3 ms·

I am bit surprised by the diversity of discussion. There seems to be so many strong opinions on both sides of the same argument that has raged for centuries. I

I am bit surprised by the diversity of discussion. There seems to be so many strong opinions on both sides of the same argument that has raged for centuries. Immaterialist: There seems to be as many people that believe in a soul very strongly, to the point where they can't fathom the questions. The questions almost have no meaning in a worldview with souls. Or extreme, the belief in soul has changed their mind to extent they can't see the point of these questions, can't get the point of the questions. (belief in soul in context of the questions in post means dead in a lot of cases) Materialists: There are just as many people that so strongly believe there is NO soul, scientific minded, that the third question that contains the word soul invalidates the entire questionnaire. Materialist think that modern science and technology has rendered the question pointless, that all the answers are already known. This is also false, there might not be an immaterial soul, but the nature of self and its continuity is still open question, and a lot of people equate that with soul, for better or worse. Soul is just all around bad word to describe what we are getting at with consciousness, or sentience. It is too loaded with baggage. Thus, it is a successful questionnaire, it makes both sides think a bit more.

morelisp 3y ago
It didn't make me think more. I don't believe there is a soul, and I answered the first two questions accordingly. The third stipulated I must believe in one, so of course my behavior changed. But that did nothing to convince me there is a soul, nor to change how I would behave if there is or isn't one. "If things were different, you'd act different!" is some reply-guy gotcha bullshit, not serious philosophical discussion. You might as well lead with "Imagine the teleporter kills you. Should you use it?"
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  If you don't dig the teleporter question, nor the soul question, because they are just hypotheticals. And "If things were different, you'd act different!" Is off limits because it is just a 'gatcha'. Then how do you think about any issues that don't have pre-determined iron-clad answers. If thinking through un-known situations is not allowed, how would people come up with anything new? I'm really not seeing how these long standing philosophical questions (look them up, they have been around for a long time), are some how not valid for 'serious philosophical discussion', because you personally don't believe them. The concept of continuity of self and what constitute a self, and is it a soul or not, has been part of philosophical and scientific debate for centuries. I don't believe in a soul either, but it's foolish to dismiss most of the world that does believe, or dismiss a questionnaire that includes some aspect of what most of the world believes. This sounds like it should have been pre-faced with "this questioner is not a safe space for those that can't think in hypotheticals from other points of view"
  - morelisp 3y ago
    First of all, fuck off with "can't think in hypotheticals from other points of view". I've had accounts banned from this site for less. Second, no, my complaint is about the framing, not the issues. (Did you miss "if there is or isn't one"?) From the "summary": The third possibility is the continued existence of some kind of immaterial part of you, which might be called the soul... Your first two choices were consistent with the view that psychological continuity is necessary for survival... But your last choice sees the end to your psychological continuity, since the continued existence of the soul does not provide it. So you first ended bodily continuity and then you ended psychological continuity. Perhaps you made these choices because all along you thought that the continuity of the soul is what counts? No, dumb game author, I made the first two choices consistently and the third one inconsistently because the rules said I had to act as if the soul existed in the third one, which by the game's own definition means abandoning the sufficiency of the other two types of continuity! After all, the teletransporter transmits information about body states. Why would the soul follow this information? Given the lack of reasons to suppose a soul would do this... "The lack of reasons to suppose?" I've got all of two sentences saying "the soul exists", why is your inference about its teletransportability better than mine? Maybe the soul moving from one to the other of me is precisely why teletransportation isn't death!
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      > I've had accounts banned from this site for less. Unless you're dang under an alias, I think getting accounts banned from this site is rather beyond your power. And you sure don't sound like dang. In fact, you sound much more like the kind of person who gets banned than FrustratedMonky does. HN doesn't usually ban for bad arguments; it does ban for hostility to other users. Note that this has nothing to do with whether you or FrustratedMonky are right. It only has to do with who gets banned, and why.
      - morelisp 3y ago
        You've somehow come to the right conclusion despite misreading the sentence. Yes, obviously, it's my accounts that got banned. For saying things way more mild than "can't think in hypotheticals".

morelisp 3y ago

It didn't make me think more. I don't believe there is a soul, and I answered the first two questions accordingly. The third stipulated I must believe in one, so of course my behavior changed. But that did nothing to convince me there is a soul, nor to change how I would behave if there is or isn't one. "If things were different, you'd act different!" is some reply-guy gotcha bullshit, not serious philosophical discussion. You might as well lead with "Imagine the teleporter kills you. Should you use it?"

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
If you don't dig the teleporter question, nor the soul question, because they are just hypotheticals. And "If things were different, you'd act different!" Is off limits because it is just a 'gatcha'. Then how do you think about any issues that don't have pre-determined iron-clad answers. If thinking through un-known situations is not allowed, how would people come up with anything new? I'm really not seeing how these long standing philosophical questions (look them up, they have been around for a long time), are some how not valid for 'serious philosophical discussion', because you personally don't believe them. The concept of continuity of self and what constitute a self, and is it a soul or not, has been part of philosophical and scientific debate for centuries. I don't believe in a soul either, but it's foolish to dismiss most of the world that does believe, or dismiss a questionnaire that includes some aspect of what most of the world believes. This sounds like it should have been pre-faced with "this questioner is not a safe space for those that can't think in hypotheticals from other points of view"
- morelisp 3y ago
  First of all, fuck off with "can't think in hypotheticals from other points of view". I've had accounts banned from this site for less. Second, no, my complaint is about the framing, not the issues. (Did you miss "if there is or isn't one"?) From the "summary": The third possibility is the continued existence of some kind of immaterial part of you, which might be called the soul... Your first two choices were consistent with the view that psychological continuity is necessary for survival... But your last choice sees the end to your psychological continuity, since the continued existence of the soul does not provide it. So you first ended bodily continuity and then you ended psychological continuity. Perhaps you made these choices because all along you thought that the continuity of the soul is what counts? No, dumb game author, I made the first two choices consistently and the third one inconsistently because the rules said I had to act as if the soul existed in the third one, which by the game's own definition means abandoning the sufficiency of the other two types of continuity! After all, the teletransporter transmits information about body states. Why would the soul follow this information? Given the lack of reasons to suppose a soul would do this... "The lack of reasons to suppose?" I've got all of two sentences saying "the soul exists", why is your inference about its teletransportability better than mine? Maybe the soul moving from one to the other of me is precisely why teletransportation isn't death!
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    > I've had accounts banned from this site for less. Unless you're dang under an alias, I think getting accounts banned from this site is rather beyond your power. And you sure don't sound like dang. In fact, you sound much more like the kind of person who gets banned than FrustratedMonky does. HN doesn't usually ban for bad arguments; it does ban for hostility to other users. Note that this has nothing to do with whether you or FrustratedMonky are right. It only has to do with who gets banned, and why.
    - morelisp 3y ago
      You've somehow come to the right conclusion despite misreading the sentence. Yes, obviously, it's my accounts that got banned. For saying things way more mild than "can't think in hypotheticals".