(August 30, 2010 at 3:36 pm)Existentialist Wrote: So, the self consists entirely of matter?

Unless the definition of 'self' is different than what I think it is, then no. The self consists of matter and energy.

(August 30, 2010 at 4:04 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(August 30, 2010 at 3:36 pm)Existentialist Wrote: So, the self consists entirely of matter?

Unless the definition of 'self' is different than what I think it is, then no. The self consists of matter and energy.

I see. But where the energy reaches a physical boundary, the self stops?

(August 30, 2010 at 4:30 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I see. But where the energy reaches a physical boundary, the self stops?

What?

(August 30, 2010 at 5:22 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: What?

I beg your pardon?

(August 30, 2010 at 6:16 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I beg your pardon?

Really? This is how we're doing this now? Perhaps I should have asked you to explain your last statement, but I would have guessed that saying "What?" would have been the same as "Stop, please explain the thing that seems to have nothing to do with the other inane Q&A that's been going on so that I might more definatively answer the question you have asked upon me." I suppose I was wrong in that regard.

Let's try this again:
The human body is made of matter and energy. Matter being the stuff that makes the body massive and energy makes things go. People are people. Two arms. Two legs. A torso. A head. All the little dangly and floppy bits connected to those parts. All the gooey and crunchy bits inside those bits. That is a person... (or since I was so very general, that description could also describe any number of animals with similar bits, but that's irrelevant.)

(August 13, 2010 at 2:58 am)solja247 Wrote: Whether you like it or not. There ARE things which are absolutely evil and things which are absolutely good.
I know most atheists atempt to discredit this idea (There is a huge problem if there is such thing).

So what is one example of something absolutely evil?
Killing a baby, an innocent baby for any reason is evil. (please dont derail this thread with attacking the Bible)

If you think killing a baby is ever justified, I think it is safe to say, that you are sick and perveted.

Some cultures did practice killing babies, however, we would call them 'immoral'.

Since we are the only creature on this planet, who has the ability to do evil and good and not just to respond to external stimuli. This notion of good and evil had to come from somewhere.
Evolutionarily speaking why should I care if a child was killed in Africa?
There is no natural explanation for the concept of good and evil. So where did it come from?
I personally think it came from a cosmological battle between good and evil, although I cant conclude and prove that it, it explains things much better than anything else.

I think all we need to do to be able to show that objective morality can exist without a god (or other unknown) to insert it is to find examples of other species that experience things like empathy and altruism. This would be a sort of morality hard-wired in by natural selection, as it's more advantageous for some animals to work together and operate inside a certain social and moral framework for the betterment of the whole. Scientists have even recorded moral actions between different species.

Here are two links to that end: Animals can tell right from wrong and The moral status of animals. This would, if true, jettison the notion that we are the only moral creatures on earth.

One could argue that certain actions are not in a person's best interests no matter what culture or time period in which they live, but these "certain actions" can change relative to the time and place. Of course, I don't know that I can think of a culture which would openly allow stealing belongs, for instance (Save some anarchic state with no established law and no government whatsoever. Even then, within certain groups, certain actions would get you in trouble, stealing among them). There were cultures shrouded in slavery, human sacrifice and the like, but stealing seems to be one case that brings is frowned upon no matter what time period we might consider. I digress. The point is that cultures in all times and places seem to recognize the need for certain rules and guidelines by which societies can function. The recognition of a need for social guidelines and examples elsewhere in the animal kingdom seem to be the keys if we are to argue for any kind of objective morality without an external force inserting it. Of course, either way, like all questions of this nature, inserting a god to explain something explains nothing at all.

(August 30, 2010 at 6:53 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Really? This is how we're doing this now? Perhaps I should have asked you to explain your last statement, but I would have guessed that saying "What?" would have been the same as "Stop, please explain the thing that seems to have nothing to do with the other inane Q&A that's been going on so that I might more definatively answer the question you have asked upon me." I suppose I was wrong in that regard.

Yes, I suppose you were wrong, in that regard.

Quote:Let's try this again:

No, let's not. The discussion has ceased to be enjoyable already.

A bunch of above posts have to do with where the self ends. I don't think the "self" is something that you can define that way, it's the consequence of a large scale system of complex interactions with thousands of still misunderstood variables. The human body isn't the self, if you removed the head from the body but maintained blood and oxygen and nutrient flow to the head it would survive, and the self would continue. So did the self just get much smaller? The boundary between the human body and the air, or one body and another boundary, isn't that well defined when you get to a quantum level. If you went to space you might argue the boundary is more defined, but when do you stop defining the heat energy you produce? And how do you differentiate between your body and the radiation passing through it, does it become a part of your body? "I think, therefore I am". Both of the two main contributors to this part of the thread need to stop bickering and focus on some actual questions.

Does the self have any boundaries at all? We are used to the idea that a person can lose so much of their identity that when they lose their job, their partner, their child, the blow can be so traumatic that they become intensely depressed. People often talk of losing a part of themselves. The rationalistic version of events is that the self forms relationships with loved ones and employers and the loss of the relationship can threaten the self-interest of the individual so much they feel intensely vulnerable, but the self remains intact, the losses are external to the self. A looser set of constructs, perhaps more romantic, might indeed acknowledge that a person who has lost a child has lost a part of themselves. ("Only if they were pregnant with it," says the rationalist). But the other extreme, one I favour, is that the self has no boundary at all - that everything we see and experience is part of ourselves. This is a completely subjective position, one that asserts that everything that happens to us is just a projection of our own personalities. If you're walking down the street and a dog jumps out at you from behind a bush and bites you on the leg, the event was a projection of your own being; if you visit an internet forum and an existentialist atheist and a rationalist atheist are bickering, that's just an expression of your own internal conflicts. I don't live my life like that, I think it would be difficult to do in the highly boundaried western hemisphere, but I sometimes think life would be a lot easier for me if I did.

(August 13, 2010 at 2:58 am)solja247 Wrote: Evolutionarily speaking why should I care if a child was killed in Africa?

Probably already been answered by now, but I believe that evolutionarily speaking the way we treat other humans and the way we feel at their deaths is hard wired into our brains from a time when the continued survival of a group had a better chance the more members it had. While not to entirely relevant today due to the sheer size and geographical separation of the human population there was a time when working together and protecting one another was a pretty selfish act to the extent that you were helping others in order that they would help you survive.