[ExI] The Soul
ben at zaiboc.net
Sun Apr 26 15:45:11 UTC 2020
On 25/04/2020 23:57, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 10:32 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>> wrote:
> I think you mean 'mind' when you say 'soul', but then you invite
> accusations of supernatural thinking by saying things like "your
> consciousness is eternal, uncreated, immortal, can reincarnate,
> resurrect, and is in a manner one with all other consciousnesses".
> It may sound supernatural, but those are just natural consequences of
> standard scientific theories.
You have a strange idea of 'standard', and quite possibly 'scientific', too.
No scientific theory I've heard of states that minds are eternal or
'uncreated' (what does that even mean?). Those are definitely religious
concepts that take no notice of the natural world. The other words we've
already dealt with, I think you're just using the wrong (or should i say
Ben: So what, exactly, is Consciousness?. But don't worry if
you can't answer that. Nobody else can either.
Jason: I provided a definition and example in my previous email.
An actual definition of consciousness? Strange that I don't remember
reading that. Could you repeat it please?
Jason: What about a mathematical Boltzmann brain? Is that not
independent of matter and energy?
No. (or Yes, in the same sense that Santa Claus is).
As far as I understand, mathematical platonism is an arguing point for
philosophers, of no real consequence to the real world. I don't know
what a mathematical Boltzmann brain could be, or if it makes any sense,
even in the context of mathematical platonism, but as far as I can tell,
the idea is about as relevant as demonology.
In the real world, information only exists as the arrangement of
matter/energy, not an independent thing. Saying "if mathematical
platonism is true..." is not an argument, unless you can send me the
abstract number 42, without involving any matter or energy.
Jason: If you don't attempt to or want to understand my points then
you're right, this is going to be frustrating and pointless for the both
I've been attempting to understand what you're saying, and so far I've
come to the conclusion that either you have no intention or desire to
distinguish between magic and reality, or you need to drastically revise
your vocabulary if you expect anyone to understand you.
If you'd (if it's possible to) drop the mystical terminology and stick
to words that belong to the realm of the real world, that might help a
lot. If that's not possible, I don't see how what you're saying is any
more relevant to the real world than a Harry Potter story.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat