3 ms·

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, s

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".
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        I've had some stern warnings from dang. So yes, I am more careful now. When it comes to questions like these (mind, consciousness, etc..) where the other persons personal perspective enters into the argument, their personal view point is what is making the argument, it makes it difficult to not respond that does not look like personal attacks.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    The soul question did not ask that. It stated that the soul has minimal impact on the person. Nature and Nurture still played the dominant role in personality, and memory. The soul does NOT remember and does NOT contribute to you, your personality. It also did not ask you to believe in a soul. It said that it had recently been proven that souls exist, not that you MUST answer the question as if you believe it. The question asked "FOR YOU TO LIVE". What does 'LIVING' mean? If you freeze, and the soul dies, but it doesn't contribute anything, does it matter? You can very well choose to let the soul die, because to you, that isn't what defined life. What this teases out, is if a soul does not provide any information about you, do you care? If the soul does NOT contribute to the next person, and you can't remember it, does it matter? Typically people that believe in souls think that they are the essence, even if they don't continue on mentally. They think there is something immaterial that makes them 'alive'. But even in this question, since soul contributes nothing, you can choose to freeze yourself and kill the soul. You did NOT have to answer to save the soul. If that is not what defines life for you.

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".
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I've had some stern warnings from dang. So yes, I am more careful now. When it comes to questions like these (mind, consciousness, etc..) where the other persons personal perspective enters into the argument, their personal view point is what is making the argument, it makes it difficult to not respond that does not look like personal attacks.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  The soul question did not ask that. It stated that the soul has minimal impact on the person. Nature and Nurture still played the dominant role in personality, and memory. The soul does NOT remember and does NOT contribute to you, your personality. It also did not ask you to believe in a soul. It said that it had recently been proven that souls exist, not that you MUST answer the question as if you believe it. The question asked "FOR YOU TO LIVE". What does 'LIVING' mean? If you freeze, and the soul dies, but it doesn't contribute anything, does it matter? You can very well choose to let the soul die, because to you, that isn't what defined life. What this teases out, is if a soul does not provide any information about you, do you care? If the soul does NOT contribute to the next person, and you can't remember it, does it matter? Typically people that believe in souls think that they are the essence, even if they don't continue on mentally. They think there is something immaterial that makes them 'alive'. But even in this question, since soul contributes nothing, you can choose to freeze yourself and kill the soul. You did NOT have to answer to save the soul. If that is not what defines life for you.