In the interest of moving away from the Scientific Proof of Godthread and into something more on the lines of reason and logic (as metaphysics is not a science per Kant) I would like to continue the debate of “Is acknowledgement of a spirit reasonable?” on it’s own.
This is not a rock solid evidence debate as I don’t believe rock solid evidence exists for either a soul or God nor do I believe it ever will. Despite the lace of evidence I still have faith and this faith comes as much from reason as the dogmatics and beliefs of the human made and human interpreted tenets of religion.
This is simply a debate to decide if it is reasonable or not to acknowledge the existance of a soul. So on to it…
My arguement for the existance of a soul, as laid out in the Scientific Proof thread (and posited and refined in that thread)is:
Suppose in the future we figure out a way to map out all of the properties of a human; every amino acid in place to define DNA, every atom and sub-atomic particle in place to define the molecular structure of each and every substance in the body and every reaction in place (mechanical, chemical and electrical) to define the behaviors of each and every component of a person. We’re actually not too far away from that now.
Now suppose that we can take all of this data and store it in a computer as information, a full map of an individual at one point in time defined and filed. Suppose we can transmit this information to another computer a distance away that send the information to some sort of advanced sub-atomic 3D extruder that can reassemble all of the information bit by bit into a perfect replication of an individual. All the atoms and particles are there, all the molecules are there, all the DNA is there and every reaction that was taking place at the moment of definition is reproduced and continues forward from that moment.
From there I present two scenarios.
First, imagine that the person being mapped out is atomically deconstructed as the data are collected. This data is transferred to the receiving station and the person is atomically reconstructed there. My question is - is that the same person? Did we just pass a person through a Star Trek style transporter and beam them at the speed of light to, say, the moon in about 7 seconds? What is the difference between the Nathan that steps onto the transporter pad, is mapped out, deconstructed and broadcast and the Nathan that steps off of the distant transporter fully reconstructed and functional?
Second, imagine the entire scenario above only this time the original subject is not deconstructed - just mapped out, broadcast and reconstructed. Is there a difference between the reconstructed Nathan in the first and second scenario? Is there a difference between the original Nathan and the reconstructed Nathan a distance away? Is there a paradox of co-existance or is it just a normal effect? Is there anything in the original Nathan that cannot be measured, analysed, mapped out and reproduced?
My position is, no matter if the first subject is destroyed or not, the two individuals are two seperate individuals who will interact with their environment individually based on the needs and properties of that environment. It seems to me to be unreasonable to claim that they are the same person if they can observe each other individually. Even if the first subject is destroyed, the conditions that created the second subject are exactly the same. It seems insane to hold the position that doing the exact same thing the exact same way with the exact same processes and materials will produce two different results so the second individual is exactly the same in both scenarios.
From a social point of view and a functional point of view the two subjects are interchangable; reconstructed Nathan on the moon will be, to all outside observers, exactly the same as deconstructed Nathan on the Earth, my wife won’t know the difference. But from an individual point of view, if two individuals can observe each other then they are either different individuals or there is a paradox of duality in play. Since we are whole individuals and not nutrinos or other particles that seem to exibit duality I find it entirely reasonable to posit the two individuals are, in fact, different individuals.
If they are different individuals but 100% identical in every physical manifestation there that difference must not be physical. Whatever exists in each of us that cannot be measured or analyzed, whatever exists beyond our physical and chemical selves, whatever makes us an individual despite of however many exact duplicates we replicate, that is our individual metaphysical properties. That is what I think a soul is and that is my arguement.
On a more personal note, about my individual beliefs - yes, I purport to be a Christian, but this is largely a choice of convenience by living in a western society. If we get right down to brass tacks I suppose I would more accurately be described as a Unitarian. All cultures made up mythologies and legends as a way to come to terms with the difference between what they could explain and what they could not explain. In this POV it is concevable that the Abrahamic concept of Jehovah, the Vedic concept of Brama, the pagan concept of Thor or Thoth-amon and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all different observations and attemts to come to terms with the physical and metaphysical worlds. I am a Christian because I respect and admire the teachings of Christ, not because I follow any church that has risen up in His name since His death.
The Jains have an interesting concept called Anekantavada and a parable about some blind men and an elephantthat I find compelling. I recommend an open minded reading of it.
With all that out of the way I present the debate and the question of is it within reason to acknowledge the existance of a soul. I’m looking for interesting input and points of view from all sides of what I have presented here.
So? Whadda’ ya think?