How about:  "self"? is it a good enoug "1st person" "soul"?
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

> Ok Stathis, thanks for the precision.
> Anyway you give me the temptation to identify the soul by the first
> We will be able to prove (with the comp hyp) that not only the soul exists
> but (I forget to say) also that from the *correct* soul point of view, the
> is NOT a machine.
> But perhaps the word "soul" is to charged with emotion, and perhaps
> we should stick on the expression "first person".
> 'course, it is just a matter of vocabulary. (But then humans are able
> to fight themselves during centuries for matter of vocabulary ... :(
> Bruno
> At 22:23 30/04/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >On 29 April 2004 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >>At 23:16 28/04/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There is a single idea underlying much of the confusion in discussions
> >>>of personal identity: the belief in a soul.
> >>
> >>Indeed.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I use this term for a quality or substance which resides in a person
> >>>throughout his life and is somehow responsible for his identity, and
> >>>which (here is the problem) is not captured by a complete description
> >>>the person's physical and psychological state. Often, it is a hidden
> >>>assumption.
> >>
> >>
> >>That's a nice definition of the soul, quite similar to the provable
> >>properties
> >>of the "first person", once we will define it precisely (in the
> >>way). And comp will
> >>entails, *as a theorem*, the existence of the soul, then!
> >
> >Actually, I didn't mean to use "soul" as a synonym for consciousness or
> >subjective experience, which is why I said it was something not captured
> >by a complete description of a person's physical *or psychological*
> >Subjective experience differs from other empirical data in that it can
> >only be fully understood in a first person context, but I do not see why
> >this should disqaulify it from being a fit subject for scientific study.
> >Cognitive psychologists write rigorous scientific papers of which they
> >very proud, and they seem to have replaced the behaviourists (who thought
> >consciousness was at best unimportant and at worst non-existent) in most
> >academic psychology departments.
> >
> >What I meant by "soul" was something beyond reason or empirical fact,
> >whether of the first or the third person variety; something magical or
> >supernatural, in other words.
> >
> >Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
> >

Reply via email to