/sci/ - Science & Math

but quantum mechanical particles of the same species are fundamentally indistinguishable from each other
i.e. there is no electron A and electron B, there are just 2 electrons

QM provides an answer to the ship of theseus: the ships are the same

>>14760640
>b-b-but muh soience religion sez
>einstein said it, i believe it, that settles it
your soience religion is a facade of flimflam and fakery with no basis in observable reality and you are a gullible fool for not being able to see though the stupid irrational belief system that you've been brainwashed into mistaking for reality.

>>14760628
I like how this thought experiment spawns countless low IQ takes trying to "resolve" it when all it really shows is that objects identities are entirely mental constructs.

>>14760658
you sound like a philosopher that takes their ball away and goes home when provided a hard answer

>>14760663
You sound like one of the many mindless drones spamming this board with standaedized regurgitated whining about some purely imaginary "philosopher" boogeymen.

>>14760666
i'm just fucking with you. that was an insightful take on the question

>>14760628
>Ship of Theseus
>Yawn
You're missing the point of the thought experiment. What are the implications of this?
>When you replaced/removed 1 atom.
Within 7 years all of your cells are replaced. Are you still you? Why?

>>14760672
>Within 7 years all of your cells are replaced. Are you still you? Why?
not true.

>>14760670
Did you just say something positive about someone else's post on /sci/? That's pretty cringe, anon. Thanks.

>>14760640
>but quantum mechanical
QM is retarded dog shit. That is made up.

>QM provides an answer to the ship of theseus: the ships are the same

Peak QM retardation.

>>14760672
>Are you still you?
Yes.

>Why?
Because I have a soul and free will. Seethe. :^)

>>14760666
>purely imaginary "philosopher" boogeymen.
NTA OP here debate my position.

>>14760694
Which premise are you challenging. Are you hung up on the universal all or are you claiming cells don't regenerate?
>>14760702
>Because I have a soul and free will.
>muh fairy dust
Show me your soul or fuck off.

>>14760704
Why would I debate your position? I just told you I think your position is purely subjective.

>>14760672
>thought experiment
There is nothing like a "thought experiment" did you mean wild speculations ?

>Within 7 years
Irrelevant 7 year retardation.

>so if you lose one atom
Why atoms ?
Information !

Walk into lecture listen to lecture. Effectively a different person walks out with new knowledge.

This is reality lets say you have a VM who logs lets say pinging some server.

Every time the log is written to it is a different log now. Is this not fact ?
So is a person who learns.
I estimate the lifetime of 1 person to be less then 1 second.
So every second your brain state changes and a different person is created.

Once again we know this to be fact from logs.
The data changes like in some Mersenne Twister.

Even if you think about something like inventing fiction the newly created fiction creates new data in your brain. Therefore you are a different structure then the one before.

Even participating in any discussion changes you and you stop existing and a replica that is 99.99 % identical is created.

>>14760707
>it seethes because it has no soul
Delicious. You also have no free will which forces you to address me again even if you don't directly reply to this post. You are a golem that exists to serve me. :^)

>>14760710
It is fact see >>14760713
This can be know by you know existing as a human.

>>14760718
You can't even finish a coherent sentence...

>>14760717
>>14760702
Can we ban the soul spammer ?

Souls are impossible.

>>14760724
>it's absolutely foaming at the mouth because i have something it doesn't

>>14760713
>There is nothing like a "thought experiment" did you mean wild speculations ?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
Take your retarded larping elsewhere.
>Irrelevant 7 year retardation.
Not an argument.
>Why atoms ?
Atoms is information, retard.
>incoherent rambling
Okay chief. Every nanosecond a new you is born and universe is filled with a perpetual birth of mediocrity. You've solved it, good job.
>>14760717
>delusional larping of playing checkers with himself
Time spent entertaining oneself is time well spent. Keep up the great work. Show me your soul or fuck off.

>>14760720
It is finished, reflect when you learned new skills like driving a car.

Is this not a different person ? If you disagree would it not mean that your younger self who was time traveled to now can drive a car ?

What about the 5 year old you ?

>>14760730
Good golem. Reply again to prove my lordship over you.

>>14760732
Show me your soul or fuck off.

>>14760734
Again. I need more (You)'s, golem slave.

>>14760736
Show me your soul or fuck off.

>>14760726
Get the fuck back to /x/ !

>because i have something it doesn't
Congratulations you debunked souls being possible.

Lets see me without a soul (your words ) I'm smarter know more and can do more then you ever can.

You: inferior in all aspects and you have a soul.

Question what does a soul do ? See pzombies debunk souls being possible.

>>14760737
Show me your sentience, golem slave. If you can't you're an object. :^)

>>14760707
>Which premise are you challenging. Are you hung up on the universal all or are you claiming cells don't regenerate?
yeah.

>>14760741
Show me your soul or fuck off. My sentience is on display in full rejection of your retarded larping. You're simply too self-absorbed to perceive a reality outside of your delusion.
>>14760743
If one I am willing to amend to most. If two I can't help people unwilling to learn from our current wealth of knowledge.

>>14760746
>My sentience is on display
Where? GPT 3 can write more intelligent posts thn you.

>>14760730
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
Invalid.

>b-b-b-b website says
It is a stupid idea pushed by absolutely cancerous retards.

Experiments are something in physical reality.

You sodomizing yourself with sophistries is not. Lets see.

Experiment to see if paper burns, all can replicate it and agree on the results.

You sodomizing yourself with sophistries :
Literally no one agrees on the results.

One of these things is not like the other !

>>14760732
Don't you have some burgers to flip ?

>>14760747
In the statements you're purposefully ignoring.
Show me your soul or fuck off.
>Invalid.
Not an argument.
> sophistries
You're the sophistry NPC. Opinion discarded. Posts ignored.

>>14760751
>>14760752
You will reply again, my golem slaves. By the way, I'm still waiting for objective evidence that you have an actual first person perspective. (Protip: we all know soulless golems don't)

Everyone stop responding to the troll.

>>14760759
Sure thing anon. I had my fun toying with the retard.

>>14760724
>>14760730
>>14760734
>>14760737
>>14760746
>>14760752
>Show me your soul
>When your viewpoint on reality is so backwards and materialistic that you believe the concept of soul is also supposed to be material

You are the mundane. Doomed to walk right off a cliff because the map you're using doesn't have the drop off illustrated for you when you could have just looked straight ahead.

>>14760759
Who is the troll? I personally think it's the guy asking for physical proof of a soul (imagine).

The troll cries out because he was denied (YOU)s

>>14760628
BASED purist.
t. have never lost a single brain cell

>*smashes radio
>*there's no "signal" inside this radio
>The signal must not have ever been real then or ever inside the radio!

>>14760757
Show soul or fuck off.

>>14760777
>t. have never lost a single brain cell
Irrelevant since information changes.
HDDs do not lose brain cells or cells.

Consider the following a HDD that has all your cat pictures on it.
Lets name this HDD FS T1
Now you save a new cat picture
Lets name this HDD FS T2

Now if you disagree they are totally different you have no problem with me giving you the HDD reverted to T1 without the new cat pictures.

YES?
Even if you insist you now must literally fight reality since the MD5 of the HDD FS changed and if you made a clone of the HDD FS it is different and you can see where.

Computers have 1 conclusion 1 change to anything changes it totally. Consider snapshots of a VM. Everything is non stop changing in RAM. Every snapshot is totally different from the other.

>>14760784
Yes. Feed me, my soulless golem.

>>14760757
You haven't proven that you have an actual first person perspective either. You can't, because you don't exist. You are a figment of my imagination, just like the rest of the world.

>>14760782
>Muh signal
This is debunked.

Souls are something retards only believe in
>It It is like a signal

Lets go with your drone hypothesis because this is what it is a DRONE hypothesis :
>Your body is a drone and controlled remotely from a different location by your mind.

VS the robot hypothesis where our mind is in the same place as our body (the brain).

Now here are things that do not make sense in the drone hypothesis
>Getting drunk
It is strange that a signal can make your mind stop thinking right this should not be happening.
>Medication and sleeping agents
Once again very strange that your thinking in your mind can be defected by someone doing something to the drone.

However here is where you yourself will debunk the drone hypothesis.
Damage to the human brain will remove memories proving memories are in the brain.
This is impossible in the drone hypothesis.

Even if you try to rescue the drone hypothesis it fails since by what magic does doing damage to the brain also erase the memories in your mind who according to you is not in the brain ?

Or does the brain and mind get desyncked ? If yes this is impossible and you have proven that you are not a soul.

>>14760791
Feed me more (You)'s, golem slave. I am now hiding this thread but you will keep replying and you will pretend to be me because you can't cope with my absence.

>>14760784
>>14760791

Stop giving the troll (YOU)s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Feed me more (You)'s,

Stop giving the troll (YOU)s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>14760807
He's replying to himself. I am monitoring the thread with the largest grin on my face. I broke his mental.

>>14760694

https://www.npr.org/2007/07/14/11893583/atomic-tune-up-how-the-body-rejuvenates-itself

Information endures, physicality doesn't.

>>14760801
>This is debunked.
But there literally is no signal inside the radio.

>It It is like a signal
Is it?

>Lets go with your drone hypothesis
Lets put words in other peoples mouths. Sure why not.

>Damage to the human brain will remove memories proving memories are in the brain.
>memories are in the brain
Proof?

>by what magic does doing damage to the brain also erase the memories in your mind who according to you is not in the brain
By what magic do "atoms" geomance themselves into animation?

>>14760784
>Show electrons or fuck off
j/k. I'm not gonna request that for your own benefit.

>>14760628
I agree with this, each modification to the ship creates a new ship, and humans merely equate certain different ships to be the same based on similarity to the original or context of how the new ship came about.

people on the other hand have some perception of continuity that is used as the basis of what makes a person the same person. any modifications you make create a new body but the continuity remains the same and thus full body replacement is the same person and using the discarded parts to create another body creates a new person

the real question is what is this continuity and can it be ship of theseus'd or does it follow different fundamental rules

>>14760658
This.

This isnt confusing at all to anyone that isnt a brainlet.

>>14760672
>Within 7 years all of your cells are replaced. Are you still you? Why?
Well im the same me but time has passed, if i were to revert my cells back 7years i would be what i was 7years ago

>>14760628
When I fix my truck, I'm just doing a good thing for my truck. It has a soul, in my mind. My truck has chosen me as it's owner.

>>14760628
Yep, compound things are not "things", they are sets of things.

>>14760628
Same ship? No
At what point: after being more than 50% replaced

/thread

>>14760658
>objects identities are entirely mental constructs.
This. Its a problem with naming and identity. Turns out reality can quickly rug-pull our set-in-stone definitions for specific objects.

The question has no boundaries therefore infinite interpretations therefore infinite 'answers'.

The argument to be drawn from the question, "At what point does it become another ship?," is an example of the line drawing fallacy.

>>14760724
Goddamn, Ecclesiastes unironically sounds like a good read

>>14760713
It reads like a Mandlbaur post

>>14761687
Things are what they are or they are everything else and that isn't how shit works.

>>14760628
In one go?
at 51% of the original ship remaining, no change to the design making it a different class/type, it is the same ship.
Replace more than 49% of the ship you have crossed into new ship territory, as the intent to to replace every board.
In the end you will have a new ship and the dismantled boards from the old one. This new ship can be called whatever you want it to be called.
That pill of boards that was once the Sop of Theseus can still be referred to such as such, being that all the parts are still there. Put is all back together and you once again have the Ship of Theseus.

>>14760628
So if it scrapes a rock and loses a miniscule amount of wood it becomes a different boat?

>>14761810
The problem is that identity is a subjective opinion. The claims:
>removing one atom makes the ship a different ship
>if even one of the original atoms remains, it is still the same ship
>if half of the original atoms remain, the ship is 50% the same ship
are all equally infalsifiable. This is philosophical wankery, not science.

>>14761687
As a rule of thumb, if you find yourself referencing "fallacies" or "biases", you're a fucking retard and what you're spouting is trivially wrong. This case is no exception, because as usual, nobody is actually making your fake fallacy.

>>14760628
The better question is: does it matter? If the quality and attributes are replicated fully, then yes. Each portion that is replaced is one less portion that was the original structure. It is still the same unit so long as the parts and qualities are similar. Sentiments are incontinent when it's involving status. If the attribution persists, it is because the attributing of such was sufficiently merited.

TL;DR: it is if I say so, which is similar to the whole "I think, therefore I am" bit people talk about

If you have a sense of self then that is what makes you "you". Soul, body, mind, whatever. I still have the same name from when I was born and that's what I identify as. I still have memories from when I was three year old. My personality may have evolved but I still have the same base behaviors and mannerisms from when I was a small child. Some of it my be natural inclination but obviously this vessel that I occupy is only a small piece of my individuality. You quite literally can't get rid of the ego until you actually die. Psychedelics are only a fraction of what inevitably awaits you. Have fun with that thought.

>>14760816
>>He's replying to himself
No.
Look at 14760763
He literally freaked out once I stopped giving him (YOU)s

>>14760850
>Lets put words in other peoples mouths. Sure why not.
Yes. I fixed your trash.
>I-i-i--it is like a radio
This statement is incoherent trash if not fixed into the drone hypothesis.

Or care to enlighten what the living fuck
>I-i-i--it is like a radio
Even means ?

>Proof?
Articles about people losing parts of their brain.
Alzheimer literally makes the brain have holes and alzheimer is about you losing your memories.


>Proof?
So your entire argument relies you not knowing what I posted above ? Yes ?

Yea sure if we are in the year 456 CE the drone hypothesis can be defended and is a awkward hypothesis needing shit loads of special rules to explain how human can get drunk.

VS the robot hypothesis, your brain is you and it is a chemical machine introducing some chemicals disturbs the brains function.

Yet in the late 20 century new evidence is making the drone hypothesis more and more impossible.

>By what magic do "atoms" geomance themselves into animation?
What you schizo ? What ?

>>14760866
Interesting take.
>I agree with this, each modification to the ship creates a new ship,
Most if not all talks of the Ship of Theseus ignore my explanation and parade like it is some deep magic.

The occlusion to the people rejecting my solution is that regardless how mutch you scratch a lego brick it still the same lego brick. Only mist humans see that there is a difference if there is a scratch on their monitor or car.


Even all physical objects are replaced by 99.99% equivalents without any action.
Water in a cup will evaporate over time, so will a knife rust.

Where you differ from me is that you do not extend this to humans yet I argue that humans have far less persistence. And this has nothing to do with replacing le atoms.

See: >>14760713

If you argue that a 40 year old brilliant surgeon is the same as his 5 year old self then there should be no difference between the 5 year old self of him making the operation or his 40 year old self.

>>14761687
>abortion is not murder
Well there's your problem.

>>14761106
Why 50% ?

>>14760628
>When you replaced/removed 1 atom.
Then it it was only ever the same ship for exactly ONE PLANCK LENGTH of time. Since during construction there would have been a constant loss of atoms right up until the last moment, and then again immediately afterwards.
HA HA!
CHECKMATE SPASTICS!
WITH MY SUPERIOR REASONING SKILLS AND MY SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE I HAVE OUTED YOU ALL AS MASSIVE RETARDS!
HAHAHA!
LOLOLOLOL!
Oh my!
I am literally ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!

>>14761209
>>objects identities are entirely mental constructs.
No idea what this means.

>This. Its a problem with naming and identity. Turns out reality can quickly rug-pull our set-in-stone definitions for specific objects.
More like language is a inferior way to describe reality.

>>14760628
What did Theseus say? It's his ship, he makes that call.

>>14761938
Based.
>>14761687
News flash logic and especially logical fallacies are self contradictory nonsense. Logic disproves itself.

(Empiricism and induction all the way)

The simplest way to understand this is sin.
Everything is a sin (logical fallacy)
Even pointing out that others are sinning that is a sin AKA if you point out my logical fallacy you committed a logical fallacy yourself.

Look into what
argumentum ad logicam
Or
fallacy fallacy (cringe name)
is. Yes you pointing out what logical fallacies I'm making is a logical fallacy itself.

If you try to exclude this fallacy ... Then why can I not exclude your crap ?

>>14761715
>Goddamn, Ecclesiastes unironically sounds like a good read
Yep.
You can read it here
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV
Or have the free audio book here.
https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Eccl.1

Christians have meltdowns over this or try to meme
>i-i-i-i-it is about loving god
since this is like 1% of that book and ignore 99% of it.

The book has really Christianity destroying statements in it like
Humans and animals are the same thing.
There is no afterlife for anyone.

When atheists read that book they go

>Oh some BCE guy was very depressed in his old age truly like the book says
>What has been will be again,
> what has been done will be done again;
> there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
In other words humans get depressed since the dawn of time.

Also Ecclesiastes talking about no afterlife is a interesting religious statement for atheists to learn. Also Christians can go and fuck themselves this is not atheists reading the bible wrong if jesus has arguments with a sect of jews(Sadducees) who literally say there is no afterlife in the bible itself.

>18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Mark 12

And at this point you ask yourself why the living fuck the bible is written like this trash that only exists to undermine Christianity ? Was god not interested in writing clear instructions ?

>>14761931
>So if it scrapes a rock and loses a miniscule amount of wood it becomes a different boat?
YES.

Counter question
If you scrape something with your car or get scratches on your car is it the same car ?
If it is why are you trying to remove the scratches from it ?

You find humans react very badly to scratches on their stuff.

How do you explain all of this ?

>>14762174
>>abortion is not murder
>Well there's your problem.

>Abortion bad
LOL.
You realize this is literally something a pope made up in 1917 ? Wow what tradition of 105 years your religion has.
LOL !

>Abortion bad
Meanwhile in the bible

>>14762176
>Then it it was only ever the same ship for exactly ONE PLANCK LENGTH of time. Since during construction there would have been a constant loss of atoms right up until the last moment, and then again immediately afterwards.
Now you get it.
See: >>14762172

Even all physical objects are replaced by 99.99% equivalents without any action.
Water in a cup will evaporate over time, so will a knife rust.

>I am literally ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!
Why ?

>>14762161
I can speak anti-materialist somewhat. Let me translate this into English:
>I-i-i--it is like a radio
What he's trying to say is that he believes that people have a soul, and that the brain is just a receiver that controls your body using a signal emitted by the soul. This is a fairly mainstream non-materialist belief these days. (Previously, the pineal gland was believed to be the "seat of the soul", but unfortunately these pesky scientists discovered the pineal gland was just a gland.)
The ultimate point of his analogy is that he believes the origin of consciousness is not within the body. He invokes the radio because the source of the radio signal is not the radio, but the tower.

Of course, like all analogies, it isn't perfect. For one thing, the radio tower is an observable physical object, and most importantly radio waves are detectable. Second, a walkie talkie would be a much more appropriate comparison--if the brain is just an antenna, then for the consciousness to be aware of anything at all, the brain needs to be sending a signal to it, so clearly there must be signals being created by the brain. So actually, on a second thought, his radio analogy isn't just flawed, it's outright self-contradictory.
Disclaimer: I am a materialist.

>>14762207
Let me get this straight, you are pro abortion cause some goat roper said it was legit a few millennia ago?

>>14760658
Dualism is incoherent no matter how it's implied or insisted on.

>>14762207
>32nd-trimester abortions are kosher
Wtf, I love judaism now?

>>14762212
>What he's trying to say is that he believes that people have a soul
OK.

> isn't just flawed, it's outright self-contradictory.

Here is the problem I literally corrected his trash to a drone hypothesis with 2 way communications where your body is the drone and the mind/soul part is on the controlling end.

Since you know the soul sends signals and the body must send signals back

He literally disagreed with this so I asked what the living fuck is he even talking about.

>, and most importantly radio waves are detectable
Not really a problem if it is detectable or not. The drone hypothesis is problematic while the robot hypothesis is not.

Lets see
robot hypothesis
>You get drunk because you are your brain and alcohol messes with your brain.

VS
drone hypothesis
>Actually when your brain detects alcohol or your drone operator detects alcohol then the operator/soul impair their thinking for some reason.

This continues for sleeping medication or even running out of air
robot hypothesis
>Your brain needs oxygen if it does not get it it shuts down

drone hypothesis
>Actually when your brain detects low air in the brain or your drone operator detects low air in the brain then the operator/soul shut themselves down.

Like why is there never a moment when the drone is shut down and the operator/soul look at a NO SIGNAL message ?

And damage to the brain = damage to memories debunks the whole drone hypothesis.

Remember soul is a very stupid hing made up to frighten people into obeying the religion on you burn in hell.

This is why the catholic did have a freak out over Epicureanism who says that the soul exists in the body however can be damaged and dies once the body dies. Absolute freak out.

>I am a materialist.
I do not use that word I use Physicalist.

>>14762176
Correct. This is the only scientific answer in this thread so far. Any material object can only remain exactly the same for one Planck length of time. This also applies to atoms and sub atomic particles.
The only thing which could ever exist exactly the same for longer than a Planck length of time is something that is smaller than the Planck length itself. Which is theoretically impossible as far as we know.
So yes, you are right to be rolling around on the floor laughing your ass off at all the scientifically illiterate morons talking shit about things they dont understand.

>>14762216
>Let me get this straight,
OK.
>you are pro abortion
YES.
>cause some goat roper said it was legit a few millennia ago?
No. I'm pro abortion because it is good. I'm an atheist.

And christians are basically debunked since their own god agrees. So I bring this up if some
>Muh bible fag
Shows up.

I postulate that if you gave someone only the bible to read without any of the christian fanon it be practically impossible he get anything like Christianity out of it.

>Oh yea abortion bad because god says parents can kill their grown ass children if they do not like them

Christianity is stupid like this and for over 1800 years abortion was not a sin only 1 pope in 1917 did order catholic it is !

There are shit loads of examples like this in the bible and Christians ignoring jesus and god.

>>14760724
>forces and particles made of nothing are possible
>but a soul isn't

>>14762242
>I'm pro abortion because it is good.
How is it good?

>>14762219
Have a comic.

Show where in the bible god says having abortions is wrong.
>32nd-trimester abortions are kosher
What did you expect ? The bible literally has god saying to kill pregnant woman and their fetuses by riping open pregnant woman.

>The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
> because they have rebelled against their God.
>They will fall by the sword;
> their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
> their pregnant women ripped open.”[b]

Hosea 13

Or god ordering his chosen people to smash the enemies toddlers against rocks ?

WTF did you expect from these people ? To go
>Oh no fetuses are magic !

???
Like seriously ?!

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

>>14762236
So what you are saying is that the essence of a boat isn't found in it's material but what people perceive a boat to be? Like the boats soul resides in the minds of people?

>>14762248
>How is it good?
Lets see it can save a mothers life in some cases.
And aborting the defective is always good (eugenics).

What is the alternative ?
>No the mother and the fetus must die .....
>Because fetuses are magic !

>>14762247
>>>but a soul isn't
YES.

You quoted the Ecclesiastes picture see : >>14762200

Also Ecclesiastes talking about no afterlife is a interesting religious statement for atheists to learn. Also Christians can go and fuck themselves this is not atheists reading the bible wrong if jesus has arguments with a sect of jews(Sadducees) who literally say there is no afterlife in the bible itself.

>18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Mark 12

And at this point you ask yourself why the living fuck the bible is written like this trash that only exists to undermine Christianity ? Was god not interested in writing clear instructions ?

If you are a bible fag.

1/2

>>14762247
>>14762264

2/2

>but a soul isn't
Yes because a soul 90% of the time on 4CHAN IS A SELF DISPROVING IDEA.

See the guy who says that he has a soul yet we do not.
This is a self debunking statement.

>I have X and you do not have X
>However you are 100% identical or even superior to me
>And X can not be detected
>However I have X

Like YIKES dude !

>>14762253
>Like the boats soul resides in the minds of people?
Pleas stop using the nonsense word soul.

>Hey everyone now boats can have souls !
>for some reason !
WTF dude !?

>>14762254
The least bad option is not a good option and we had a spiffy little war over the definition of "defective" and eugenics lost. So yeah, why is abortion good again?

>>14762277
>abortion good again?
This was already explained to you.

>a spiffy little war over the definition of "defective" and eugenics lost
Talk back in the year 5023
>We simply degrade ourselves and become more retarded with every generation ! Fuck eugenics ! This is the future !

>>14762269
Metaphorical soul of course but you're on a roll. A collection of matter isn't a boat unless someone says its a boat. Even then there can be disagreements between people.

>>14762282
>Metaphorical soul of course but you're on a roll.
WTF ! Now there are Metaphorical souls ???!!!!

> Even then there can be
You know what I will expose you.
You are a religion/soul fag because you got indoctrinated into this shit.
And you literally get pleasure from saying the word "soul" and since that word means nothing fagots like you insert this nonsense word all over the place.

A mind virus fragment (spamming the word soul) really.

>>14762287
A boat can be a boat with out people to claim it to be a boat?

>>14762253
Well, the strange assumption here is that a boat, an inanimate object, has a soul. Even if humans have immaterial souls, boast most certainly do not. A boat is just an object.
As for essence, arguments over "how many atoms can you replace in a boat, before it becomes a different boat?" are always entirely semantic in nature. The answer depends on arbitrary definitions and people from different cultures tend give you different answers.
>>14762277
Aborting babies with Down's Syndrome is the ethical and moral thing to do. Doubly so if you lack the extreme patience required to raise such a child for its entire life, because no one else is going to do it for you unless you can convince some schmuck to adopt.
>>14762282
>A collection of matter isn't a boat unless someone says its a boat. Even then there can be disagreements between people.
Not sure if this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum or if you're agreeing with the conclusion. If the former: is a raft a boat?
Otherwise: we're already on the same page and you can ignore my post.

>>14762298
>a boat... has a soul
I was just pushing your buttons.
>a person sufficiently outside of some arbitrary limit of what human is, is no longer afforded the protections of our society.
when is a raft not a boat?

>>14762294
A boat is a classification humans made up.
Why do you spam the word soul ?

>>14762298
>Well, the strange assumption here is that a boat, an inanimate object, has a soul.
Thanks See >>14762287

This is what you get in religion land nonsense words who the fagots spam and spamming them makes them happy

>Well, the strange assumption here is that a boat, an inanimate object, has a soul.
I say that at this point the soul fag once again debunked himself and souls.

WTF does this word even mean ? It means nothing 100% nothing.

>>14762315
>A boat is a classification humans made up.
So a boat can't b a boat if no one is around to see it float?
>>14762315
>Why do you spam the word soul ?
The other guy quit posting a while back i first used the word soul here>>14762253.

>>14762253
I am saying what I said. No more, no less. You disingenuous asshat. Your weasel words will not work on me. BEGONE SATAN SPAWN! For I am blessed with the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD!
PRAISE JESUS!
PRAISE GOD!
ALL INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES WILL BURN IN HELL!
Amen

>>14762310
>I was just pushing your buttons.
>I was trolling LOLOLOLOLOLOL
And this children is why religion fags need to be banned from this website
Literally
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>14762325
>/sci/ is the slowest board on 4chan there cant possibly be more then 2 people active in a thread at once

>>14762310
>when is a raft not a boat?
Well I decided to consult a dictionary instead of google, and apparently the answer is never. I suppose I should have double checked before asking the question.
So let me replace my stupid question with a better question: Is a life ring a boat?

>>14762329
oops meant for >>14762326

>>14762323
>i first used the word soul here
Yet you spam the word in like
>Boats have souls

>So a boat can't b a boat if no one is around to see it float?
WTF do you even mean ?

> it float?
It is only a collection of atoms interacting with other atoms.

>float
So do logs are they boats ?
You realize that boat is a extremely human specific concept since it is what humans use to travel on water as opposed to random logs in the water.

>>14762325
The Christ shit reveled himself !

>>14762331
That's the thing. I can say no, you can say no but if we are both outnumbered 1,000,000:1 we may be out of luck and have to call it a boat or be labeled insane.

>>14762325
>BEGONE SATAN
Funny thing if you read the bible about satan.

Also the book of job where satan is gods best friend.

It is like the bible was written to disprove Christianity.

>>14762325
>>14762339
>BEGONE SATAN
Funny thing if you read the bible about satan.

Yea read Matthew 16 in full in context it gets even worse.

>>14762332
I literally did not say
>>14762310
>I was just pushing your buttons.
In my own post.

>>14762337
But wait. What if he is only pretending to be a Christard? Is he still the same Christard then? Is the Holy spirit smaller than the Planck length? Is it the same Holy spirit from second to second?

WE NEED ANSWERS!
And in these turbulent times of misinformation, deceit and bottom surgery we must turn to GOD.

>>14762338
I'm honestly not even sure whether a life ring is a boat or not. My intuition tells me no, that's absurd, yet the dictionary tells me that a boat is
>a craft used for transportation of goods, fishing, racing, recreational cruising, or military use on or in the water, propelled by oars or outboard motor or inboard motor or by wind.
I could grab an oar and hop on a life ring, and row across a lake. It would be a shitty, wet ride, yet this seems to fit the dictionary definition of a boat despite common sense telling me this is absurd.
Perhaps one day the dictionary will be rewritten to preclude the possibility of a life ring being a boat, and sanity will be restored. Kinda like how a number of the conditions included in the definition of "life" seem to have been arbitrarily selected for the sole purpose of classifying fire as "not alive".

>>14762331
See >>14762333
It is a human specific definition.

It is not a boat it is a life ring who is made to be thrown to drowning humans.

Let me say it this way is a humanoid species of minotaurs evolved on some planet they cand have a word like Umlaks and Umlaks are things they put on their hooves. So they can argue
>what is a Umlaks exactly ?

Or how about a water species who made a Landnaks ? What exactly is a Lendnaks ? And then you learn that a Lendnaks is basically a reverse boat for them to be able to go on land.

You notice all these definitions are civilization specific.
We do not have Umlaks or Landnaks because no human build them, and we did not build them because we as a species did not have a need for them.

And the aquatics will not know what a boat is (a reverse Landnaks )

>>14762344
See my posts about the bible. There is a reason I made them. And atheism knows I wasted enough time on that shit book.

You can debunk Christians by pointing out what the bible says.

Now Christians not only must hold their dogma VS reality they also must magically make the bible say their dogma and also make basically over 99% of the bible disappear.

For atheists it is a stupid book of nonsense and trust me the magic in it is the least of its problems.

>>14760628
>Ship of Theseus
okay
>>is it the same ship ?
Depends, do enough people care strongly enough either way to maintain their position through coercion.
>>At what point
If the above answer is no then it usually comes down to a vote. If the above answer is yes then whatever point keeps me healthy.

>>14762394
>through coercion.
WHAT ?

>>14762395
Did I stutter?

>>14762399
>Did I stutter?
Explain where the coercion is. 99.9999% of the time it is philosophers saying and listening to all possible viewpoints.

No one was going to burn you for heresy if you have a different conception what a boat is.

>>14762426
or say a penis and a vagina

>>14762426
>Norway has outlawed misgendering people under the guise of hate speech. Punishable by fine or jail time.

>>14762480
>or say a penis and a vagina
Did the schizo break ?

>>14762395
>>14762399
>>14762426
>>14762480
>>14762654
>>14762528
OK. Did they also outlaw disagreeing with their definition of a boat ?

Because this is what the discussion is all about.

I know governments force things like Christians outlawing being non christian in the Roman Empire.

However boat and identity stuff is safe to talk about.

>>14762528
>>Norway has outlawed misgendering people under the guise of hate speech. Punishable by fine or jail time.
You know this is all the Christians fault right ?

LGBT is only Christianity applied to sexuality.

>>14760628
The ship of theseus is more than the sum of its parts

>>14762680
kek

>>14762340
where are you getting those images from?

>>14760658
The bar for rejecting highly intuitive concepts such as identity should be very high. After centuries of debate on this, and various attempts to resolve the problems, yes, it seems obvious. However, it took refining the the paradoxes, developing new ones, and poking holes in all the proposed answers to get to this conclusion.

Identity is at best, a pragmatically useful concept. There is no way to define it in first order logic, and I have to say I agree with Quine's sentiment that, if we restrict ourselves to only a first order language, we have to conclude that identity = indiscerniblity.

Common pragmatic uses for identity all violate Liebnitz' Law. The same piece of clay shaped into two different statues is going to vary in entropy. The same person is continually changing. Still, you need a concept of identity for legal arguments, you need it for calculating the proper statistical inference an observer should accept given some set of datum.

It's not all naval gazing though. Looking at how to define indiscerniblity gets at an essential question in physics and complexity studies: how to define difference and similarity. This is still a very important open question. Bohm had some great stuff on this, but it's not complete. Information, difference, and similarity have different definitions across different papers, and are often nebulously defined, which in turn is why emergence and complexity have squishy definitions.

Work on the identity of indiscernibles has helped to shape out thinking. For example, many papers have posited a universe of two identical spheres floating two units apart. Is this two spheres or one sphere? It can be described as one sphere more parsimoniously using non-euclidean space. However, add an observer to the universe who can scratch one of the spheres, and suddenly the number of spheres matters.

>>14762805
This leads to the unintuitive conclusion that scratching a sphere can generate multiple spheres from where there was once one. Does this imply haeccity, a certain thisness of objects? Elementary particles seem to lack haeccity, so is it emergent? Or do things qualities only exist relationally, and depend on all possible/actual interactions they can have?

The problem isn't that identity can't be shown to be incoherent, it's that a replacement is not easy to find. I don't know of any gold standard for participatory universe answers for how things have properties that formalizes then relationally in an easy to use manner


>>14760640
This is a common oversimplification. You can Google papers on quantum mechanics and haecceitism and find a lot of ink still being spilled on the topic. Context matters.

>>14762764
>where are you getting those images from?
4chan.
>where are you getting those images from?
The better question is why you do not know what the bible says.

>>14762831
idk, i don't like books?

>>14762835
>idk, i don't like books?
It is comedy gold.

>>14762805
>The bar for rejecting highly intuitive concepts such as identity should be very high
There's no need to reject it, but you can avoid getting tangled up if you just see the concept for what it is: a convenient mental construct that works in normal everyday situations but leads to absurdities when you try to formalize it and make it objective.

> Looking at how to define indiscerniblity gets at an essential question in physics and complexity studies: how to define difference and similarity
>Information, difference, and similarity have different definitions across different papers, and are often nebulously defined, which in turn is why emergence and complexity have squishy definitions.
Difference and similarity between what? Having to break things down into composable elements is an artifact of human intellectual limitations. As far as nature is concerned, there's just one big thing. Why would it be fundamental to physics how we discern between our invented abstractions?

>many papers have posited a universe of two identical spheres floating two units apart. Is this two spheres or one sphere? It can be described as one sphere more parsimoniously using non-euclidean space. However, add an observer to the universe who can scratch one of the spheres, and suddenly the number of spheres matters.
Now this is real navel-gazing and not actual physics worthy of the name.

>>14760701
QM is a fact. QM phenomenon like quantum tunneling already being used in tech like tunnel diodes. Quantum entanglement is also one of the most experimentally verified phenomenon in science. QFT is the most successful and comprehensive model of reality. Classical models all break down for instance and as became apparent when plank noticed that certain condradictions were removed by postulating cells in a phase space have a finite volume.
>The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe, was the prediction of late 19th century/early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium would emit an unbounded quantity of energy as wavelength decreased into the ultraviolet range.
>In 1900, Max Planck derived the correct form for the intensity spectral distribution function by making some strange (for the time) assumptions. In particular, Planck assumed that electromagnetic radiation can be emitted or absorbed only in discrete packets, called quanta, of energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

Classical physics only utility as approximation in certain situations and certain scales.

>>14762217
Dualism, albeing retarded, is a thousand times more coherent than materialist cult dogma, but it was neither implied nor insisted on. It's just living rent-free in your head because you're a seething bot.

>>14760628
This is why you need the all mind and individuated units of minds (consciousnesses) to ground identity of forms over time in. Invariant things like logic as well. Another example is the avatar body that consciousness interfaces with. At one point you have an infant avatar and at one point and old man avatar. So how can both be you? How can the (I) have identity over time? Because the (I) is not physical. It's not made out of matter.

>>14762837
i see fren

>>14762217
If physical objects are mental objects, then this is not dualism, this is idealist monism. And this is in fact the only way we ever experience reality. And then the mind body problem also disappears. Mind acting of the physical is mind effecting mental objects. The materialist idea of self existent observer independent matter is the incoherent world view and you get things like the hard problem of consciousness and the problem of identity over time that op brought up is another one. Even your own identity as pointed out here.
>>14762870

>>14762886
lol. I never implied that "physical objects are mental objects", either. Why do you bots keep trying to use my post as a springboard into your mostly unrelated retardation?

>>14762853
You don't need dualism. Idealist monism can explain the situation. see here
>>14762886
The physical world becomes mental objects rendered in minds. We never see the outside world except in the medium of mind. The physical world is a data stream of processed, organized and structured data (information) which gets rendered in minds. And so idealist monism or some might say idealist dual aspect monism or even informational monism with the virtual physical world as quantitative information and consciousness as qualitative information.

>>14762902
>I never implied that "physical objects are mental objects"
What are they then? Have you ever seen the physical world in any other medium except your mind? Explain.

>>14762911
>Idealist monism can explain the situation. see here
Idealism monism doesn't explain anything because it's devoid of intellectual content, just like all other orms of "everything is just X!", including "everything is physical".

>>14762915
What doesn't it explain?

>>14762913
>What are they then?
Ideas in your head.

>Have you ever seen the physical world in any other medium except your mind?
No. So what?

>>14762918
>What doesn't it explain?
Anything. At all. People like you just can't distinguish between the strictly logical implications of their statements and subjective emotional associations that result from saying that this or that is "of the mind".

>>14762923
>So what?
the why call it the physical world and make claims about it. the concept is made up.

>>14762915
Right off the bat, it explains the mind body problem. Bodies are only ever seen/experienced in minds. And so the question of how two different substances effect each other is solved. Materialism can not do this. It can not explain how consciousness acts on matter so what do these genius do, they resort ultimately to denying their own consciousnesses. The one thing they do have direct access to, their minds, gets rejected in liu of trying to maintain the idea of something they DON'T have access to, which is mind independent matter.

Also, if the physical world is a virtual construct in minds, then a lots of the strange physics get's explained. So idealism has explanatory power to fit the observed data. see pic.

>>14762935
>why call it the physical world and make claims about it
To distinguish between what only I can experience from what others can experience.

>>14762929
>doesn't give an example of something it it can't explain
Try again. Give an an example of something in the physical or mental world that can't be accounted for by idealism. The scientific method itself requires consciousness as a first principle. All observed physics are observed within consciousnesses. All verification of measurement takes place in consciousness. All hypothesises are formed by consciousnesses. All conclusions are formed by consciousnesses . All inferences are made by consciousnesses. All experiments are devised in consciousnesses and conducted by consciousnesses. All experiences of the physical world are experienced in consciousnesses. Hence max plancks statement here.
>>14762911

>>14762939
> it explains the mind body problem
Yeah, now you just need to explain how everything arises from the mind in a way that there's so much common ground between different minds but you have no scientific means to do so. Retard.

>>14762971
"Everything is X" philosophies are inherently vacuous and I'm not

>>14762978
... interested in discussions with their acolytes.

>>14760670
>>14760695
Based, let's see more of this kind of faggotry.

>>14762978
>still no example

>>14762923
>Ideas in your head
Agreed. The physical world is a data stream that gets rendered as processed, organized and structured data (information) in an observers mind.
>No. So what?
So you are postulating that observer independent and self existent objective matter is the fundamental substance of reality (and only substance, if you believe in substance monism) yet you have never even seen such a thing? This is strange. If this is the case, then there MUST BE ANOTHER SUBSTANCE, namely CONSCIOUSNESS. So you are at least admitting dualism. And so you KNOW that matter CAN be a mental object, ie matter can be simulated by consciousness and presented to an observer, yet you still postulate this extra entity, observer independent matter, even though you can't ever access it. And indeed, no consciousness can access it or even demonstrate and verified that it exists. In fact, all experiment shows that at the fundamental level, localized matter does not even exist until which way data (information) is available to an observer.

>>14760628
It's the same ship if you think it is. Otherwise it isn't.

>>14760628
If Beethovens 9th is played by a different orchestra, with different musicians and different instruments, will it bee the same symphony.

>>14762136
Out of all those (You)'s 2/7 are not mine. This is the world's saddest gaslight. Way to make history, anon.

>>14763185
When Taylor Swift performs shake it off and two different venues is it the same song?

>>14760628
Nobody cares it's a stupid philosophy question

>>14760672
Reddit-wrong. Neurons are not replaced.

>>14760658
Yeah, the problem only arises when humans give the construct a label and an identity. Once a single part is changed out, its no longer the "same" ship. We might call it the same and think of it as the same but that paradox arises only in the context of identity. Take the identity out of the equation and its no longer a problem. Its still an interesting problem, because it challenges how humans give identity to things.

>>14763498
Atoms in neurons are
>conquered by le redditor
>*tip of le fedora*
Muh dumbfuck

>>14760666
>PLEASE BELIEVE IM SMART! IM TOTALLY NOT A MIDWIT!
That's what I see in your post

>>14762161
>Yes. I fixed your trash.
and yet you didn't take it out, garbage man. No tip for you.

>This statement is incoherent trash if not fixed into the drone hypothesis.
Post another cat picture Karen.

>Or care to enlighten what the living fuck
>I-i-i--it is like a radio
>Even means ?

Is the signal inside a radio? Why can't I find it when I break it? Should be pretty simply since both the radio and the signal are quantified for your mundane materialistic brain to be able to keep track of no? So where is the "quantity" when I break the radio? Where is the "signal"?

>Articles about people losing parts of their brain.
Losing parts doesn't imply the memories are lost. The ability to recollect them is lost. You mistakenly assume here >>14760801 that:
>Damage to the human brain will remove memories proving memories are in the brain.
What you forgot to mention is that damaging the brain would also damage the ability for the brain to function, to recollect memories. No you ignore that outright and claim what is intangible (memories) are "lost" somehow in the damage despite not even being physical.

>Alzheimer literally makes the brain have holes and alzheimer is about you losing your memories.
Ability to recollect said memories but a "memory" is not actually something to lose. The brain is certainly a mechanism for the recollection/use of the memory but it is not where the actual information is. Were it, you wouldn't be able to form "muscle memory". Furthermore transplant "victims" have been known to inherit some of the memories of their donors, even from parts such as kidneys and limbs.

>Some unrelated ranting about others archaic theories.
Cool story bro, not what this is about

>your brain is you and it is a chemical machine introducing some chemicals disturbs the brains function.
Do the chemicals have the memories?

>What you schizo ? What ?
You think that's an explanation? "Atoms"? How does the material animate you, retard? By itself? Circular logic?

>>14762212

>the brain needs to be sending a signal to it,
Yes, A signal does indeed need an antenna. Break the antenna...does the signal go away? No, but you don't pick it up very well now do you? You brain is the antenna, which is why when you hit it really hard you get interference.

>(Previously, the pineal gland was believed to be the "seat of the soul", but unfortunately these pesky scientists discovered the pineal gland was just a gland.)

That is a popular mainstream lunacy that is completely false from the standpoint of even 2000+ year old metaphysics. The soul is not something specific, it is not something tangible, it is not is not is not. They can all tell you what it "is not" but they can't tell you what it actually is because there were intelligent enough to comprehend that it wasn't anything specific at all.

>The ultimate point of his analogy is that he believes the origin of consciousness is not within the body.
There is no specific origin
>He invokes the radio because the source of the radio signal is not the radio, but the tower.
And not even the tower is the signal.

>and most importantly radio waves are detectable
Ah! But not when you break the physical radio and go "looking for it". Why would the same be the case for a human?

>if the brain is just an antenna, then for the consciousness to be aware of anything at all,
"Consciousness" is the state of awareness. Your "brain" working in proper order is the state of being "Conscious".

>the brain needs to be sending a signal to it
>The source needs
No. The radio tower does not need you to tune into it to work. It will still send the signal.

>so clearly there must be signals being created by the brain.
And the only way you "send" these signals is...not with the brain. You use your eyes, mouth, ears, hands to communicate. We don't have the fortune of telepathy.

what is with this samefagging schizo?

>>14762992
It doesn't explain why you touch yourself at night. It doesn't explain what the nature of reality is. It doesn't explain why seemingly different minds can agree on some things. It doesn't explain how to unite physics. It doesn't explain anything. It's a vacuous shart.

>>14763050
>The physical world is a data stream that gets rendered as processed, organized and structured data (information) in an observers mind.
Every single construct in your "explanation" is significantly more abstract, imaginary, subjective and far-removed from essence than what you're attempting to substitute.

>So you are postulating that observer independent and self existent objective matter is the fundamental substance of reality
Why are you lying?

>>14763567
You don't see anything in my post because you're a bot and you have no internal experience.

>>14763533
>the problem only arises when humans give the construct a label and an identity
The "problem" is the basic perception that different things exist and persist. Labels and identities are secondary consequences that follow naturally and ineveitably.

>>14763652
>The soul is not something specific, it is not something tangible, it is not is not is not. They can all tell you what it "is not" but they can't tell you what it actually is because there were intelligent enough to comprehend that it wasn't anything specific at all.
That implies that a soul is a vague philosophical construct.
>And the only way you "send" these signals is...not with the brain.
The fact that spine damage can prevent you from feeling and brain damage can prevent you from seeing, hearing, or feeling shows that the brain MUST send something back to the soul. If the eyes, ears, or hands were in direct communication with the soul, there would be no need for nerves to send these signals back to the brain.

>>14764035
NTA and I don't believe in souls, but your talking points are excruciatingly low-IQ.

>>14764043
So then let's hear what you think is wrong with them, smart man.

>>14764061
>let's hear what you think is wrong with them
Both of your statements are idiotic nonsequiturs.

>>14763733
You are 94 IQ at best

>>14764100
Thanks for confirming your lack of qualia.

>>14764118
Thanks for confirming your midwit status

>>14760628
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions

Define "same"

This is not a question about philosophy, empiricism, or even ships.
It's a question about definitions which is will give you a different answer depending on which definition you use.

>>14764125
See >>14764118

>>14763591
>Post another cat picture Karen.
Cool fagot retard.
>Is the signal inside a radio? Why can't I find it when I break it?
Pictured literally incoherent trash. Literally incoherent trash.

You realize the """signal"""" must be a 2 way communication like in a drone.

>Why can't I find it when I break it?
Are you a schizo ? What is this 1920s retardation ?

>Ability to recollect said memories but a "memory" is not actually something to lose
Priceless.

You simply assume no one can lose a memory. Proof ? And this is unolsifiable.

>. The brain is certainly a mechanism for the recollection/use of the memory but it is not where the actual information is.
>Source I made that one up.

>You think that's an explanation? "Atoms"? How does the material animate you, retard? By itself? Circular logic?
What you schizo ? What ?

>>14764035
>>14764061
You are talking to some /x/ idiot who obsess over some wrong 1920s understanding of radio.

My condolences.

I pointed out that the communication must be 2 way yet he ignores it and goes back to
>b--b-b-b- muh radio tower

>>14762939
>to denying their own consciousnesses.
Or here is the thing "consciousnesses" is literally a nonsense word your side made up that was debunked already.

>>14764233
>your side

>>14764234
>Muh meme
LOL

>your side
Yes. YOUR SIDE AKA other /x/ and soul fags.

>>14764233
how is it an nonsense word that has been made up or debunked

>>14764234

>>14764243
>how is it an nonsense word that has been made up
So you disagree that words are not made up ????? !!!!!!!

>or debunked
Because of all the demonstrations that it is nonsense want to see one ?

>>14764240
>>14764253
Thanks for confirming.

>>14764258

>>14764262
No idea who you're quoting. I don't believe in souls. Thanks for confirming my point with the pic, though. lol

>>14764256
>So you disagree that words are not made up ????? !!!!!!!
what?
>Because of all the demonstrations that it is nonsense want to see one ?
name 1

>>14764272
>what?
Question was the word CPU made up ? Or not ? If not explain where it comes from.

>>14764272
>name 1
The best one demonstrates with question and answering from your side that it is impossible nonsense.

In like you can not explain based on your criteria how a CCTV camera or sensor + computer are not conscious or whatever.

It basically devolves into
>I have consciousness however no machine can LALLALALALALA

>>14764275
all words are made up, it doesn't mean that the thing they refer to is as well. When you say "consciousness is a nonsense word" what you are saying is that it doesn't refer to any extant thing.
what is the thing that 'debunks' consciousness (I don't even know what this would entail so I want to see it)

>>14764279
okay, so it's very clear that you don't actually know what you're talking about. sorry for wasting both of our time

>>14764280
>are saying is that it doesn't refer to any extant thing
Yes. consciousness is a non concept, impossible crap the religious side made up.

>>14764282
>okay, so it's very clear that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
And you debunked consciousness.
This was fast !

>sorry for wasting both of our time
>I will run away from any debate LALALALALAL

You sure love debunking your own side.

Either participate in the debate or be forever ridiculed.

>okay, so it's very clear that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Cool. Like I pointed out since it is a nonsense word literally no one can know what it means.

So if you care explain what consciousness is. Your move. If there is no explanation of it then it is a non concept and impossible. So debunked.

If you refuse to participate or run away then this only proves you are a crazy fagot with his crazy word.

>>14764285
>>14764301
consciousness is the inherently non-qualitative (and therefore by definition not capable to be measured or quantified with any system of mathematics on any turing machine) experience that human beings use to quantify sensory experiences

>>14764317
non-quantitative*
I'm cooking dinner as I write so I'm not completely focused on this
conscious experience is itself not quantitative whatsoever so it can not be explained or measured using any mathematics, is the point of the definition

>>14764317
>>14764321

>is the point of the definition
there is no definition other then literally :
>I have X I can not detect X however I know all humans have X and no machine can LALALALALALAL
This is a self debunking proposition.

>>14764369
Correction, the definition is:
>I have X I can not detect X however I know all humans /who agree with me/ have X and no machine /or human who disagrees with me/ can LALALALALALAL
the most retarded thing about the obnoxious NPC meme is that these idiots don't even know that a philosophical zombie is literally indistinguishable from a conscious person in every possible respect.

>>14764374
>the most retarded thing about the obnoxious NPC meme is that these idiots don't even know that a philosophical zombie is literally indistinguishable from a conscious person in every possible respect.
pzombies debunk qualia and the rest of that crap.

>>14762200
Nice, thanks mate

>>14764418
>>Nice, thanks mate
My pleasure, what did you appreciate the most ?

>>14764217
>You realize the """signal"""" must be a 2 way communication
I don't know

>Are you a schizo ? What is this 1920s retardation ?
Is it in the radio or not? Obviously not, it exists no matter how many fucking radios you destroy. You're never going to find the "signal" in a radio, much like you're never going to find the "soul" in a human or in any particular thing. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you haven't found the source for the soul yet.

People actually take it to the extreme and introduce soul(s), as in "my soul" "your soul". This is also a misconception. It's not yours to possess, much like the signal is not the radio's to possess (if it's not the source that is).

>You simply assume no one can lose a memory.
It's not something to lose.

>Proof ?
Define "memory" if you disagree: It's the process of recollection, an action. Not actually physically something itself.

>And this is unolsifiable.
Because it isn't real. It isn't physical. I know sweetie, this kills the atomist. This is the end of the line of your empirical gook.

>Source I made that one up.
Memories? The source? Yeah basically.

>What you schizo ? What ?
You're the schizo asking such empty questions.

>>14764430
>I don't know
It must you dumb fuck the controller AKA your soul must receive data from the drone (your body) this includes what your eyes see and tactal sensation or audio at the minimum. Or your crap is self debunking.

>Is it in the radio or not?
Schizo garbage. Stop spamming meaningless statements.

>how many fucking radios you destroy.
And you debunked your shit

>It is like a 1920s radio
No you dumb fuck this means that 1 person controls multiple bodies or all bodies ? And because this is not true then your model can not be real. In other words you debunked yourself.

>Define "memory" if you disagree: It's the process of recollection, an action. Not actually physically something itself.
Terrible word games you play here.

>Because it isn't real. It isn't physical.
And you debunked yourself.

Radio waves are falsifiable your schizo shit is not.
> It isn't physical.
Radio waves are physical. Did you get confused about them not being material ?

> your empirical gook.
Nice insults you fucked in the head /x/ reject.

>empirical
Imagine disagreeing with empiricism.

So your shit is literally made up crap with zero evidence.

> your empirical gook.
Yet we can detect lose of memory or what happens if we damage the brain.

>Because it isn't real.
Priceless. You /x/ retards always debunk yourself.

"Because it isn't real" = it is fake = it is not like this.

Here are things that are not real fiction. If you place your /x/ crap on the same level as superman comics then everyone will laugh. Now stop spamming this thread with crap you agree that is fake.

>>14764424
the primer of ecclesiastes, but mostly the links to the audiobook

>>14764481
>the primer of ecclesiastes,
THE WHAT NOW ?

> but mostly the links to the audiobook
Yep Christians literally give the NIV audio book for free.

>>14764454
>AKA your soul
Who are you quoting? I don't possess the soul, don't you get it?

>must receive data from the drone (your body) this includes what your eyes see and tactal sensation or audio at the minimum

No it doesn't. Look at Helen Keller.

>Stop spamming meaningless statements.
It's a question.

>And you debunked your shit
The radio is not the signal

>No you dumb fuck this means that 1 person controls multiple bodies or all bodies ? And because this is not true then your model can not be real. In other words you debunked yourself.
What the fuck are you talking about? You yourself conjured this "controller " horseshit. It's not my model fuckhead.

>And you debunked yourself.
Debunked what?

>Radio waves are physical.
>Did you get confused about them not being material ?
How is polarizing what is already there a material? It's an action. You don't know what you're talking about.

>Imagine disagreeing with empiricism
Square root of two.

>So your shit is literally made up crap with zero evidence.
Memory is made up crap with zero evidence. It's reified, redefined and re-translated to mean whatever the fuck you want it to. It is not something specific.

>Yet we can detect lose of memory or what happens if we damage the brain.
But you don't have the location of the actual memories do you fuckhead? You'd think with all those fancy tools that involve analyzing the brain you would have found them there no?

>>14764454
NTA but you're really deranged. lol

>>14762837

>>14764512
>No it doesn't. Look at Helen Keller
She went blind due to brain damage so on the contrary, she just further proves his point. The soul can't see or hear if that information isn't being delivered to it, not even if the eyes and ears are fully intact.

What makes something "the same" anyway? You could pretty much replace almost any part of a car and it would still be "the same car." But if you replaced even just one single word of the lyrics of a song, it would cease being the same song. So it depends on what you're talking about. Maybe the ship ceases to be the same ship at the point in which the replaced parts contribute to the fact that you can call it a ship to begin with.

>>14764827
I could argue that it's not even the same song if all the words are the same, if it's sung by a different person. I prefer the song sung by Alice over the song sung by Bob, and I don't want to hear the song sung by Bob because his voice makes him sound like he probably has missing children in his basement.

but yeah all this shit is just semantic BS, not even proper philosophy (which would still belong on >>>/his/.)

>>14760628
I stops being the same ship when the last original sailor is gone.

>>14760707
As a matter of fact, the most important cells don't regenerate.

>>14762852
Those are all mathematical problems, not real-world physical problems. Physical reality has no infinities. You can't reach that scale of trouble without dipping into the realm of the metaphysical and supernatural (e.g. God).

>>14760763
>array
>not using the fancier word tensor

>>14764821
>she just further proves his point.
Thanks
/x/ fags are simply retarded.
Either way damage to the optic nerve AKA cable that send signals to the brain basically proves my point.

At this point soul fags need to deny reality.

>>14764512
>Who are you quoting?
Literally are you schizo ? This is not a quote.

>It's a question.

A meaningless one that literally no one outside your schizo brain an understand.

>It's a question.
I can make a counter question involving the time cube. Either you will answer shitzo shit or admit that some questions are schizo garbage and can not be answered only called out for being schizo garbage.

>"controller " horseshit. I
If you do not subscribe to the standard model of the soul the present your model. And no you repeating your schizo crap like the time cube guy is not an answer.

>What the fuck are you talking about?
Here the schizo does not understand the implications of hi own model.

>Debunked what?
Your own pseudo model you keep on pushing you retarded schizo.

>You'd think with all those fancy tools that involve analyzing the brain you would have found them there no?
The brain is very complicated and it is irrelevant is we see a correlation between brain damage and lose of memories. Top down analysis is king.

>>14764454
>>14764512
>Debunked what?
I repeat to you the moment where you literally debunked yourself

>Because it isn't real.
Priceless. You /x/ retards always debunk yourself.

"Because it isn't real" = it is fake = it is not like this.

Here are things that are not real fiction. If you place your /x/ crap on the same level as superman comics then everyone will laugh. Now stop spamming this thread with crap you agree that is fake.

You literally wrote that your model/crap is fake you schizo retard.

>>14762200
The fact that you approach a religious book expecting it to give you "clear instructions" like a car manual shows that you have not given either life or religion much thought. Do you also sperg out at poetry, paintings, zen koans, movies for not being explicitly clear in their meaning? Are your own thoughts and mental processes explicitly clear and academic in their form?

>>14765229
Helen Keller proves that information can still be conveyed despite the "cables being cut". The information must be re-translated into another form, the memories that is. Because again "memories" aren't anything specific. They only have meaning when you give them it, when you have the key, the translation of them. Otherwise it's meaningless, cables or not.


>>14765246
>>14765251
You are asking me to show you something I don't have, that no one "has" because you're relying on a religious definition/notion of "soul" in the first place. I don't "possess" THE soul. See you're also assuming with this inquiry that there are in fact now multiple "souls". You're assuming it's something that can actually be "had" by anyone you can ask. It isn't. That doesn't mean it or the concept isn't true or real. It is "what animates". To call it or know it or "have it" is contradictory. You would have "object". If it were an object...that's all it would just be "object". Explaining in the first place how an object just becomes animated is almost impossible. We only have ways of describing what the object is doing but not how it is doing it. The "How" is "the soul". The "cause of the animation".

You're probably thinking of the bastardized Judeo-Christian concept of "soul" which is why you're also stupid enough to inquire "where it is" it in the first place. Again, analogously it's like asking where the "signal" is in a radio.

>>14765377
>ReLiGiOn MaKEs NoSeNSe ; and I like it this way

This is debunked.
>b-b-b--b
DEBUNKED !

You debunked yourself.
Your position is impossible or the CCC would not be needed. You can read the CCC for contrast.
The CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

Now you got debunked hard. If literally your post modern religion interpretism was true no religious person would use something like the CCC. And yes protestants and others do the same all the dogma like
Abortion = bad
Comes from non biblical external sources same for hell or the afterlife.

Then they try to force these CCC things and pretend the bible says that.

>b-b-b-b- religion
You clearly have no fucken idea how religion works.

>b-b-b-b- the bible
DEBUNKED !

The bible is extremely specific about animal sacrifices and how you are to do them. The bible is extremely specific in classifying animals as unclean and clean. EXTREMELY precise.

Now try to deal with this.

>I-i-i-i-i-I like my postmodern bible interpretation
Shut up Peterson !

>>14765400
>"had" by anyone you can ask. It isn't. That doesn't mean it or the concept isn't true or real. It is "what animates". To call it or know it or "have it" is contradictory. You would have "object
Schizo crap.

>. I don't "possess" THE soul
Bad word game yet I HAVE air in my loungs.
And I HAVE a WiFi signal
And I HAVE a radio conection.

>"possess"
I did say HAVE not possess you dumbfuck !

Your entire fucken point rests on semantics that actually debunk you.

>You are asking me to show you something I don't have, that no one "has"
You debunked yourself schizo.
> that no one "has"
Cool no one has a soul now shut up schizo.
>something I don't have, that no one "has"
Yet the phrase "I have a radio signal" is used so what it will be ? "no one has a radio signal" ?

> because you're relying on a religious definition/notion of "soul" in the first place
And beyond debunked schizo !

So lets see
>Be fagot retard with schizophrenia
>Get born into a religious culture that uses the word soul
>Schizo retard says
>>y-y-y-you all are wrong what the soul is I know what the soul is
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP

> See you're also assuming with this inquiry that there are in fact now multiple "souls"
YES. Since 99.9999999% of people who believe in a soul have this model. However you the retard schizo who is 00.00000000000000001% of humans alive has the right one and I'm the incompetent one for not knowing your magic model.

>It is "what animates". To call it or know it or "have it" is contradictory.
Schizo crap.

>>14765475
>Bad word game
Don't ask for "someone's soul" next time.

>Your entire fucken point rests on semantics
Your poor choice of relying on a religious definition/concept instead of the original.

>You debunked
No. I accurately described you having a poor assumption of a subject based on the questions you're asking about said subject. Questions that basically amount to:
>"Is [Subject] an [Object]?

>Cool no one has a soul now shut up schizo.
Indeed. This is not a denial of the soul.

>Yet the phrase "I have a radio signal" is used so what it will be ? "no one has a radio signal" ?
You still have to tune into it. You don't actually "have it". It's just a figure of speech.

>And beyond debunked schizo
You're asking me to give you a subject, I'm telling you it's not an object to give.

> See you're also assuming with this inquiry that there are in fact now multiple "souls"
>YES.

Exactly. Because like them you're a mundane Lotus eating moron.

>Schizo crap.
So what is the cause of animation? Material itself? What?

>>14765547
>Don't ask for "someone's soul" next time.
Stop using words that 99.9999999% of people have a different definition then you.

> of the original.
DEBUNKED !
We can trace the word back and it goes back to basically the catholic church.

>"Is [Subject] an [Object]?
Can we report schizos and ban them ?

> It's just a figure of speech.
And your entire argument rests on figures of speech reversely why did you start drama over what you know is a common figure of speech ?

Literally no explanations only schizo drama.

>Because like them you're a mundane Lotus eating moron.
Pictured human schizo garbage.

So instead of explaining your model you shitpost.

>So what is the cause of animation?
This is a nonsense statement schizo or clarify it.

>Material itself? What?
You realize chemical reactions happen right ? In like lithium and water will react with one another do they also have souls ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxqe_ZOwsHs

>>14765574
>Stop using words
Go fuck yourself

>We
No

>You realize chemical reactions happen right ?
You describe this as if it explains anything...

>In like lithium and water will react with one another do they also have souls?
You tell me?

>>14765603
>Go fuck yourself
Oh look the debunked schizo is mad that I debunked him.

Your schizo crap is 00.00000000000000001% you are not important schizo.
The 99.9999999% have a different soul model attached to that word.

This is literally you:
>Humans are animated by RAPE
>RAPE is like a radio signal
>RAPE is very important.
>What do you mean 99.9999999% of humans have a different understanding of the word RAPE ?
> [schizo posting]


The rest of your post is schizo crap. Like I told you schizo stop polluting this thread shut up and never post here.

A ship is a location with a collection of properties. When its properties are lost, the ship stops being a ship.

>>14765615

>>14765710

>>14764827
Casual relations and functions
Aka Karma

>>14764835
What if it was sung by a 5 year old Alice instead of 30 year old? Or maybe 80 year old Alice?

There is no original song in static form, unless you go to lengths to discredit anything else that has changed