Do you believe humans have souls?

[Kaylia]

Solipsism is just dumb wrapped up in another layer of dumb.

I agree that it's hard to take seriously anyone who strongly believe that, but from an empiricist standpoint, it does have some weight. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is self-aware or not, the only contact I have with this universe come from the photons/energy that enter my body (and brain). In that sense, it's just me vs the world.


And since I'm way too drunk to write the rest, I will just copy paste wiki

Methodological solipsism may be a sort of weak agnostic (meaning "missing knowledge") solipsism. It is a consequence of strict epistemological requirements for "Knowledge" (e.g. the requirement that knowledge must be certain). They still entertain the points that any induction is fallible and that we may be brains in vats.

Importantly, they do not intend to conclude that the stronger forms of solipsism are actually true. Methodological solipsists simply emphasize that justifications of an external world must be founded on indisputable facts about their own consciousness. The Methodological solipsist believes that subjective impressions (Empiricism) or innate knowledge (Rationalism) are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction (Wood, 295). Often methodological solipsism is not held as a belief system, but rather used as a thought experiment to assist skepticism (e.g. Descartes' cartesian skepticism).

The bold part show two very important elements in any metaphysics arguments that lead to the scientific method. I think it would be weird to reject that

If we are talking about strong solipsism (ie: matrix, only one person in the world..etc) , then yeah, it's just another crazy religious beliefs.


[edit]
I doubt I will get the point across (i will try to word it better tomorrow), but I don't think it's as bad as you made it sound when it's limited to methodological solipsism

[Shuvo]

I was reasonably clear in my post. No, I don't believe in this idea of 'one person one universe'. The universe will certainly go on before/after me. It's just difficult to understand how when I'm not around to perceive it, if that makes sense. If that still makes me sound like some kind of religious nutjob - I have no understanding or idea of how gravity works, it doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

And FYI it was 1984, not the Matrix.

[hey]

It's just difficult to understand how when I'm not around to perceive it, if that makes sense. If that still makes me sound like some kind of religious nutjob

It just makes you sound like a retard, to me.

You'd have been better off having people think you were just crazy, tbh. It's really an incredibly simple concept. Do you also have a hard time understanding how things happen when you're not around to see it happen? Like for example, if i told you i just picked my nose, would you have a hard time understanding that such a thing could have happened, since you didn't actually see it?

[Shuvo]

It just makes you sound like a retard, to me.

You'd have been better off having people think you were just crazy, tbh. It's really an incredibly simple concept. Do you also have a hard time understanding how things happen when you're not around to see it happen? Like for example, if i told you i just picked my nose, would you have a hard time understanding that such a thing could have happened, since you didn't actually see it?

Yes.

[Kuya]

Someone should post that animation where the guy doesn't understand that his brain and him are the same thing.

[Demosthenes11]

Yes.

someone get a helmet on this guy...

[Zetanio]

Yes.

Just... just... no.

[Yugl]

Shuvo, do you think it is impossible for it to be the case that stuff happens without you perceiving them OR do you think it is plausible that nothing happens in the world without you perceiving them.

[Brutala]

The bold part show two very important elements in any metaphysics arguments that lead to the scientific method. I think it would be weird to reject that

What book is that "Wood 295" from? It's unfair to just add "(empiricism)" to "subjective impressions" without specifying a movement and philosopher. Subjective impressions need a filter of rationality and an acceptance of other minds actually existing and functioning analogously to yours to get anywhere near the scientific method. That's why reproducibility of results, and predictive as well as explanatory power of theory are so important to science; to remove disagreements over differences in the "subjective" from different observer's impressions. It's to make statements about the world, not about how each person sees it.

This is off topic, anyway. All the different methodological solipsisms aren't some major movements or positions in the sense you could call reductionisms or dualisms movements or positions. They are just select philosophers' tools and minor answers on the side, to specific arguments or complaints, like Fodor's to the twin Earth problem is all about semantics of things we call mental states. You'll never see serious discussions or papers about whether one of the methodological solipsisms is a legit world view.

Actual solipsism as the problem of other minds is philosophically dead.

The brain in a vat type of skepticism is not even related to solipsism. It's merely a "problem of everything except my own consciousness" in a similar sense that solipsism is the "problem of other minds". People who are somehow entertained by the BIV idea should instead just go read through a bunch of idealists starting with German Idealism (except Kant because he actually gives science and logic some credit) to see which major MND-only bullshit they prefer and leave the rest of us alone forever.

More on topic, how come people who claim to know that souls exist and that their destiny depends on specific rules don't act in a way that could even slightly demonstrate how firm this knowledge is? Why cry at a funeral if you know that soul will go through a fair justice system? I'd be wearing a party hat and blowing a whistle. Why educate yourself and work and buy stuff? Why not give your stuff away and starve with some lepers to increase your chances? People with faith are extremely rare. If I honestly believed bad karma allowed human > animal reincarnation I'd be a murderer and rapist so I could have a shot at being a tiger. Also as a bat, for Nagel's sake.

edit: nvm, you said book is from wiki

[Correction]

Someone should post that animation where the guy doesn't understand that his brain and him are the same thing.

Good shit.

[Bregor]

Karl Pilkington for President.

[Blarg]

If humans don't have souls then how do you explain my jar full of souls I paid good money for buying them from people.

[Kaylia]

What book is that "Wood 295" from? It's unfair to just add "(empiricism)" to "subjective impressions" without specifying a movement and philosopher. Subjective impressions need a filter of rationality and an acceptance of other minds actually existing and functioning analogously to yours to get anywhere near the scientific method. That's why reproducibility of results, and predictive as well as explanatory power of theory are so important to science; to remove disagreements over differences in the "subjective" from different observer's impressions. It's to make statements about the world, not about how each person sees it.

This is off topic, anyway. All the different methodological solipsisms aren't some major movements or positions in the sense you could call reductionisms or dualisms movements or positions. They are just select philosophers' tools and minor answers on the side, to specific arguments or complaints, like Fodor's to the twin Earth problem is all about semantics of things we call mental states. You'll never see serious discussions or papers about whether one of the methodological solipsisms is a legit world view.

Actual solipsism as the problem of other minds is philosophically dead.

The brain in a vat type of skepticism is not even related to solipsism. It's merely a "problem of everything except my own consciousness" in a similar sense that solipsism is the "problem of other minds". People who are somehow entertained by the BIV idea should instead just go read through a bunch of idealists starting with German Idealism (except Kant because he actually gives science and logic some credit) to see which major MND-only bullshit they prefer and leave the rest of us alone forever.

It's kind of pointless to argue about currents, what matter is the argument, not the label.

In your post, you said that solipsism was "dumb wrapped up in another layer of dumb", which confuse me since I don't see any fundamental issue with the premise. It's a very limited form of knowledge for sure, and not much can be said if one decide to stop there, but it's not wrong either.

The knowledge of "I" and the knowledge of other are never going to be on the same level if you look at one experience. The stretch between both isn't huge, but it can't be ignored either.

Subjective impressions need a filter of rationality and an acceptance of other minds actually existing and functioning analogously to yours to get anywhere near the scientific method.

I'm not sure I can agree with the 2nd part of that statement. You don't need "other" to have a functioning scientific method.

[Kaylia]

It just makes you sound like a retard, to me.

You'd have been better off having people think you were just crazy, tbh. It's really an incredibly simple concept. Do you also have a hard time understanding how things happen when you're not around to see it happen? Like for example, if i told you i just picked my nose, would you have a hard time understanding that such a thing could have happened, since you didn't actually see it?

It's easy to call others retard, but let's be honest, whenever you need to postulate something (introduce a new concept) to understand whatever, it should be a "mind fuck". In this case, the stretch might not be huge, but you have to be aware of it regardless.

I have more issue with people who say everything "is simple", because you know they haven't put much thought in it. It's only simple because there is fallacies and inconsistencies everywhere in their reasoning.

[hey]

It's pretty simple to understand that things can happen when i'm not around to see it happen.

Hell, i can even do a very easy experiment to prove it, which will take about 5 minutes. I can go to the bathroom, take the toilet paper off the roll, put it in the toilet and leave. Then after waiting some time, i can come back. If the toilet paper is no longer in the toilet, i can safely conclude, that it's possible for things to happen when i'm not there to see it happen.

Of course this would not be a safe experiment for Shuvo, because who knows what could happen. He might be so shocked that the toilet paper just magically disappeared, that he might start questioning every thing he sees, not sure if it's real, and end up actually going crazy as a result.

[Kaylia]

It's pretty simple to understand that things can happen when i'm not around to see it happen.

Hell, i can even do a very easy experiment to prove it, which will take about 5 minutes. I can go to the bathroom, take the toilet paper off the roll, put it in the toilet and leave. Then after waiting some time, i can come back. If the toilet paper is no longer in the toilet, i can safely conclude, that it's possible for things to happen when i'm not there to see it happen.

Of course this would not be a safe experiment for Shuvo, because who knows what could happen. He might be so shocked that the toilet paper just magically disappeared, that he might start questioning every thing he sees, not sure if it's real, and end up actually going crazy as a result.

You're approaching the topic from an incredibly shallow point of view, which is unlikely to be what Shuvo was talking about.


Instead of doing this, try to build a mathematically consistent model that is based on a limited number of axioms and encompass all your knowledge. You will see it's not that simple and lead to many "mindfuck", starting with the definition of "definition".

[edit]
That the world exist isn't hard to accept. Trying to reason that the world exist is a whole new topic however.

[Jer]

The Real Bible says nothing about a soul, so it must not exist.

[Ashmada]

That the world exist isn't hard to accept. Trying to reason that the world exist is a whole new topic however.

Why construct a mathematical model, just use reductio ad absurdum: if the world doesn't exist, you can't ask yourself the question. You did, ergo the world exists.


While I'm at it, don't put my words in other people's mouths. It's not very hygenic.

[Kaylia]

Why construct a mathematical model, just use reductio ad absurdum: if the world doesn't exist, you can't ask yourself the question. You did, ergo the world exists.

Why? Because making philosophical arguments in vacuum is pointless. It has to be consistent with every other definitions or you just end up with circular logic. Not that every branches of philosophy care about logic...but still.


"If I can ask myself a question, the world exist". That's what you wrote once you take cares of both unneeded negative.

Under that premise, you're simply defining the "existence of the world" as a direct implication of your consciousness... That's fine, but we are back to solipsism discussed on last page if that's all there is to it.


What Shuvo meant I believe is that it's hard (confusing) to "prove" that the world exist, and he is right. The existence of the world isn't something that can be proven, it's has to be one of your axioms, and thinking about axioms in general is always a mindfuck.

[Jube]

Do I believe in the soul by definition from the religious aspect of society. No
Do I want a soul so when I pass on i can float around the universe and peep into girls' locker rooms. Yes

But as I said before I do not believe that there is a substance or alternate form of conscience. That some how transcends us after the "physical" us leaves or how ever you look at it. But I must acknowledge that even I and truthfully I can say, everyone else, can know what happens afterwards. I am not trying to persuade anyone from one way of looking to the other, but I said yes on the poll. Just because it was not worded well in my opinion. Maybe should have had a ( no, but i want one ) choice to check. I am agnostic when I learn something new in any form of knowledge if its the first time seeing the information, but then I turn atheist afterwards when I have learned the counter arguments, impacts and other theories related to anything I learn. Religion in my eye (I'm blind in one eye) is something that is needed for a lot of people. Meaning that some need the group of people who share the same belief to feel empowered to do good. Or to use religion to get help with life's cluster fuck way of presenting itself to each of us. And as some one said that, the soul is a way for these people to also fill the need of their ego by placing value on their life. To me that is kinda sick and vain, but to each their own.

To me I don't need any belief system for me to see what I can do to help others or to make my life have meaning. I do what I feel is morally correct for myself and to others. I studied most of the current religions and some that have died out and took the good things that were said in them to build what felt right to me as a way to live by. To say I am spiritual is not anymore true than saying because I have read a sci-fi novel that I am a space man. And the need to put value on something that no one knows about, has seen, or can prove one way or another; to pump up my ego so I fell good. I will never ascribe to that, regardless of what things people say to me as a way to persuade me to join their primal horde mentality formed group. I believe that some shove away what the group doesn't like to protect the community from infections of the outsiders. And what binds them into the belief of a spirit was a group acceptance from a time far back. Where religion was the primary form of education and those groups needed to find a way to have an object of affection to replace the mutual shared belief that god and Jesus loved them all. Because back then new denotations were coming into existence and claimed to have the same love from the same object (God/Jesus/FSM) and the way to separate but be civil was to create a new object ie; soul. Which could be subject to judgement based on who's religion was judging a person during exchanges of thought. Kinda like fantasizing how she looks naked is subject to your own tastes. But this judgement was to solidify the ego and to back it up, that their way of beliefs were the right ones. Thus putting more value on their soul and less on others.

But like today, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Some people still feel that the price of the soul can go negative somehow, by doing bad in others eyes and go positive by doing what the primal horde group accepts is correct. Thus rewards and punishments on the object of affection are still given to the soul which scares me. And once again my ADD and dyslexia have made me have mental diarrhea. So sorry for the grammar crap, spell check does not have that feature on forums yet. Also I hope I have conveyed my belief on souls (lack of) and the not apparent to some, you do not need one to be a human being and do good things. But it would be nice. Seriously tho, there are more people who have died in our past than are living now. If some souls get lost somehow there should be ghosts everywhere. Maybe the paranormal is just bleed overs from different universes, or just a brain fart. Remember punch a penguin when the candy man brings you a kitten. I just got a kitten today and her name is Paisly

http://tinyurl.com/87tk75x

Does she have a soul too, to the believers of individual religions. Or are you saying yes just so you dont feel bad about not understanding that life can only exist because something died to feed it.