/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2020463

it never was a debate

Guess my freshman year high school science book was mistaken about that. [sacasm]There's a surprise.[/sarcasm]

The "6 Characteristics of Life" are stupid and inconsistent.
Why aren't viruses considered alive?
And I want an actual answer other than "it's convention."

>>2020463
about 2 weeks ago on /sci/ when i PWNED everyone here with my awesome snowball analogy.

>>2020617
It's the analogy that you perform while getting your own sperm pushed into your mouth by a male prostitute.

>>2020546
They're on the outskirts of life, apart from that no one really gives a fuck what they're actually classified as or not classified as.

>>2020546
they lack the ability to make copies of themselves they have to use cells to do it for them.

>>2020656
I thought EK was a woman?

>>2020546
They lack metabolic processes and lack the means to replicate their own RNA. A virus is about as alive as the possum that I ran over with my car earlier tonight is.

>>2020708
Dead possums can infect host cells and self replicate, perpetuating their own traits and evolving in the process?

>>2020725
>self replicate
Neither a virus nor a possum can do that. Hence one of the reasons why neither is considered to be alive.

>>2020752
A live possum can't *self* replicate, it needs a female possum to do that.

>>Trollface.jpg

>>2020762
So female possums can reproduce with each other?

Virus does not metabolize (a trait that all "living" creature share)
Hence they are not alive.

Virus disassemble and replace. then replicate.
No metabolism involved at all.

>>2020812
Don't be foolish anon, whenever you talk about someone, you're talking about a man unless you're talking about something specifically feminine or you specify otherwise.

Men do all the important shit.

>>2020861
No reference to troll-face that time.

Can't some minerals also replicate their own structure?

>>2020875
Your point being?

What I want to know is whether PRIONS count?

They're just proteins that folded in a fucked up manner, and which bump into other proteins, causing them to move into the same fucked up shape.

>>2020861
go back to bitching over womens basketball you hack.

>>2020959
Why would I care if women play basketball? It's not really something high on the important shit list, and hell, if it were then good for them.

As it stands though, men do all the important shit, and people naturally assume you're referring to a man when you talk about doing anything of real value, that isn't, as I said, inherently feminine.

>>2020813
But WHY is metabolism a defining trait of life?

>>2020656
wtf?
lol, that's disgusting.

>>2020947
You said it yourself, they're just proteins.

>>2021023
Because something has to separate the living from fire, refrigerators and buffing machines. Want to take a shot at the definition yourself? Feel free.

>>2021073
If life were an inherent principle, it wouldn't need to be defined, it would have visible boundaries.

>>2021073
Um.
Why?
Why does there have to be a distinction between life and non-life?
Unless you're a primitive dipshit that believes in "souls", living things and inanimate things are the same stuff operating according to the same principles.
Any line drawn between the two has to be arbitrary.
If you want to draw a line, why not make it "self-replication"?

>>2021081
That's some quality trolling, right there.

>>2021096
Yeah, the best trolling is that which is really a rational, well-intentioned post that differs from your point of view too much for you to accept it's existence.

>>2021099
Seriously? You're even going to try to tell people that was well-intentioned and really rational? You're obviously the primitive dipshit here.

>>2021186
How about you explain what's so egregiously wrong with that post?

>>2021099
Right, anyone believing in souls is a primitive dipshit. Real rational.

>>2021198

but anyone believing in souls IS a primitive dipshit

>>2021193
>Lolz! Butthurt!

The mind of a genius, everyone.

>>2021189
So you're even going to pretend not to know? Bonus stupidity points if you really don't know what was wrong with it. You just keep looking like a moron on here. Just give it up.

>>2021206
If you believe that, you are a primitive dipshit.

>>2021206
1/10
Give it up, you failure.

>>2021209
lol i already posted in the exact same thread 2 weeks ago, so i can just obvserve the mutual failure going on in this thread...

Is there any scientific reason to believe that a soul exists?
Or even any way one COULD exist?

>>2021225
What was your "awesome snowball analogy" two weeks ago?

>>2021225
Wow! your logic is so astounding!

That might have looked like an understandable argument, if you hadn't posted the stupid shit in
>>2021193

>>2021227
erm, well basically i was arguing for the side of 'virus's do NOT count as being alive'
and some guy was like "virus's feed, so they are life, when they manipulate a host cell into making more viruses, it is just another form of feeding, feeding has a more vague meaning than you think etc..."
so i was like, "well by that logic a snowball is alive, because i can roll a snowball down a hill, and it gets larger and 'feeds' on more snow"
or something like that... except longer and more intelligent sounding... i can't remember the thread so well... anyway, i was awesome, as usual :D

>>2021226
Depends what you mean by scientific. Generally it's a philosophical problem more than a scientific one.

>>2021226
How about you state the overwhelming reasons that science has advanced to the point that there can't be any scientific reason? It's like you actually think there's isn't still a lot we don't know and that could be possible.

>>2021247 Generally it's a philosophical problem more than a scientific one.

Huh, no. Keep the philosophers away from me.

>>2021272
Well, you have a serious epistemology shortfall if you can only answer scientific questions, but no philosophical ones.

>>2021253
>>2021247
What are you people doing on a science board? Seriously. The hypothesis of a "soul" is just about as unscientific as you can get.
This hypothesis makes no predictions about observable phenomena, it doesn't *explain* anything, in fact it just adds unfounded complexity to the theory of human existence.
There is not only no evidence that "souls" exist, but there's NO REASON TO SUGGEST THEY DO.
Except, of course, for the irrational, primitive beliefs of "faith".

As the one making an unproven hypothesis, the burden of evidence rests on you.

I don't think science has reached the point where it can explain everything; and there is CERTAINLY a lot that we don't know.
But I shouldn't look into the sky and say "I don't know what's there; SO IT MUST BE MAGICAL FAIRIES!"

>>2021275
What's the distinction between science and philosophy?

>>2021226
>Is there any scientific reason to believe that a soul exists?
Because no deterministic model can ever adequately explain subjective consciousness. Therefore, there must be some sort of nondeterministic system at work behind it. Whatever that unknown system is, is what you would call a soul.
>Or even any way one COULD exist?
Not sure what that question means. Science doesn't preclude things that are outside its extant theories or outside its scope. You don't need a scientific reason why it COULD exist.

>>2021247
It's not a philosophical problem. I don't know that any philosophical problems even exist; but we'll limit ourselves to dealing with this for the moment.

The assertion that there is such a thing as a "soul" makes a claim about reality.
Science is the method by which we attempt to explain reality.
The assertion of a "soul" is a scientific problem.

You're using "philosophy" as a bullshit excuse, I think.

souls obviously don't exist. or if they do, its just a rewording of the mind, which is what it is due to the physical structure of the brain. that dude who got a metal bar blasted through his face with dynamite, survived, but had a massive personality change afterwords, if souls existed, this wouldnt be able to happen.

>>2021283
Oh for fucks sake.
>no deterministic system can ever explain subjective consciousness
What type of bullshit is that? On what grounds do you make that assertion?

Fuck this. Why the hell am I arguing about fucking SOULS on a "science" board?

>>2021280
Science is the branch of philosophy that specifically studies the natural world, specifically using an empirical methodology. All questions of metaphysics, mathematics, logic, and so forth are outside the scope of science, in the larger field of philosophy.

>>2021286
I don't know what you're saying in that last sentence, but I agree with the first.
Souls do not exist.
There is no reason to think they do.

>>2021287
Because there's a fundamental logical disconnect between the two.

>>2021279
THIS

Fucking retards talking about souls
Why not just shift the discussion to God?

>>2021291
And how is the topic of a "soul" one outside the study of the natural world? It's not a mathematical, logical, or metaphysical concept. It's an assertion about the nature of organisms.

>>2020693
Don't MANY parasitic creatures rely on hosts to reproduce? I mean, sure it isn't in the same way that these do but realistically I don't think that being able to independently reproduce should be a defining factor of life.
Domesticated corn can't reproduce without human intervention but we still consider it alive.

>>2021280
>>2021275

Philosophy: pretentious nonsense
Science: careful stuff that makes sense

I don't expect philosophers to say anything worthwhile about "wtf is life?", especially since they're utterly ignorant of nature.

>>2021285
>I don't know that any philosophical problems even exist
WAT?

>Science is the method by which we attempt to explain reality.
No, science limits itself to physical reality, using physical evidence... which is why you can't scientifically investigate a mathematical theorem.

>The assertion of a "soul" is a scientific problem.
Only if you mean by "soul" a physical thing, which is not what it generally means.

>>2021279
THIS IS HOW BIGOTED JACK-ASSES LIKE THIS ACTUALLY ACT LIKE!

>>2021300
This is what you get when you don't require basic philosophy for science degrees. Unsophisticated minds end up thinking that nothing exists but science.

>>2021245
Someone makes some hair-brained argument about "feeding."
You base a shit analogy off of his definition of feeding.
Because you countered a shitty argument, that somehow proves your assertions about viruses being or not being life are correct. Don't get me wrong, I don't think viruses are life either, but your argument didn't go much farther than countering one idiot's definition of life.

>>2021275
I find it hilarious that he didn't say "epistemologICAL"
You have a serious grammatical short-falling, my friend.

>>2021299
Let's say that the defining characteristics of life was shifted to encompass viruses. What other "inanimate" objects will be considered alive afterward?

The true problem has already been stated. You cannot arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and say everything here is alive and over there is inanimate. On some scale, everything is the same. Everything, alive and dead follow the same physical laws. There is no outside feature (aside from complexity) to distinguish life from chemical reaction

>>2021304
HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT A PART OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A PHYSICAL THING< GALH:GKL:SDHSDKLGH:SDFHIOWEORH

>>2021298
The soul is a metaphysical entity. It is usually defined as the immaterial component of a conscious entity. It has an association with biological life, but it is a concern outside the study of the biology.

It is outside the scope of science, because science uses empiricism, which is defined as relying on physical evidence. You can't study non-physical things using physical evidence.

>>2021299
lol you are fucking retarded corn isn't alive.

>>2021315
How can you claim otherwise?

>>2021313
Precisely. It should have been the end of this thread why I said that ages ago; but this is 4chan after all.
We've always got to have some pretentious douchebags waltz in and cover everything with shit.

>>2021317
Kingdom: Plantae
Plants are no longer alive?

>>2021287
Umm, because you're a bigoted jack-ass who couldn't resist jumping in and being an ass-hole about it?

>>2021311
sorry, spell-check fail.

>>2021318
Because of simple observation of fucking fact.
Christ, I wasn't at all out-of-line when I called you morons "primitive". You're one step away from animism.

>>2021317
wat?

>>2021320
heheheh...

>>2021326
I'm glad you're having some fun with this at least.

>>2021323
Please, enlighten me to the observable fact the demonstrates this obvious materialism.

>>2021317
huh wat

>>2021324
>>2021330
lol
>>2021328
and yeh, this thread is full of aids and fail. but i'm having fun :)

>>2020546
Viruses: Few strings of acid

>>2021329
Enlighten yourself. Go learn some basic anatomy, then neuroscience, then chemistry. After that you can learn some physics and mathematics, and maybe then BASIC FUCKING LOGIC.
Seriously. I thought we got rid of this "herp derp the human mind is not based in physical reality" bullshit 200 fucking years ago?
When I can stick a chemical here or an electrical impulse there and completely control every aspect of the way the human brain functions, that pretty much throws your anti-materialist bullshit out the window, doesn't it?

>>2021296
Because the Atheist ass-holes weren't the ones to bring it up, right?

>>2021279
The evidence that demands the existence of souls is the subject experience of self. That is incompatible with materialistic explanations. The soul isn't so much an explaining theory as it is a direct observation.

However, the subjective observation of self does not fall under the category of "empirical" observation. That's why reasoning based on those observations do not fall into the philosophical subcategory of science.

However, rationality is demands we reason based on observation -- all observation -- including logical observation, including subjective observation. Rationality therefore is broader than science, which only entails reasoning based on empirical observation. This, in short, is the reason why reason -- though not science per se -- is concerned with the subject of the soul.

>>2021339
FUCK I didn't even think this was going to be a fucking thing! I mean for christ's sake, this is a SCIENCE board! I shouldn't have to amend my assertions to account for the fucking ridiculous superstitions of GODAMNED ANIMISTS!

It should be FINE to say "There is no objective distinction between living and non-living matter" without a shitstorm ensuing! I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE FUCKING MORONS HERE

>>2021338
>>2021338

It's incredible how someone can type so much and say so little at the same time lol

>>2021342
I'm sorry, but you're spouting bullshit.
>the subject experience of self. That is incompatible with materialistic explanations.
That is... utter nonsense.

>>2021339
Same tier of logic, brochacho

Guys
Guys
There's this thing
That every living thing has
But leaves no trace
But it's there
GUYS
You are stupid, listen
This thing that leaves no trace and has no proof of existing
It's real
It's MORE THAN REAL
It's like ethereal

>>2021338
Exactly... there is no such "observable fact." You have apparently been taught a materialist philosophy, and never been taught any alternatives, and find the suggestion of alternatives threatening to your worldview.

No, experiment does not prove materialism. Materialism, btw is itself a philosophical concern outside the scope of science. Like it or not, it is a non-scientific philosophical position you are attempting to defend based on purported observation.

>When I can stick a chemical here or an electrical impulse there and completely control every aspect of the way the human brain functions, that pretty much throws your anti-materialist bullshit out the window, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. The brain is the most immediate physical environment of consciousness, and we can alter it in many interesting ways. It is simplistic to think that this somehow proves materialism.

>>2021338
>>2021345

Please get a tripcode so I can hide your posts.

>>2021349
how so?

But do RNA viruses have souls?

>As the one making an unproven hypothesis, the burden of evidence rests on you.

Un uh, honey, I don't buy into that as a constant absolute.

In a case like this, when someone keeps saying OMG! YOU ARE SO FUCKING RETARDED! to a bunch of people, they should have enough good solid reasons why, and not just tell themselves they do to feel smart. The burden of proof falls on people who do that shit.

>>2021345
>general frothing of the mouth
>ANIMISTS

>>2021361

read

>>2021360

>>2021361
So in a scenario of mass delusion the person who questions them and asks for evidence is the douche bag?

The commonly accepted view is not always the logical conclusion to draw

Evidence is still needed, no matter how "widely accepted" something is

String theory is still mental masturbation bullshit
No matter how many scientists back it up

>>2021375
holy shit, "String theory is mental masturbation bullshit" is the EXACT wording of a thing I've said many times.
I didn't know "mental masturbation" was even a real term. :)

>>2021380
THOSE FUCKING ANIMIST STRING THEORISTS!

>>2021345
Well that's because of what a massive ass-hole you are. You should have known that
>Unless you're a primitive dipshit that believes in "souls",
looked neither well meaning or very rational and in fact isn't. If you aren't being a low-life troll, and by the way you're going about this, I still strongly suspect you are, then I guess it was just so common to your asinine nature that you didn't think anything of posting it. Guess what? people don't have to put up with that shit here.

>>2020813
>Disassemble then replace

So they are the crackers/pirates of biology?


...Sorry.

>>2021404
>looked neither well meaning or very rational and in fact isn't.
>Ghosts exist
I loled at the thought of ghosts being rational

>>2021404
I'll sell you my soul

>>2021419
I rage when people use the word "rational" to mean mundane or conventional. Like when people talk about UFO's, and about there being a "rational explanation"... as if the concept of alien spacecraft is irrational, rather than simply improbable.

>>2021375
>It's a delusion or bull-shit because I and some ass-holes like me say it is.
Someone keeps saying saying:OMG! THAT IS SO FUCKING STUPID! YOU ARE SO RETARDED! to you over something but can't give what most reasonable people think is a satisfactory reason why. You wouldn't think that person is an idiot for doing that?

>>2021435
Pick your definition:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.
endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.
of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6.
proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

The belief (emphasis on BELIEF here) of ghosts is irrational

>>2021435
>>Improbable
How so?
Not troll. Asking from curiosity.

I understand that the universe is both fucking HUGE and that, at the same time, it's not that easy to create life as we understand it. But still the universe is fucking huge.

Also, if alien life forms did exist, would they be required to be classified under this threads interpretation of life? This might be interesting because it might be a prelude to all the bitching it might ever happen if something arguably life-like is found ... somewhere not Earth.

>>2021454
It's certainly not improbable for extraterrestrial life to exist; In fact, I'd say is effectively certain.
But I think it's HIGHLY improbable that they've ever visited earth.

>>2021453
How do you figure? You mean like Casper, or are you talking about souls?

>>2021448
It's not something to claim as fact when there is absolutely no evidence for it nor any possible way to test its validity

What you say? There is a way to somehow test the existence of souls? Then we go test it (like weighing a body as a dies). You will find that every experiment has failed to prove the existence of such entities.

All that means that the hypothesis of their existence is wrong, right? Yes, but when there is absolutely no prior reasoning to form the hypothesis, you are not working from a rational view point. You are trying to fit extra information into a hole that does not exist.

Seriously, you think you read what I just wrote? Read it again. There should be no need for someone to explain things so simply to you.

>It's a delusion or bull-shit because I and some ass-holes like me say it is.

>>2021419
Way to dodge the point, idiot.

>>2021454
I just brought it up as an example of people calling something not a rational explanation, when it's a perfectly rational explanation. As for whether it is actually probable or improbable... I don't actually think it's so improbable that alien craft have visited earth. I don't think we know enough to say that.

virus should be considered half life because once it infected a cell, it displays most of the characteristics of a cell-life. it's prions that shouldn't be considered life.

>>2021473
Sorry, let's stick to bashing someone who doesn't share your unfounded beliefs

>>2021454
I would say UFOs are unlikely because of what you said: the universe is fucking huge. Life elsewhere, fairly likely. It reaching us physically across the vastness of space, idunno. But then again, I'm assuming these life forms don't have billion year life spans or alternate unknown forms of space travel.

To call something life-like, it should have properties resembling your definition of life. To call it a life form, it should fit your definition. I don't understand what you're getting at with that second part, I guess.

>>2021471
But it's retarded to hypothesis that an immaterial thing (soul) leaving a body would cause a change in mass.

There is no way I know of to "test for souls". However the idea of the soul is the product of reasoning based on the experience of subjective consciousness. Unless there is a reason to think otherwise, it is the rational position.

>>2021471
>>2021471
Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.

>>2021480
>once it infected a cell, it displays most of the characteristics of a cell-life
How so?

Back to viruses, I think they are components of life. They are elements of animal cells that happen to travel between cells. So they don't have life in themselves, but are a component of cellular life. Like RNA itself. In fact, you could think of a virus as simply a chemical messenger between cells that tells it to die and release more messengers.

Of course, it's all just the human obsession with categorizing. It is what it is.

Fire is alive. It conforms to the 6 signs of life.

>>2021494
>subjective consciousness
Science and scientific theories are objective in nature

If all subjective consciousness was considered rational belief, then schizophrenics would have an equal say

When one manipulates your brain to make you feel like you are flying, do you think that your subjective observation is what is really happening?

We can test that, too. THEY LOOK AT YOU.

Things that exist in your head are not reality. Your brain is only a tool to analyze what your sensors bring in. Your brain can be tricked. When you close your eyes, light does not cease to exist

One can go on and on about the absurdity of the belief that subjective understanding equates to physical realization.

Stop trying to make your theory fit. It is irrational it avoid all contradictory evidence

>>2021518
It only very, very loosely satisfies three, and completely fails the other three.
If you want to be strict about the definition, it utterly fails all three.

Has anyone ever brought up the point that extraterrestrial life might take a totally different form than that which has developed here, and as such, won't meet our "requirements"?


... Do aliens have souls?

>>2021501
they hijack the cell metabolism to replicate their own genetic information and assemble new virus. this is essentially the same as a parasite.
they can even sense some outside signals and display differentiated behavior in different situations.
they also evolve rapidly.
it's not just the fact that they roll like a snow ball. they are highly ordered chemical systems.

>>2021535
This is why I didn't bother to try and argue with the anon that posted that.
It's seriously stupid to have to point this stuff out.

>>2021541
But they do what they do for the same reasons snowballs do: The deterministic controls of natural law.
Note that this post VERY CAREFULLY does not take a side on the "soul" issue.

>>2021538
What element other than carbon is diverse enough to allow the complex interactions of life?

I remember someone mentioning silicone before. Any real contributions?

>>2021535
>>2021535
Everyone is who believes they exist schizophrenic.

>>2021538
>aliens
>souls

Why ask about two things that haven't even been discovered?

>>2021535
>>subjective consciousness
>Science and scientific theories are objective in nature
Precisely. Which is why subjective consciousness can't really be addressed by science or scientific theories.

>If all subjective consciousness was considered rational belief, then schizophrenics would have an equal say
Schizophrenics suffer hallucinations concerning what exists in the physical world. We can test whether these things objectively exist or not. As for their consciousness, it is as real as anyone else's consciousness, but consciousness itself is not something that can be objectively observed, only subjectively.

>When one manipulates your brain to make you feel like you are flying, do you think that your subjective observation is what is really happening?
Every consciousness is capable of experiencing illusions. But you have to be conscious in the first place to experience an illusion. The argument that consciousness itself is an illusion is self-contradictory.

>Your brain is only a tool to analyze what your sensors bring in. Your brain can be tricked.
Correct.

>One can go on and on about the absurdity of the belief that subjective understanding equates to physical realization.
No, that's not what I said. Obviously, not everything one subjectively believes exists. But the experience of subjective consciousness is itself evidence of the capacity of have subjective consciousness.

>Stop trying to make your theory fit. It is irrational it avoid all contradictory evidence
Agreed. I go wherever the evidence leads, which is how I got to where I am.

>>2021471
I'm saying that you saying
>Well OBVIOUSLY it's physically impossible
is stupid and dense because science hasn't ruled it out like you're saying.

>>2021567
lol u c wut I did thar.

>>2021552
And yeah, I don't know enough about biochemistry to say, but I've heard that silicone is the only other serious contender for the development of complex life.

>>2021589
>consciousness itself is not something that can be objectively observed
I think you need to study neuroscience a bit more.

>>2020617
>>2020617
>>2020617
I was your opponent.
And no, you THOUGHT you pawned.
Plenty reasons showed why snoball example was stupid, but you didn't get it.

A mind that gives stupid examples is a mind that will understand things in stupid ways, no matter what you tell him.

>>2021602
I've studied it quite a bit. There's an argument in neuroscience that says, "lets just call recurrent processing 'consciousness' since we see it whenever consciousness is reported." That way you can say that you observe consciousness. But that's just redefining consciousness to something objective rather than something subjective, on the basis that the two things happen at the same time. So not many neurologists are interested in doing that. Still, the discovery of recurrent processing is an important tool for learning more about how the brain works in relation to conscious experience.

We had an epic debate few weeks ago.

People who support viruses are dead are stupid.
People who support viruses are alive are stupid.

The reason why there was an endless debate, it was BECAUSE their definition of life was based on some scientists half century ago.

There isn't "true" life or "semi-alive".
Its only about perspectives.
People have different perspectives.

Life can be considered dead or alive depending the perspective.

itt all the justifications i read for each side is utterly stupid.

"You can't solve a problem by thinking at the same level that caused the problem."
Said Einstein.

And thats what you're doing here.

>>2021359
Careful, people might realize how unnecessary and far from well meaning
>Unless you're a primitive dipshit that believes in "souls",
actually was and how much it steered the thread toward off of the road.

>>2021621
hmm. That's an interesting perspective.

>>2021359
Careful, people might realize how unnecessary and far from well meaning
>Unless you're a primitive dipshit that believes in "souls",
actually was and how much it steers the thread toward off of the road.

>>2021638
So he says to me he says, "You wanna get back on the road?"
And I says, "No, baby, no I wanna be baaaad. I wanna take this thread and I wanna drive it on TWO LEFT WHEELS!"

Do aliens have viruses with souls?

>>2021591
Every possible attempt at confirming the existence of souls has failed
every possible one

So, look back. Where does this theory of the soul come from? It was to explain how some life is more important than others, right?

Well, there is no basis to believe that "higher lifeforms" are more important than others. The theory of a soul is based on absurdity. It is not true nor is there reason to believe it to be true until it either predicts something that we do not currently know or is objectively proven by a measurable and repeatable experiment

>>2021686
>Every possible attempt at confirming the existence of souls has failed
Not sure what you're talking about. The only way I can imagine confirming the soul beyond simply observing your own consciousness is by out-of-body experience. It is of course possible for out-of-body experience to be illusory, but there have been numerous studies where actual non-local perception of confirmed events have happened.

>So, look back. Where does this theory of the soul come from? It was to explain how some life is more important than others, right?
No, not in the slightest. Like I've been saying, it is the rational product of the observation of our consciousness. Traditionally, all animal life is regarded as having souls appropriate to them.

>>2021686
the same could be said of time

>>2021589
>Precisely. Which is why subjective consciousness can't really be addressed by science or scientific theories.
You should stop there.

If you admit that it does not satisfy a scientific theory then you admit it is not a useful theory.

If something is not useful, then it is excessive.

Therefore, the theory of souls is excessive in our explanation of the world.

>>2021706
[citation needed]

Holy shit, is this even a question?
Viruses are like DNA toxins. It's just a protein shell and an RNA, there aren't any process going on in that shit.

>>2021706
No it couldn't.

>>2021709
Yes, subjective consciousness is outside the realm of science. That doesn't mean it's not useful to think about or talk about. That just reinforces the fallacious thinking that science is everything.

>>2021801
>science is everything.
>everything important
Would you buy my soul?

>>2021801
>the fallacious thinking that science is everything
whatthefuckamireading.js

>>2021812
See this thread. People with no philosophical education saying HURR DURR THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS SCIENCE IS THE TOTALITY OF THOUGHT.

>>2021816
I have a soul for sale, interested?

>>2021816
Science IS everything.

Define philosophy.

inb4 link.

I want YOUR understanding of philosophy.
With your own words.

OP here. Despite suffering from the same cancer that is messing up much of /sci/, the thread has been pretty enlightening. I learned that viruses are not alive like I thought but that the line between what is and isn't a life form isn't as clear and solid as the difference between some other things.

>>2021872
Philosophy literally means love of wisdom. It is the general pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. It is the supergroup of science, logic, math, metaphysics, epistemology, etc. Not sure why I'm responding, as someone who actually believes "science is everything" is fucking uneducated and intellectually incurious.

>>2021808
fucking lol'd