31 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we downloaded our brains and all our thoughts and a duplicate of our curiosity, intelligence, knowledge and morality then a robot made to look like me would be pretty much indistinguishable from me. It would not be ME though. Like if I die, I would not all of a sudden go WHOH, that was strange, I thought I just died but here I am again.
That depends on your meaning of the word 'soul'.
[b]Nothing to hang an immortality tag to,
If we find a way to copy a brain into a computer, will that be a soul?
You live on in your children and works.
Do you? Your soul, or something else?[/b]
If I died and the robot was around, it would undergo no change, it would not feel the possible pain of my death and I would not jump into the mind of the robot.
As far as the outer world goes, to them, NOW I am immortal, or as close to it as a robot can get.
31 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseWell just as there is no soul, there is also no YOU. YOU is not a physical thing, but rather an ethereal concept. Whether the robot would be YOU or not is really a matter of perspective and very much a judgement call.
If we downloaded our brains and all our thoughts and a duplicate of our curiosity, intelligence, knowledge and morality then a robot made to look like me would be pretty much indistinguishable from me. It would not be ME though.
The atoms that constitute what you think of as you, are not the same atoms as yesterday.
Originally posted by apathistI surrender naturalism? More like you surrender reading comprehension.
lol That you surrender naturalism so easily.
You have an annoying habit of reading far more into a post than is there, misreading what is there, and rather than asking for clarification, making false conclusions about what someone else has said.
31 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis conversation makes me think of this movie scene:
I surrender naturalism? More like you surrender reading comprehension.
You have an annoying habit of reading far more into a post than is there, misreading what is there, and rather than asking for clarification, making false conclusions about what someone else has said.
Kid: Why do you need a car?
Willie/Mall Santa: What the f*** are you talking about?
Kid: This car.
Willie: Which turn is it?
Kid: Sage Terrace. Where's your sleigh?
Willie: It's in the shop, getting repaired.
Kid: Where are the reindeer?
Willie: I stabled them. Is it left or right?
Kid: That way. Where's the stable?
Willie: Next to the shop.
Kid: How do they sleep?
Willie: Who? The reindeer? Standing up.
Kid: But the noise. How do they sleep?
Willie: What noise?
Kid: From the shop.
Willie: They only work during the day, all right?
Kid: I thought it was always night at the North Pole.
Willie: Well, not now. Right now it's always day.
Kid: Then how do they sleep?
Willie: Oh, sh**. Sage Terrace. What is it with you, anyway? Somebody drop you on your f***ing head?
Kid: On *my* head?
Willie: Well, yeah. What, are they gonna drop you on somebody else's head?
Kid: How can they drop me onto my own head?
Willie: No, not *onto* your... Would... God damn it! Are you f***ing with me?
Can anyone name the movie?
01 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassBad Santa?
This conversation makes me think of this movie scene:
Kid: Why do you need a car?
Willie/Mall Santa: What the f*** are you talking about?
Kid: This car.
Willie: Which turn is it?
Kid: Sage Terrace. Where's your sleigh?
Willie: It's in the shop, getting repaired.
Kid: Where are the reindeer?
Willie: I stabled them. Is it left or right?
Ki ...[text shortened]... not *onto* your... Would... God damn it! Are you f***ing with me?
Can anyone name the movie?
Originally posted by apathistYou defined supernatural as:
It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously. Actually, I think that ship has sailed.
supernatural: any natural event undetectable to current science.
Now 'science' isn't an instrument and doesn't 'detect' anything. So maybe you meant technology based on science?
So lets say we are trying to find out more about the big bang. One doesn't need 'new science', one just needs bigger, better telescopes, gravitational wave detectors etc based on current science. But with the Alpha Centauri example you said no, bigger better doesn't count if the science doesn't change.
Overall, your definition doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
As for taking me seriously, I don't think you ever have. You show very little sign of actually wanting to understand my posts.
01 Jun 17
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf THAT really is how he would define 'supernatural' then that is obviously an invalid definition because the vast majority of us (if not all of us) don't mean that at all by the word. Many events occurring deep in the Earth's crust, such as new tiny cracks coming into existence etc, are currently undetectable by science. It would be completely idiotic to say those currently undetectable events, such as new tiny cracks occurring, must be by definition 'supernatural' as that would be wildly by far not what we mean by the word 'supernatural'.
You defined supernatural as:
supernatural: any natural event undetectable to current science.
apathist
How would you define the word 'supernatural' ?
01 Jun 17
Wow, this topic really took off since I was in here last. I really didn't expect it to do that. I did expect the crowd here to blow it off as "unscientific", as in "It's not in MY experience, therefore it doesn't exist", but I didn't expect it to devolve into "Yes, it does", "No, it doesn't".
(I know there's a joke in there somewhere about nerds finding religion, but it's early, so it is escaping me...)