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]>; <[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 person. > 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 soul > 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 of > >>>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 Thaetetus > >>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* state. > >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 are > >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: > >http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
