FA+
Shop
25102
Views
Views
1513
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 540 x 850
File Size 640.1 kB
Report this content
More from Strype
"Is this really me? Or am I just a machine that thinks it's someone it's not, fooling itself into thinking it's more than a collection of metal and plastic? Can a machine have a soul at all? Can souls be copied or split? What am I?"
The first of my latest series of cyborg busts. I wanted this set to not just be cool pictures of androids and cyborgs and machinery and all that, but also an exploration into the character's relationship with their partly or fully synthetic nature. Chazore, inspired by Ghost in the Shell, wanted something that looks into the philosophical implications of a sentient machine. Cogito Ergo...
Chazore ©
chazore
Art © Just another machine, ME!
The first of my latest series of cyborg busts. I wanted this set to not just be cool pictures of androids and cyborgs and machinery and all that, but also an exploration into the character's relationship with their partly or fully synthetic nature. Chazore, inspired by Ghost in the Shell, wanted something that looks into the philosophical implications of a sentient machine. Cogito Ergo...
Chazore ©
chazoreArt © Just another machine, ME!
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 540 x 850px
File Size 640.1 kB
Eh, but to some extent, the consciousness goes away in many circumstances where people'd still say you had a soul.
I prefer defining 'Personality' to be another word for 'Soul', and then defining both of them by the idea that an 'entity' is made up of 'Mind, Body, and Soul' - if you then take an entity and subtract Mind and Body, you have the 'Soul', and any ambiguity is just because we haven't nailed down the exact border-lines between the three.
Mind you, this pisses of the religious for several reasons.
I think a big one is the fact that if you define it like that, any entity where 'sum - mind - body' gives the same result have the same soul.
Not just a similar soul, the identical one, as the soul is defined by its effects, not its physical presence, and as such there is no difference.
Religions don't really like it when you go 'Eh, no, I don't think you're right about the whole 'afterlife' thing. I spent a few hours thinking about it, and I think I've got a superior theory. What have you guys been doing if that's the best you could create in several thousand years?'
I prefer defining 'Personality' to be another word for 'Soul', and then defining both of them by the idea that an 'entity' is made up of 'Mind, Body, and Soul' - if you then take an entity and subtract Mind and Body, you have the 'Soul', and any ambiguity is just because we haven't nailed down the exact border-lines between the three.
Mind you, this pisses of the religious for several reasons.
I think a big one is the fact that if you define it like that, any entity where 'sum - mind - body' gives the same result have the same soul.
Not just a similar soul, the identical one, as the soul is defined by its effects, not its physical presence, and as such there is no difference.
Religions don't really like it when you go 'Eh, no, I don't think you're right about the whole 'afterlife' thing. I spent a few hours thinking about it, and I think I've got a superior theory. What have you guys been doing if that's the best you could create in several thousand years?'
And yet millions have died over arguments like that. Lack of proof to the contrary of somethings existence is far from proof that it does exist. Such as it is, I'd prefer to think a human being is separate from ancient mythological images. We only have one life, we should strive to make the most of it instead of expecting a second one in a mythical heaven.
People saying that there is still a 'soul' if the consciousness/mind is destroyed does not necessarily make it so.
A person need not be more than the sum of just mind & body. Occams Razor suggests that entities/assumptions not be multiplied beyond necessity. The concept of a 'soul' is unnecessary to explain human existence, and therefore superflous.
A person need not be more than the sum of just mind & body. Occams Razor suggests that entities/assumptions not be multiplied beyond necessity. The concept of a 'soul' is unnecessary to explain human existence, and therefore superflous.
Ah, but I am not so much adding to the 'Human Existence' explanation, as taking parts out of Mind and Body to create a definition I name 'Soul'.
Without going into a lengthy 'paper' on the subject, it's hard to demonstrate why I consider this useful, but the short version is that it enables you to use the Soul as a criteria for predicting different reactions to the same event, while keeping Mind and Body as descriptors of independent traits.
Which is to say that yeah, it's 'unnecessary', but only because you presumably are already including it as part of either Mind or Body, while I find it preferably to keep it separate due to the different usage.
You could simplify it even more, down to an 'entity', but that would make it even harder to do any meaningful categorization.
Without going into a lengthy 'paper' on the subject, it's hard to demonstrate why I consider this useful, but the short version is that it enables you to use the Soul as a criteria for predicting different reactions to the same event, while keeping Mind and Body as descriptors of independent traits.
Which is to say that yeah, it's 'unnecessary', but only because you presumably are already including it as part of either Mind or Body, while I find it preferably to keep it separate due to the different usage.
You could simplify it even more, down to an 'entity', but that would make it even harder to do any meaningful categorization.
Actually, you just now convinced me to challenge the concept of meaningful categorization in this context, seeing as the mind/consciousness/soul/spirit/oobglz/ghost/identity/whatever is simply a result of a brain's neurological makeup - in short: the body
I subscribe to your proposition of boiling it down to 'entities', without any internal subcategorization.
I subscribe to your proposition of boiling it down to 'entities', without any internal subcategorization.
Oh, and actually, 'people' define words (even when it angers me, such as turning the word 'Literally' into a meaningless word by allowing two contrary meanings to exist within the same context)
So, if 'people' say that the soul still exists if the mind is destroyed, and if it does not pose a logical contradiction, then that is inherently true (if it DOES pose a logical contradiction, this would have to be discussed until 'people' decide which part of the contradiction to change)
So, if 'people' say that the soul still exists if the mind is destroyed, and if it does not pose a logical contradiction, then that is inherently true (if it DOES pose a logical contradiction, this would have to be discussed until 'people' decide which part of the contradiction to change)
Ah, once again perpetuating the cognitive falacy that if something can't be disproven, it must therefore be true. In actuality, a statement that cannot even theoretically be logically falsified is meaningless, in the sense that no information, useful or otherwise, can be derived from it.
I don't quite follow your logic there.
How is your response related to my attempt at saying 'Soul is just a word, and words mean what people say they mean'?
'The soul exists', if made part of the definition, would potentially be a logical contradiction with something like 'The soul is indestructible'.
In fact, trying to keep more than one absolutely-true statement applied to any term tends to cause trouble - I usually go with 'The soul exists' as my base assumption, and build upon that. I find religious people often choose 'The soul is never-changing' (which includes indestructible as an implication) even if that might mean it doesn't logically exist in the world we know.
Even if I applied it to a less debated term, like 'A vehicle is any device made for autonomous transport' and 'Vehicles require less energy (from the user themselves, not including fuel) per distance than walking' end up with contradictions where you end up with a very user-unfriendly vehicle that takes more energy to keep going than would be used walking.
I will give in to the argument that simplifying Mind/Body/Soul might be ideal, since if you're going all the way over to looking at it in a big-picture sense, you can find conclusions I won't - though I still prefer the simplified model as it leaves less room for inaccurate measurements compounding, so it is what I personally will use.
But that post was just, as I said, me essentially going 'Oh, but of course, 'Soul' is just a word, and as much as I hate to admit it, popular-usage does and always has defined the meaning of words. The only way for the public to be wrong, is for their definition to be inconsistent'
How is your response related to my attempt at saying 'Soul is just a word, and words mean what people say they mean'?
'The soul exists', if made part of the definition, would potentially be a logical contradiction with something like 'The soul is indestructible'.
In fact, trying to keep more than one absolutely-true statement applied to any term tends to cause trouble - I usually go with 'The soul exists' as my base assumption, and build upon that. I find religious people often choose 'The soul is never-changing' (which includes indestructible as an implication) even if that might mean it doesn't logically exist in the world we know.
Even if I applied it to a less debated term, like 'A vehicle is any device made for autonomous transport' and 'Vehicles require less energy (from the user themselves, not including fuel) per distance than walking' end up with contradictions where you end up with a very user-unfriendly vehicle that takes more energy to keep going than would be used walking.
I will give in to the argument that simplifying Mind/Body/Soul might be ideal, since if you're going all the way over to looking at it in a big-picture sense, you can find conclusions I won't - though I still prefer the simplified model as it leaves less room for inaccurate measurements compounding, so it is what I personally will use.
But that post was just, as I said, me essentially going 'Oh, but of course, 'Soul' is just a word, and as much as I hate to admit it, popular-usage does and always has defined the meaning of words. The only way for the public to be wrong, is for their definition to be inconsistent'
![[koh]](http://a.furaffinity.net/1427867562/%5Bkoh%5D.gif)
Very nice work here Strype, your work on cybernetics and technology in general is astounding, as usual!
I have always been interested in the idea of AI, about robots and man built machines taking a life of their own, and the complications and challenges they present to both perspectives. I personally have great respect for such things, without them I would have suffered from many health complications and they have allowed me to gain knowledge and awareness of the world I wouldn't have dreamed of. If they did take a life of their own, I would probably work towards making sure they are treated with respect and dignity, very much how a parent takes care of their child if you will.
Haha, well enough of my rambling, a discussion for elsewhere! Very good job as always, keep up the excellent work!
I have always been interested in the idea of AI, about robots and man built machines taking a life of their own, and the complications and challenges they present to both perspectives. I personally have great respect for such things, without them I would have suffered from many health complications and they have allowed me to gain knowledge and awareness of the world I wouldn't have dreamed of. If they did take a life of their own, I would probably work towards making sure they are treated with respect and dignity, very much how a parent takes care of their child if you will.
Haha, well enough of my rambling, a discussion for elsewhere! Very good job as always, keep up the excellent work!
Full synthetics (machines with really advanced AI that mimics human/anthromorph mental algorythms, or downloaded minds) are androids. Mechanically modified humans/morphs (organic beings with mechanical parts) are cyborgs. People get those 2 mixed up a lot. So this girl is an android. What's she running, Tru-Life 3.5?
Comments