time for changing your answer based on new evidence. Very strange for a game purporting to explore beliefs.
Ukv 3y ago
I thought that initially, but I think the question is intentional in only describing (as stated facts, rather than as implied by labelling of "call it a soul") its properties as something immaterial that floats between humans/animals very slightly affecting their character - without asserting that it's "the real you". E.G: A family heirloom might travel between people on death and slightly affect the character of whoever's wearing it through self-perception, but (under the assumption that what I value is self-preservation) I wouldn't sacrifice my physical brain containing the only copy of my personality/memories/etc. in order to save it. I'd guess what it's testing would then be whether you identify this thing with a pre-existing belief of an immaterial you, or already believe you are physical(ly instantiated patterns) and that this thing is just incidental - like any other environmental impact on yourself.

apocalypstyx 3y ago

It depends on a certain consideration. If you take the argument (which I can't remember who laid it out) that (in Christian metaphysics, was the example) the experience of the individual (self) is replicable by God but the unique soul is not, consciousness experience (memories and sense of self) can be replicated by definition but the soul (necessarily unique) cannot. So soul and conscious experience must be distinct. The conclusion was that everything that makes an individual an individual as known (memories, experience, perception, personality) perishes with death and only the soul continues on and is completely distinct from the individual sense of self. So there is no experience of "heaven" by the self. Such is immaterial from the point of view of consciousness. A version of this is what I took to be laid out by the 3rd question. On this basis, the continuation of the soul is irrelevant with regards to the self. The death of the soul would be as immaterial to the self as the soul's continuation to "heaven" would be to consciousness.