Everybody can only focally be conscious of one thing at a time. — bahman

Then the decision and all the options form a coherent whole, which is one thing, of which the decision-maker is conscious.

With books, the thoughts of the author are a means to generating the text. In philosophy, the text is a means to understanding the thoughts of the author. Frankly, it's only the ideas of the author that matter, not anyone's interpretation.

Totally agree, the poor people had access to higher quality automobiles back two thousand years ago when we didn't have Ferraris and Porsches yet.

The rich do get richer but the cake also gets bigger over time.

Yeah, that was my point. Then an irreducible thing can be created by changing the properties of another irreducible thing.

You cannot change the property of a irreducible thing without changing it. — bahman

What?

This is off topic so please lets put it aside. — bahman

It's not. It's an example how a thing is created without reducing it to anything or building it from anything but by changing its properties.

(1) What is the "soul"? — Mitchell

That seems, so far, irrelevant to the arguments proposed in the OP.

(2) why even believe that there is such a thing? — Mitchell

Also, irrelevant, as the question can be considered to be a hypothetical one, and there are other discussions for that topic itself; this discussion exists within the premises within which it can be considered to be a sensical one in the first place.

Souls are same. Why? Because if you dig enough inside you find that there is only a person inside you and difference between you and other people are result of genetics, body and environment. — bahman

Particles that you talk about are reducible to string. — bahman

Both are debatable. What if souls are different from each other and reducible, and on top of genes and environment are another factor in who a person is? And string theory hasn't been universally accepted yet.

A chain of causality cannot start from nothing. — bahman

Again, debatable, but even if we accept that we could say that soul is just another string with another vibrations.

Sorry for not being clear enough. The soul cannot be created if you agree with OP. I already argued that soul cannot be destroyed if it cannot be created. — bahman

I wasn't talking of the destruction, I meant the creation (or becoming to existence to be more accurate) accidentally.

What you are supposed to design? The thing in your disposal is irreducible. — bahman

Well if we take irreducible particles for example, they do have different properties (and they can be transformed to other particles but that's beside the point). Those properties can be designed even if what it consists of can't.

I already argue about the fact that soul cannot be created or destroyed whether accidentally or intentionally. — bahman

Can't find that. From 2) and 3): souls cannot be created (intentional act).

2) Why can't irreducible be designed?

So creation is action, and it's always intentional and planned. Therefor souls can just come to existence (event) but not be intentionally created by conscious agent (act)?

No, reducible thing can be built. — bahman

What's the difference? Has the universe always existed because it has irreducible parts so it can't have been created?

You need knowledge to perform any act. — bahman

No you don't. Tripping over accidentally doesn't, yet it creates a mark on the ground.

This is very definition of design. — bahman

It's not the definition of creation.

No. We never "perceive amounts", since we need to already have the concept of amounts before. — darthbarracuda

Why? One could very well perceive two apples and three apples, notice a difference between them and acquire the understanding of the concept of amount a posteriori.

Because that is the very person. But suppose that soul is reducible. This means that it has parts which parts are irreducible. So we are back to home, each part cannot be created. — bahman

So nothing can be created because they contain irreducible parts?

You just need to reverse time to see this. — bahman

I'd like to see you reverse time.

And now that you mention it, destroying something irreducible and reversing that would be creation from nothing. I disagree with 3), things can be created without design.

By making it not exist. It's not reduced to anything if nothing is left.

1) Soul is irreducible — bahman

This is based on what?

Scientific testing involves the use of mathematics — darthbarracuda

All scientific testing involves the use of information discovered by other scientific research.

that have already been discovered by synthetic a priori analysis. — darthbarracuda

It's theoretically possible to figure out numbers and mathematics a priori. It's possible for one's imagination to create any concept a priori. That doesn't make it a priori knowledge. Mathematics and numbers are discovered by perceiving amounts in the physical world. They're a posteriori.

So you ask what's the difference is between mathematics and morals. The answer is that mathematics can be discovered and proven by scientific testing in practice while morals can only be figured out by subjective a priori intuition.

From what?

I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda

Take 5 apples in a bowl, take 5 more, count the apples. You have 10 apples. You make the conclusion that 5+5=10.

Kill the person: a person is dead. Check if they're dead. The only conclusion you can make is that killing makes things dead.

How cryptic... — darthbarracuda

So you mean our sense data in itself is just photons, and doesn't contain the amount? Well it doesn't contain the concept of apples either, but you wouldn't call the concept of apple a priori. Although encrypted, the visual data you get does contain the information of the amount of objects you see.

We don't "see" numbers. — darthbarracuda

Of course we do. Well, technically we see amounts, and derive the concept of numbers from those.

Could the elephant succeed in the self-recognition test, if it had no self-consciousness? — Bitter Crank

Considering the philosophical zombies, why not?

"Tyranny is always better organized than freedom." — Bitter Crank

The socialist countries have higher taxes.

Maybe other animals have some limited self-consciousness, but "it is thought by some people" that they don't have a lot, if they have any. Personally, I think some animals have at least a glimmer of self-consciousness. For instance, some animals (like elephants) pass the "self - mirror test". (An elephant is familiarized with its image in a mirror; later, a mark is applied to its forehead. Will the elephant notice the mark when it next looks into the mirror? Yes. Most animals don't.) — Bitter Crank

The mirror test tests self-recognition, not consciousness, and even that based solely on the visuality. A robot has been built that passed it, even.

That data contains the amount.

Or you can perceive those amounts in the world and name them, which makes them a posteriori.

Is there not a difference between

• Paul is God's tool

And

• Paul's agency is God's tool

?

I'm pretty sure it's a fallacy of some sort to answer to a discussion with the premise that God exists with the claim that he doesn't, the claim that is as unproved as the opposite.

Not really what I meant. Other than that in your opinion the God doesn't exist, how can you know Sir2u isn't omnipotent and omniscient?

You are contradicting yourself, tool are equipment. — Sir2u

Yes but one isn't one's agency.

How do you know?

How do we "see" they are equal to 5, if not through an intuitive, a priori understanding of certain mathematical concepts? — darthbarracuda

I don't just "see" 2+3=5 — darthbarracuda

Take two objects. Take three objects. See that there are five objects. That's a posteriori knowledge.

Example: a person claims it is true that God exists, and I claim it is not true. I am not claiming that God doesn't exist, only that it is not proven true that God exists, which is correct. — JustSomeGuy

That's not what not being true means. True things are true, even when not proven to be.

Let's sum up the problems in your reasoning:

• You didn't give a definition for God.
• God doesn't necessarily create the greatest reality he could.
• Even if he does, it's not necessarily the greatest reality for you.
• Your jumps between imaginable, existing and possible realities don't add up.
• The greater being isn't necessarily the one that can create the greatest reality.
• If you can imagine a greater reality than the existing one, you can't be the God. Greater reality is the one where you're a greater being. You can't create a greater reality. Therefor you're not God.

Actually, I'm strongly seeing the utilitarianism in your views, but I think you're mistaken in the nature of that theory. Utilitarianism is a theory that one only believes in as the theory explaining their personal views on ethics - not as a way of explaining the way people in general see the morals.

But if anyone can intrinsically value any act then there doesn't seem to be good reason to tell someone that they shouldn't do something. — SonJnana

Ah, you come from the utilitarianist point of view - if you can't convince them, why tell them what you think, right? But of course if you value something, you want the others to value the same thing, which is why you'd tell them to act the way you think is right.

I lack the belief because I haven't been presented with an argument that convinces me morality is objective. So do you have one? — SonJnana

Argh, sniped.

Well, there can be other reasons, which would be rather intriguing, but the claim not being proven is the likeliest, isn't it?