Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mike Mayday]

Seriously, why do people have so much trouble with this concept?

In my case:
I understand the concept pretty well. It appears the final verdict is this: since the soul is an intricate part of the body itself, there is no hope for a continued existence after death.

[Dakk]

Awwww thats a pity Mike, grayling's plot is really quite awesome, even though its rather confusing till arc 4 though.

The story starts in the middle and goes on that way till arc 4, when it rewinds a few thousand years in the past to explain alot of stuff, and then switching between past and present till the very last arc which takes place solely in the present. It can get confusing, but if you ever get past the first arcs, the story will latch on your neck and make you keep reading.

[Psyco Jelly]

About this whole idea of copies being separate from you:

You are not the same entity you were 5 seconds ago. You know different things, you feel slightly different, you have experienced more. You are a copy of your past self, altered slightly. 'Consciousness' in my opinion is not defined by what you are, but the many selves that are connected, how they are connected is still completely above me. What connects this instance of you the last one?

We know that it is a connection through time, but the strands are invisible. This 'copy' found now in heaven is another instance of you in the same way you are an instance of yourself in the past. The connection continues, and so do you.

This is how I believe a soul would work, if one does indeed have a soul. I really like to think we do. It doesn't matter what kind of afterlife exists, so long as there is one. Feel free to shoot holes in this, I'm pretty sure anyone can. You don't have to agree, I just ask you to take it into consideration. The actual truth is likely to share pieces of many of our own conceptions.

[eerr]

If we all run in gods brain, heaven doesn't seem that great anymore...

[Keiseth]

My only relief in the whole matter stems from the fact that, if there isn't an afterlife, none of us will ever care by the time we (don't) get there.

[chmod]

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

The idea of a soul has never made sense to me. I'm comfortable with all human behavior being a combination of highly tuned bio-machinery. Very fast I/O. Your sad when your dog dies. It's not your soul, your brain is just weighing out pros and cons of input and producing output to show your sadness, so it will be received as input to another human, so they can produce output of caring about it, so you can input their caring, and can output acceptance/gratitude, and have a strong social bond while still caring about this dead dog. As the cons start to fade, the memory of the dog will fade, because your brain optimizes out the pain when the pros are gone and only cons remain.

IO-IO-IO-IO ad infinitum

Our brains are remarkably fast at these transactions. Why do we need mysticism involved?

[Ampersand]

I think my first post in this thread contained a lot of the counter points that are being restated with a bit more brevity.

In essence, the problem with a simulation of a universe is that, in order to be a complete and accurate simulation, it must also contain a simulation of the simulator.

Another problem is this, which is a problem common to a great deal of arguments for the existence of a god:

If we are to think that the only way existence can occur is by being created, imagined, simulated, whatever, we've already made a contradiction, for in order for any of those things to be true, one must posit an uncreated, unimagined, unsimulated entity that is existent. This is why such arguments fail Occam's Razor, entities must be multiplied; If existence requires creation of some kind, the creator also requires a creator, which in turn requires a creator, and so on. If you then claim that there is existent an entity that does not require a creator of some kind, then again, the premises of the argument are violated, existence does not necessarily require a creator.


That being said, I would like to  offer the Principle of Computational Equivalence.

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/chapter-12

The basic idea is that any natural process that is not obviously simple, (Ex; constant, uninfluenced, unidirectional motion), can conduct computations that any computer is capable of doing. It is only a matter of measuring the inputs and outputs.

[dragnar]

In essence, the problem with a simulation of a universe is that, in order to be a complete and accurate simulation, it must also contain a simulation of the simulator.

Why? You are not necessarily simulating this universe. Placing a simulation of the simulator in a simulated universe(wow, that's quite a tongue-twister) would be like randomly putting a game console in a game. That would be less accurate if anything.

[Ampersand]

Refer back to the first post I made in this thread, which explains that reasoning a little better. In order to simulate something accurately, you must simulate everything within the universe's Causal Domain. The Simulator is within the simulated universes Causal Domain. Therefore, the Simulator must be a part of the simulation.

[dragnar]

There is a fundamental problem with simulation. Suppose you want to accurately simulate an asteroid orbiting the sun. Is it enough to just have the asteroid and the sun for it to orbit? Of course not; there are far more gravitational factors interacting with real asteroids around the sun. Planets, asteroids, other stars, so on. If you really wanted to carry out an accurate simulation of the Asteroid orbiting the sun, you would have to simulate everything within the Asteroids 'Causal Domain', that is every possible thing that can potentially cause an effect upon the Asteroid. Of course, this ends up being the entire universe.

Including the computer carrying out the simulation.

But the computer carrying out the simulation would not be a part of the simulated universe, and therefore would have no effect on anything in it. You could argue that the mere action of running the simulation affects the simulation, but that is essentially saying that the simulation affects itself: the affect of the computer on the simulation IS the simulation, and so the computer itself is not part of the simulated universe.

In the example of an asteroid orbiting the sun: What if hypothetically, you wanted to simulate a universe composed entirely of those two objects. There would be no place in the simulation for the computer running the simulation, because the Casual Domain of the asteroid is the asteroid and the sun: the entire universe from the asteroid's point of view.

The oddity of having to simulate the simulator only occurs if you are attempting to simulate the universe that the simulator is a part of, which would be completely redundant. (though it does produce some strange paradoxes: what if you ran the simulation to determine what you were about to do, then did the opposite? The simulation, including itself, would include your change of plans, which would change your plans, ad infinitum)

[Dakk]

Its what gods elementals do.

[Tack]

Seriously, why do people have so much trouble with this concept?

In my case:
I understand the concept pretty well. It appears the final verdict is this: since the soul is an intricate part of the body itself, there is no hope for a continued existence after death.

Which is the reason to put a faith in god, to hope that there's spiritually some way to go to the afterlife, as it cannot be done scientifically.

And : Random piece of evidence, the body loses 26 grams upon the moment of death. Nobody knows why.

[Neruz]

Seriously, why do people have so much trouble with this concept?

In my case:
I understand the concept pretty well. It appears the final verdict is this: since the soul is an intricate part of the body itself, there is no hope for a continued existence after death.

Which is the reason to put a faith in god, to hope that there's spiritually some way to go to the afterlife, as it cannot be done scientifically.

All this shows is that you do not know what 'scientifically' means.

And : Random piece of evidence, the body loses 26 grams upon the moment of death. Nobody knows why.

And ah yes, the good old Weight of the Soul claim.Doctor MacDougall correct? Well meaning, but entirely unscientific.


Also, tell me Tack, what, exactly, is the moment of death?

[Tack]

I'm guessing it's the moment that a human inexplicitly loses 26 grams.

[Earthquake Damage]

And : Random piece of evidence, the body loses 26 grams upon the moment of death. Nobody knows why.

I'm calling bullshit on this, period.