Metaphysics, philosophy, and religion

I ask my questions again:

So the question becomes, what physical conditions must be met before we could say someone is "resurrected", especially if they were creamated by fire?

Would it require reassembly of the atoms that existed prior to death? Those atoms change over time don't they? So which atoms are essential?

Is personna defined by function or by form? I understand that experiential memory is involved as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol...

An uninformed opinion at best.

Three errors:

Experimentation can, and indeed does get done, by exercising logic.

All Quantum Mechanical theories are "...structured, rational, logical.." constructs. Interestingly, all QM models owe their very existence to the kind of "mental masturbation" you deride.

'Value' is never "found", only given.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a fascinating question. To address RoyLennigan's complaint, think about all the cells that die in your body every day, think about how your personality changes when you get a paper cut (not much). Think about how one can kill brain cells drinking alcohol, and still be themselves after a recovery period.

I also assert that it wouldn't take the same atoms to reconstruct you, only similar atoms in similar states of spin and charge. Does the transporter in star trek beam those same atoms across space? ...Or does it just scan you and reconstruct from available materials? In this sense, the crew of the Enterprise dies and resurrects every time they transport.

This subject has been addressed in the books of Kurzweil, pertaining to robots. He suggests that scanning a brain and replicating it will become possible in the future. Brain scanning is already highly developed, we can assume it's resolution will only get better.

Personhood never happens. Although a replicated you could be identical to you, and could be treated the same by society, even attain legal rights, these things are artificial human concepts having no basis in reality. We have always been machines in an environment, machines who are themselves an environment. Being and environment are the same thing.

Isn't it interesting that atheistic science supports the idea that resurrection is not only possible in some mystical sense, but a likely outcome of technology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a good thing we test objective ideas against reality rather than philosophy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Regardless of which components may or may not be able to exist without the others, IF any component was able to exist in it's own, it still has relationships (i.e. meaning). I have a sneaky suspicion the philosophers in question are redefining meaning as "Relationships between variables that WE care about". Space, matter, and time are required for human existence therefore I can see the philosophers attributing value to the resulting meaning.

 

Do you consider something real ONLY if it can be tested?

A definition like that puts artificial limits on reality, as though man is fully capable NOW. This would imply that man has both the intelligence and the resource to perform the test, which he does not have currently, but the envelope gets larger over time.

Case at point: flat earth vs. round earth theory in the 1400s.

 

Process must be included in the definition as well, according to the ontology resources. There can never be two "yous" even with a perfect physical reconstruction. The old "you" must die before the new "you" can live. To think otherwise breaks the physical laws as we know them.

Soul completes the accounting work. Atheism and religion can agree on this point, yet disagree on whether the soul continues to exist after death. Even the definition of existence is debatable without a religious view.

Speaking of ontology, here are the thoughts from some of the philosophy heavyweights:

http://www.formalontology.it/section_4.htm

 

I would imagine it would be quite difficult for the average atheist and theist to agree on a definition of "soul" - I'm sure there are some that would agreee though, a pagan and a deist might.

Anyway, re: replicating a person. I tend to think of a person as not only the entity encapsulated within the atomic structure that could be reproduced, but also, in the mode of taoist ideology, as the entity AND the interaction of the entity with the world around it - the "story" so to speak.
And following crunchy cat on the idea of the two physical objects not being able to occupy the same space, it seems impossible for both entities to experience the same relationship to the world unless there are somehow two "mirror" worlds and two "mirror" people which are identical, because two individuals can't have the same experiences at the same time as individuals, even though they could as a group. In other words, if you have two instances of the same person and restrict their observations to the group, you could say they were the same - but allowing them seperate egos would by definition make them different people, because "you" can't be "I". Just a thought.

P.S. "value" is only found and never just given - if you fit into another philosophical bent (I don't, but I also don't think that that particular question has an answer that is sure).

 

I consider something real if reality agrees. The point I was making is that reality is the authority on what is real... not philosophy.

 

Perhaps there was never any individual 'you' in the first place. I think that 'you' are a complex assembly of materials and processes that changes the natural state of the local universe. That specific change is what we call 'you'. The experience we have is because it is almost a completely closed system (our mind). So if we were to break free of the limits of our mind, we would experience the universe through all of time in one eternal moment without duration.

 

cole grey,

This sidebar should perhaps properly be a different thread entirely, but...

It's interesting to not how on the matter of 'value', the two of us are diametrically opposed:

 

Your sputtering 'non-reply' only indicates your own ignorance of QM and your lack of understanding of the meaning of my response.
Educate yourself on the subject, and we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.

Bumpersticker horseshit masquerading as 'wisdom'.
Educate yourself, live some years, and 'wisdom' just might be yours too, to share..

 

lol

Oooh, resorting to ad hominem.... the last resort of the truly ignorant.

 

That's kind of like saying round is defined by roundness. So can something be real (based on reality) without being logical (based on philosophy)?

What is reality?

example: the square root of negative one is not a real number, but it works for describing sinusoidal phenomina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

So is it real or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

Electrical engineering depends on the square root of -1.

It is used to very precisely account for real phenomena though the number itself is imaginary. It completes the accounting for sinusoidal phenomena, in the same sense that "soul" completes the accounting for life.

 

Excellent point here Woody.
CC's 'definition' (sic) was equivocation, at best.

Again, excellent point.

While I disagree with you on the matter of the 'soul', your point concerning phenomenae not ordinarily considered to be 'real', and Imaginary numbers in particular, is of great significance.
If correlation with what is considered 'real' (seemingly to be limited to the material in CC"s opinion...) is to be the criterion of reality, then it would be the case that all is already understood; there could be no anomalies. Experience alone is sufficient to reveal to us that anomalies abound. This of course, was the ultimate failure of strict empiricism.
In any case, epistemologically speaking, it's clear that it is our behaviour that defines what 'real' is; reality is what we make it to be, limited of course, by the nature of our environment, and our conception of it.

 

Sorry, to be confusing - I was merely giving the opposite conclusion as a possibility. I'm not a staunch believer in some sort of platonic system that exists, I have no authority or insight into that right now.

I was just saying that whether "essences" exist to be uncovered or only human created systems which are "given" meaning isn't clear yet. Pointing that out by presenting the reverse of your statement.

You seem too smart to not understand that these things discussed here are in the realms of the humanities and not the sciences for a reason. We probably aren't as diametrically opposed as many people would be.

Yet when you say, "reality is what we make it to be", I have to disagree because a perception does not make an objective reality, only a personal one. Although, I admit the personal is often more important to situations, unless you are talking about someone thinking they can walk off a cliff and fly around - that situation is one proof that both "realities" cannot be called reality - what a confusing language we use.

 

Not at all my good man, you weren't confusing at all.
I just found it interesting that in the context, we both gave opposing views..
Indeed, the question of the nature of "value" in general, is a huge one, and certainly due its own thread.

I agree. I imagine, that after some discussion on this, we'd probably end up in agreement.

I completely agree. This is a major stumbling block to the supposition of an 'objective reality'; if indeed we can even support the idea of one.

Indeed. Which brings us to the question as to whether or not one can even discuss the idea of an 'objective reality' without having the discussion dissolve down to one of semantics.

 

Well, I support the idea that there is one describable and objective reality - but I don't think we are capable of describing it with the languages humans use now. I think we need a better phrase than "kind of" to describe the idea of "both yes and no", before we can even think about getting close. And "mu" doesn't seem to be able to be translated properly to be used as a descriptive/ word.