mnkbdky

I am going to give you my argument which claims that anyone who does not believe in the soul--an immaterial substance that survives the death of the body--is (possibly) irrational. That is, if they do not believe that the soul exists, then they are as just as delusional as those who believe they are pink elephants. Let me begin with stating a couple of assumption which I believe will be acceptable:

Assumption 1 (A1): All rational people believe that they remain the same person from the time they start reading this sentence to the time they finish. That is, the "you" that started this e-mail is the same "you" that finished it. "You" do not become Sue, Greg, Kat or Chuck. "You" are the same person throughout. Though "you" have obtained new info and may be in an altered state of emotion when "you" finish than when "you" began, "you" are still the same person as when "you" started.

Assumption 2 (A2): If someone where to continue to believe something after it has been proven to be false, then that person is irrational. (e.g., I believe that if you have two things and some one gives you two more, you will then have five things. Someone then proves to me that 2+2=4. If I were to continue believing 2+2=5, then I am irrational.)

Now the argument:

1) Anything that is made out of parts and is merely the sum of its parts must retain its original parts in order to remain the same thing that it started as.

2) A person is something and is made of parts and is merely the sum of their parts (e.g., head, eyes, hands, legs, cells, etc.).

3) Therefore, a person must retain their original parts (e.g., hand, legs, cells, etc) in order to remain the same person.

4) However, the human body (i.e., a person's parts) constantly loses and replaces its parts from moment to moment, (e.g., hair, cells and skin--in fact, every seven years every cell is replaced)

5) Therefore, a person does not remain the same person from moment to moment. (i.e., a person is a different person from moment to moment).

6) It is irrational to believe that which is not true, once it has been shown to be true.

7) Therefore, if someone were to continue to believe that a person is the sum of their part and believe that they are the same person from moment to moment, then that one is irrational, because that has clearly been proven false. The only way to remain ration is to deny that you are the same person who started reading this. Beware of the consequences though.

Let me give an example. Let's say I buy a new home and one of the rooms has a wood floor. The wood, however, is a little beaten up; so, I decide to replace the wood. I buy the exact same type of wood as the original floor. I, then, take one old piece out and replace it with the new one. At this point, I stand up to see how the floor is going to look. Now, even with this one piece out, is it the same floor that we started with? No. Continuing on, I replace all the pieces. Is the new floor the same as the old? Definitel, not.

Now, I believe the above argument to be true. If a person is merely the sum of their parts then from moment to moment I am a different person. Actually, if I were to speak properly, there would be no "I”, because from the moment that a person says "I" that person would no longer exist. In fact, it takes more that a moment to say "I", so . . . well it gets a bit ridiculous, but in the time it takes to say "I" several persons would have come and gone out of existence.

However, most people believe that they are the same person from moment to moment (A1). Are we to conclude, then, that most people are delusional? Should we lock them all away in a mental institution? In fact, I am willing to bet that despite the argument above you still believe that you are the same person which began reading this. You are the same person that knows "your" "mom" as "your" "mom" . You are the same person who she birthed. Otherwise why would you continue to talk with me? Are you in the habit of corresponding with those whom you have never read? Are you in the habit of writing other peoples posts. That is, if you are not the same person that started reading this, or the same person who was suppose to receive it, then you are reading or writing someone else’s posts. Clearly this is absurd. It cannot be irrational to believe that I am the same person that started typing this. One cannot function that way. So, something must be wrong with the argument above. I believe it is premise number 2, specifically that a person is merely the sum of their parts.

The only thing that can reconcile this, though, is the positing of the soul--an immaterial substance that remains the same thing as it started out as, throughout time. In philosophical jargon we would say, something that remains numerically identical to itself throughout time or simply, enduring.

A new argument can be given:

1) If something is to remain the same thing from moment to moment then that thing must be a substance which remains numerically identical to itself throughout time

2) A person does remain the numerically identical to he(r)self from moment to moment

3) Therefore, a person is a substance that remains identical to itself throughout time (i.e., the soul).

You see, anyone who does not believe in the soul and believes that they remain the same person is irrational. The soul must exist.

Anywho, this is just a rough sketch of the argument. If you believe you are the same person that read this, then you must believe you have a soul--an immaterial substance that remains identical to itself throughout time. Furthermore, this soul cannot be identical with the body, since the body, as seen above, constantly changes. So, "you"are not identical with your body. You are identical with your soul, which only reside in your body. Once your body dies your soul will continue (presumably, that would take another argument). What is more, because the soul exists, anyone who says it doesn't is wrong

Cretinist

Let's start cutting pieces of your brain out and see if you remain the same person.

philechat

This argument is based on the fallacy of composition. Things made of the same atomic substance need not be the same material, while it is the structure of the material that defines the identity of a given thing. For example, both diamond and graphite are made of pure carbon atoms, but they have vastly different characteristics. It does not require the chemical composition to be different to form a given stable physical properties for which we can ascribe a specific identity to the material.

The specific structure of the materials is as important as their chemical compositions, therefore we can call a given similar structure "identical" even if the atoms making up the person differ from one moment to another.

mnkbdky

If I were merely material, Who would be this you, that you refer to, which should have pieces of brain cut out? If there is no soul, then the Buddhist concept of sunyata or emptiness is correct. There is no "I".

Nostalgic Pushhead

Eh I don't get your argument. Not everyone who doesn't believe in a soul believes as you say they do. I think that my cells can change and I'll stay the same person. Do the ones in the brain reproduce? They're the only ones that matter.

Cogito ergo sum.

mnkbdky

It does not matter if the cells in your brain reproduce. They certainly do die, which means your brain is not and will not ever be the same from moment to moment. And people may think identity does not require numerical identity, but lets just say Aristotle was wrong on that one.

philechat

Yes, for a normal adult not at an advanced age, new nerve cells replaced the old nerve cells when the old cells died. It is estimated that a complete makeover takes about 7 years.

But due to our genetic expressions, the general structure of our nerve cells will remain unchanged, and I think it is the structure that informs our conscious states.

And yes, I do not believe identity exists independent of our consciousness. We are only identical because we are perceived by others to have a stable identity, and our own structure of consciousness dictates us to interpret ourselves as having a stable identity.

yguy

So if everyone you know thinks you're crazy, then you are?

mnkbdky

Philechat Quote--We are only identical because we are perceived by others to have a stable identity, and our own structure of consciousness dictates us to interpret ourselves as having a stable identity.

This is intersting, because it only seems to suggest my argument is true. Identity is forced interpretation without the soul. But, when seen through the light of reason the materialist must admit that this interpretation of identity is empty. There is nothing substantive in it. I am fine with this as long as they say, there is no such thing as "I". Though, I can't imagine anyone actuallybelieving that (though I am aware many do say this, Theravada Buddhists for example).

philechat

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mnkbdky

Quote:

We are only identical because we are perceived by others to have a stable identity, and our own structure of consciousness dictates us to interpret ourselves as having a stable identity. This is intersting, because it only seems to suggest my argument is true. Identity is forced interpretation without the soul. But, when seen through the light of reason the materialist must admit that this interpretation of identity is empty. Their is nothing substantive in it. I am fine with this as long as they say, there is no such thing as me. Though, I can't imagine anyone actually believing that. Not to mention the effects this has on ethics.

Note I said our "structure of consciousness" dictates us to interpret ourselves as having a stable identity, which means we must appeal to interpretation of similar states as being identical. In the absolute sense it is true to say there is no such thing as me, but the structure of our brain (determined by our genetics, that is) will be similar even if the original atoms making up these structures have changed.

An "appeal to consciousness", strictly speaking.