if the brain is the control system, are "you" your body or your brain? when you usually refer to yourself, you're probably referring to both, right?

the body can't function without a brain, when we're addressing ourselves are we only just addressing our own brain?
if one is ever to get a brain transplant, the body & its immune system will attack it due to tissue rejection. does that mean the body won't be his/hers?

after all, are we just our brains?

stop tealing my awedeed kai goipjd

You are your physical self: brain and body. But you are also your historical self.

Let's expand on both points. Your physical self includes things you can and cannot change. For example, you may be born incredibly smart, having an IQ of 160 and picking up any skill you can. But you can be physically weak, unable to lift anything heavier than 30 pounds. The opposite can also happen: you're dumb as fuck but can run really fast and are really strong. Of course, both these elements can be strengthened by you (up to a point), but these elements are distinctly you.

Your historical self is also you. You hear people referring to previous actions all the time, i.e. "Hey! Isn't that the kid who punched the teacher the first day of school?" Your past actions affect the present you in many ways, and they affect others' perseptions of you as well (which in the end is all that matters). For example, you would be a very different person if you decided to randomly punch the teacher in your first day of kindergarten.

I define myself not by the brain nor the conscience. The brain can be sliced and I still will be me. The conscience would be me, but it is non physical, so it cannot be what I really am in this physical world. I must define myself as the logic that goes on among the wired neurons that the brain is composed of. This logic, which is run by the uniquely wired medium it is contained in, run in the form of electrochemical signals which propagate all around this medium, run continuously non stop, is what defines me.

F L I N T S T O N E S

I define my self as a rock as i am always hard

in my me?

If you're asking where our sentience is stored, then I am a believer in a soul that is who we are, kind of like a ghost but not really. This kind of thought lets me sleep comfortably at night. In reality though, it's probably our brain that's aware of what we're doing, but I'm not really sure how sentience works and why we are aware of ourselves.

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Your historical self is also you. You hear people referring to previous actions all the time, i.e. "Hey! Isn't that the kid who punched the teacher the first day of school?" Your past actions affect the present you in many ways, and they affect others' perseptions of you as well (which in the end is all that matters). For example, you would be a very different person if you decided to randomly punch the teacher in your first day of kindergarten.

If you're asking what makes a person who they are, then it's definitely our history that makes us who we are. Everything that has happened to us has defined who we are as people from the very beginning, and this will continue to happen. You can't be Cookiezi unless you lived every day he lived exactly as he lived, which no one can do because it's just physically impossible.

But then this brings up the kind of common question that goes like: If a boat is on a journey and throughout this journey, the boat gets its parts replaced so that by the end of the journey, no part is the same as it was at the beginning of the journey, is it the same boat? I like to think it is the same boat, because of what I said above, but if it isn't the same boat, at what point did it stop being the same boat?

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

But then this brings up the kind of common question that goes like: If a boat is on a journey and throughout this journey, the boat gets its parts replaced so that by the end of the journey, no part is the same as it was at the beginning of the journey, is it the same boat? I like to think it is the same boat, because of what I said above, but if it isn't the same boat, at what point did it stop being the same boat?

Good question. When a boat crashes and loses a part, and that part gets replaced, the new part is now a piece of that same boat. Yes, the boat loses some of its original qualities and features, but that only means the boat has room to improve and grow, as those parts were faulty, and the new parts are (presumably) better. In short, yes, it is the same boat, because the new pieces become part of the whole boat, it's just not exactly how it started.

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Good question. When a boat crashes and loses a part, and that part gets replaced, the new part is now a piece of that same boat. Yes, the boat loses some of its original qualities and features, but that only means the boat has room to improve and grow, as those parts were faulty, and the new parts are (presumably) better. In short, yes, it is the same boat, because the new pieces become part of the whole boat, it's just not exactly how it started.

But then think of it the other way. If a boat crashes, how much of itself would it have to lose to not be considered the same boat when put back together with new pieces and why would that be the threshold?

Sorry if I'm derailing, which I think I might be doing since I originally interpreted OP's post differently.

We are clock.

Our physical and mental work together to make one.

That one is you.

🙎‍♂️🙍🙎🙍‍♂️🙇‍♀️🙆‍♂️🙆

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

But then think of it the other way. If a boat crashes, how much of itself would it have to lose to not be considered the same boat when put back together with new pieces and why would that be the threshold?

Also avoid question. The boat is still the same boat even if 100% of its parts are replaced. Why? Because that boat still have that history of its past, and it's never gonna lose that. Even if the boat is 100% remodeled it's still the same boat, it's just a better and newer version of itself.
The physical "you" is only to set a limit on what you can do, and what you can't. However, you can change the physical you by working out and increasing your strength, or studying a task to become more efficient at it. What you can't change is your past, and that's the most defining factor of who you are because of the fact that whatever you do is irriversable.

The threshold I would set, however, is if the boat were to be scrapped for parts, and with those parts one would build a brand new boat. That new boat, even if it uses recycled parts from the original boat, is not the same boat anymore. Why? Because the boat itself has no history, only its parts do. The boat needs to go off into the ocean and make some history for itself.
wow I'm really liking this analogy

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

Sorry if I'm derailing, which I think I might be doing since I originally interpreted OP's post differently.

No, you're OK, no need to worry.

The boat of Theseus is the example you're looking for

I'm potato

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Also a void question. The boat is still the same boat even if 100% of its parts are replaced. Why? Because that boat still have that history of its past, and it's never gonna lose that. Even if the boat is 100% remodeled it's still the same boat, it's just a better and newer version of itself.

Even if all the parts are replaced at the same time? I can see your point if each part is replaced one at a time over a period of time, since its as if the new parts are naturalized as a part of the boat, but if the entire boat and all its parts are switched out for new parts all at once, isn't that just like building a whole new boat rather than improving the old one?

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

The threshold I would set, however, is if the boat were to be scrapped for parts, and with those parts one would build a brand new boat. That new boat, even if it uses recycled parts from the original boat, is not the same boat anymore. Why? Because the boat itself has no history, only its parts do. The boat needs to go off into the ocean and make some history for itself.

With this, would you be suggesting something like a soul? Something within and part of the boat that says that the boat is special rather than being just another boat? Something that gives the boat some kind of life?

This also makes me wonder, what do you think of a new boat made from the recycled pieces of the old boat, but the new boat has only the old boat's parts and all of the old boat's parts. Would they be the same boat, or is the "soul" different?

me.

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

Even if all the parts are replaced at the same time? I can see your point if each part is replaced one at a time over a period of time, since its as if the new parts are naturalized as a part of the boat, but if the entire boat and all its parts are switched out for new parts all at once, isn't that just like building a whole new boat rather than improving the old one?

Umm (^_^)"
I really don't know. I mean, I want to say it's the same boat. But if all the parts are replaced at once, if there are no more pieces of the boat, is it still the same boat? As I've said before, the history of the boat is what majorly defines the boat: what it's been through. And this event will go down in part of its history. So I would say it would be the same boat. But something seems off with this.

What do you think?

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

With this, would you be suggesting something like a soul? Something within and part of the boat that says that the boat is special rather than being just another boat? Something that gives the boat some kind of life?

This also makes me wonder, what do you think of a new boat made from the recycled pieces of the old boat, but the new boat has only the old boat's parts and all of the old boat's parts. Would they be the same boat, or is the "soul" different?

You mentioning a soul is very interesting, and I would agree with what you said. I guess no matter how much a person changes, he's still himself. The person is still the same no matter how many times he changes. The physical you is temporary, the soul is permanent.

And to your second point, I would say its soul is different because it hasn't had the old boat's history. It can built on the parts of the old boat, and maybe it can build on the old boat's mistakes and lessons learned (why if crashed), but it will never be the same boat.

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Umm (^_^)"
I really don't know. I mean, I want to say it's the same boat. But if all the parts are replaced at once, if there are no more pieces of the boat, is it still the same boat? As I've said before, the history of the boat is what majorly defines the boat: what it's been through. And this event will go down in part of its history. So I would say it would be the same boat. But something seems off with this.

What do you think?

I like to think that as long as the boat hasn't "died", its soul remains in the boat. I like your idea of that the renovation is just another event in the boats life and, even if it has a day where all the parts are replaced, it remains the same boat because it's the same "soul".

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

You mentioning a soul is very interesting, and I would agree with what you said. I guess no matter how much a person changes, he's still himself. The person is still the same no matter how many times he changes. The physical you is temporary, the soul is permanent.

And to your second point, I would say its soul is different because it hasn't had the old boat's history. It can built on the parts of the old boat, and maybe it can build on the old boat's mistakes and lessons learned (why if crashed), but it will never be the same boat.

So I guess the context is the thing that matters most when considering these kinds of events. For example, if our goal was to make a new boat and we used all the old boat's original parts and only the old boat's original parts, it would not be the same boat. But if the boat were destroyed and we were somehow able to put back together the boat with all its original parts and only its original parts, it would be the same boat as before. This would be true even if the way the pieces of the boat were put together were exactly the same between the case of making a new boat and the case of fixing the old boat. Would you agree?

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

So I guess the context is the thing that matters most when considering these kinds of events. For example, if our goal was to make a new boat and we used all the old boat's original parts and only the old boat's original parts, it would not be the same boat. But if the boat were destroyed and we were somehow able to put back together the boat with all its original parts and only its original parts, it would be the same boat as before. This would be true even if the way the pieces of the boat were put together were exactly the same between the case of making a new boat and the case of fixing the old boat. Would you agree?

Wow, I never really thought of it like that. I guess you would be right, if the intention is to create a new boat, a new boat will be made; if the intention is to repair a boat or preserve a boat, the boat will be preserved.

Very nice insight on this!

This entire boat analogy reminds me of a famous quote called my grandfathers axe.

"My grandfather gave his axe to my father. My father replaced the handle and then ed it on to me. I replaced the head of the axe. Is it still my grandfathers axe?"

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

If you're asking where our sentience is stored, then I am a believer in a soul that is who we are, kind of like a ghost but not really.

I believe in magic too!

Especially when its generally ill-defined, there is no way to prove its existence, hell it's even impossible to postulate something that would resemble a testable hypothesis. That's how you know you're dealing with a useful construct: You can't predict anything with it, you basically know nothing about it, and to top it off you aren't even able to learn anything about it because its proposed nature prohibits that.

Saying that you believe in the soul is basically like saying: "Hey, I don't think the stuff we have here is enough, so I'm gonna invent some more invisible stuff that's somehow connected to the stuff we can see in a way that is a complete mystery. The new invisible stuff is also immortal because fuck it why not."

It is your axe, goddamnit.

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

Citremi wrote: 1n1v4v

If you're asking where our sentience is stored, then I am a believer in a soul that is who we are, kind of like a ghost but not really.

I believe in magic too!

Especially when its generally ill-defined, there is no way to prove its existence, hell it's even impossible to postulate something that would resemble a testable hypothesis. That's how you know you're dealing with a useful construct: You can't predict anything with it, you basically know nothing about it, and to top it off you aren't even able to learn anything about it because its proposed nature prohibits that.

Saying that you believe in the soul is basically like saying: "Hey, I don't think the stuff we have here is enough, so I'm gonna invent some more invisible stuff that's somehow connected to the stuff we can see in a way that is a complete mystery. The new invisible stuff is also immortal because fuck it why not."

This example of a "soul" is one I agree with:

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

...the boat itself has no history, only its parts do. The boat needs to go off into the ocean and make some history for itself.

The history of a person, its "soul", is what people know you for most of the time. The argument here is that even with a different body your past defines you more and this would be your "soul". I'm using the word "soul" in quotes because here it's not the orthodox definition of the world, and not the one you're thinking of.

Edgar_Figaro wrote: 4i6c4a

This entire boat analogy reminds me of a famous quote called my grandfathers axe.

"My grandfather gave his axe to my father. My father replaced the handle and then ed it on to me. I replaced the head of the axe. Is it still my grandfathers axe?"

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

It is your axe, goddamnit.

I lol'd at this, it's quite funny
until i realized this is the most reasonable answer

hmm
it's not the same axe anymore, izzit

The axe is 1/2 yours when you switch the axe head. Eventually it will become 100% yours, later on.

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

The axe is 1/2 yours when you switch the axe head. Eventually it will become 100% yours, later on.

The free market can solve this problem.

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

I believe in magic too!

Especially when its generally ill-defined, there is no way to prove its existence, hell it's even impossible to postulate something that would resemble a testable hypothesis. That's how you know you're dealing with a useful construct: You can't predict anything with it, you basically know nothing about it, and to top it off you aren't even able to learn anything about it because its proposed nature prohibits that.

Saying that you believe in the soul is basically like saying: "Hey, I don't think the stuff we have here is enough, so I'm gonna invent some more invisible stuff that's somehow connected to the stuff we can see in a way that is a complete mystery. The new invisible stuff is also immortal because fuck it why not."

This example of a "soul" is one I agree with:

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

...the boat itself has no history, only its parts do. The boat needs to go off into the ocean and make some history for itself.

The history of a person, its "soul", is what people know you for most of the time. The argument here is that even with a different body your past defines you more and this would be your "soul". I'm using the word "soul" in quotes because here it's not the orthodox definition of the world, and not the one you're thinking of.

So your soul is.. your memories, your knowledge, the personality you formed based on your experiences and so on?
We already have words and concepts to try and explain those, you don't need to invent a new one for it and call it "soul".

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

So your soul is.. your memories, your knowledge, the personality you formed based on your experiences and so on?
We already have words and concepts to try and explain those, you don't need to invent a new one for it and call it "soul".

What would you call those then? Which words and concepts would you use?

johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

So your soul is.. your memories, your knowledge, the personality you formed based on your experiences and so on?
We already have words and concepts to try and explain those, you don't need to invent a new one for it and call it "soul".

What would you call those then? Which words and concepts would you use?

the prefrontal cortex, the limbic systems and any other area of your brain that's relevant, in combination with a wide array of essential chemicals plus the physical processes that underpin your brains functionality.

I'm no neuroscientist, but you can be damn sure that there is no need to introduce a new concept if THAT is what you believe the soul to be.

I feel left out in a sense as if I am thinking so far ahead that people around me have confused faces.

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

the prefrontal cortex, the limbic systems and any other area of your brain that's relevant, in combination with a wide array of essential chemicals plus the physical processes that underpin your brains functionality.

I'm no neuroscientist, but you can be damn sure that there is no need to introduce a new concept if THAT is what you believe the soul to be.

More seriously, as nice as it is to be scientifically correct all the time, I believe in these things because they make me sleep better at night. Reality is cruel, after all. It's like my own little self-religion. I've thought about it a lot, too. But I get what you're saying, and I understand how reality works already.

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

Saying that you believe in the soul is basically like saying: "Hey, I don't think the stuff we have here is enough, so I'm gonna invent some more invisible stuff that's somehow connected to the stuff we can see in a way that is a complete mystery. The new invisible stuff is also immortal because fuck it why not."

I also don't recall saying that I was inventing it because it wasn't enough, nor do I recall saying that it was immortal. Maybe you're mocking me with that quote, but I'm trying to take all things into here.

Man thats the worst comic I've ever seen.


But fair enough, you can believe about the world what you want. If it helps you.