1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic
#3526
All is one
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1432
rating
375
debates
43.07%
won
Description
I'd like to start a discussion about whether or not our commonly held belief of being distinct beings is justified. I believe that the self as commonly perceived is not a correct representation of who we are and what it means to be human, and that there is no logically substantiated line between me and another.
Burden of proof is shared.
Round 1
Identity
There are generally two schools of thought about what constitutes our identities as existences. There is the theory of spatial tracking identity, which states that if you draw a line behind someone or something as it moves, it is the same thing as long as the line isn't broken and continues to follow the person or thing. That is their identity and who they are. Then there is the theory of form tracking identity. This hypothesis believes something can be said to be the same thing if it retains the same structure. In both cases, we are that which necessarily constitutes us. As without the thing which constitutes our being, we have no being at all, so if we're being, the building blocks which lead to our being must therefore also be part of our being and are therefore being too. From this, I can then say my blood is part of my being, as are my arms and eyes, even though I can, of course, lose these aspects of my being.
to use a syllogism to get the idea across.
p1. all being is made from the same substance
p2. all humans are made from substance
p3. all humans are the same being
What is this same substance, you ask? Well, it's energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which naturally means all that is is simply this same substance transmuting form. Now all I need to do is show that energy fulfills the criteria for both the theory of form tracking identity and the theory of spatial identity, to then make it undisputed that all is one.
Theory of spatial tracking identity and energy
The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center., This therefore debunks the theory that energy is separate, as there is not even a centre to anything in the universe. A human body has a centre, my car has a centre, but the thing these things themselves are made of have no centre. Therefore, making your form as an individual separated from the whole, simply a stubborn illusion, as your form is simply made of energy temporarily taking on a denser form. How can something that has no center be distinguished from something else? As a non-center implies another part, being, or substance. To use an analogy, imagine you're in a sandpit and you wet the sand and make shapes in it, such as castles. The sand castles are now much harder than the sand surrounding the sand castle, but we'd still call the sand castle sand despite its altered texture. This can be applied to the difference between a rock and a flower all the same. Once we get down to the fundamentals of existence, this is evident. The rock and flower, too are made of the same material, as is the wet and dry sand, simply in a temporarily denser transient state.
Theory of form identity and energy
The theory of form identity is fascinating! Nonetheless, it appears to have a few flaws. According to the theory of form, that which retains the same structure is that which it is. This makes sense until you realize that you from a second ago is no longer you. You from ten years ago appear to be not just a different person, but a different being entirely, as the molecules in your makeup and particles are constantly exchanging, and you appear to be a new being at all times. Well, it just so happens that what creates particles is energy. This energy simply takes on the illusion of a new form, a harder, denser form as a particle, Yet it is still energy. Therefore, that which you are is energy too, just as the particles are energy. This then circles back to the theory of spatial tracking. Since there is no center to energy, there can be said to be no separation or distinctness between any being or substance outside of illusion.
I will attempt to explain self identity.
Here is the foundation and everything given as a basis from the line cut from the debate description.
"there is no logically substantiated line between me and another."
We are all people that can be distinguished from one another.
Someone made a comment that they are someone else while that someone else is still themselves.
Now I'll agree granted that there is an agreeable understanding.
I am you or I was just like you when I was your age. A shared identity, that's correct. But I grew up. I matured as I put away childish things.
An adult identity is not an adolescent identity.
I can agree we have one identity called the human identity.
I agree that we have differences that create individual identities.
I accept both realities. They're not beliefs but realities I acknowledge. The opposing side as it appears does not.
Certainly law abiding citizens and criminals have distinguished or distinct identities.
Truth is, you can find relativity everywhere for universal reasons.
You can also have and do get polarity or dichotomy.
Now looking at some points from the other side.
"all being is made from the same substance
p2. all humans are made from substance
p3. all humans are the same being
What is this same substance, you ask? Well, it's energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which naturally means all that is is simply this same substance transmuting form."
This is all true. Something being the same has commonality.
We're all the same. We bleed the same. We eat, breathe, sleep, all these things are the same.
We have expressions such as "treat everyone the same." We grant equal opportunity because a person is to be treated no different than another. They're another person just like you trying to make a living or what have you.
We share this same identity of a race of people called human.
We are the same as well as different causing distinct unique identities.
How?
I breathe like you do or the same as you in a taller body with darker skin.
That's because of genetics. I'd have to have contrasting genetic material/substance within the same universal matter/substance and energy somehow.
We are the same and different.
Round 2
Response to mall' argument
Thank you for accepting this debate, Mall. I think you brought up some interesting ideas, you even conceded that we can identify as the same in many ways. Yet you never seemed to argue the crux of the debate. That despite what we choose to identify as, we're the same being. I have a strong argument here, for an objective identity we should all pursue. You didnt address this point sadly. Which is really what needed to be addressed.
individuality in oneness
Outside of that, it just felt like you were just agreeing with me except expanding on how we can still be unique despite our commonality. I agree as i will demonstrate. consider the commonly known fact that although a snowstorm may produce billions of snowflakes, no two of them are alike. This has two implications that are relevant for our discussion. One is that a snowflake is a relatively simple structure. A human is an almost infinitely more complex “structure” than a snowflake. In other words, the potential to create individual uniqueness is far higher in a complex than a simple structure. So if individual uniqueness exists in as simple of a structure as snowflakes, do you see that it is far easier to create uniqueness in humans? My point being that you are created as an absolutely unique individual. There is no one like you in the entire world of form. You have the potential to bring a gift to planet Earth that no other being could bring. You are truly unique. How can something which is unique be compared to something else unique?
Now for the second point. Imagine you meet a scientist who has made ithis life’s work to study snowflakes. This isn’t necessarily odd, but thisscientist has taken his study in a peculiar direction. He has set up an entire system for comparing snowflakes and classifying them into “good” and “bad” flakes. He has created a scale upon which the value of snowflakes can be measured, and at the top of the scale is the perfect snowflake, which it is his life’s goal to discover. Thus, he spends his entire life on a quest that is not aimed at helping humankind make better use of snow but is aimed entirely at finding the perfect snowflake and sorting snowflakes based on his self-created scale of value. You would probably think this was an odd way to spend your life, and there are several reasons for this. One is that it is not a useful activity—it doesn’t have any practical value that helps improve life on this planet. Another is that it is an impossible quest. When you think about it, you realize that snowflakes are unique, so what is the point of comparing them? How can you make comparisons between objects that are unique? And what is the point of assigning values to something like snowflakes? Can you really talk about good and bad snowflakes? And how could there be a perfect snowflake when they are all unique, since perfection implies a comparison to something imperfect?
Well, what is the point in making comparisons between people, when each person is a unique individual? What is the point in assigning values to people’s uniqueness? And can you really talk about good and bad people according to some standard in this world? Humans are the same being, but we're all blessed with our unique Individuality, no comparison should be made between us unless you want to limit your gifts. You can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all.
Truth is, you can find relativity everywhere for universal reasons.You can also have and do get polarity or dichotomy.
This is exactly why suffering exists, my friend. Polarity of beliefs. For every argument i can make for a philosophy with my rational mind, i can think of an opposite philosophy. Meaning any philosophy made of this world, will inevitably fall into duality, creating brother against brother. One against another, me vs. you. Us vs. them. All promising the elixir, the cure to your human suffering. But its a lie, a dirty lie.
"you even conceded that we can identify as the same in many ways. "
I don't know if you mean agreed by "conceded". For the record it was never my intention and position that nobody is the same. It's a multiple of perspectives but it appears you're only saying one is valid.
The individual in the comments was pointing out the validity in multiple views.
"That despite what we choose to identify as, we're the same being. "
Works the same way in having unique identities that we have no choice in.
"You didnt address this point sadly. Which is really what needed to be addressed. "
I apologize. What is the precise point you're looking for me to respond to in a few sentences or less?
"Outside of that, it just felt like you were just agreeing with me except expanding on how we can still be unique despite our commonality."
Ok , well I like pizza, you don't. Those are unique identities to ourselves. We're both the same as we both eat . Do you see now?
"do you see that it is far easier to create uniqueness in humans? "
Well yes, regardless,uniqueness exists. Your position is unique to you unless there are others that share it. I don't know of any.
"My point being that you are created as an absolutely unique individual. There is no one like you in the entire world of form. You have the potential to bring a gift to planet Earth that no other being could bring. You are truly unique. How can something which is unique be compared to something else unique?"
The comparison is uniqueness. If we're all unique, we're all the same. We all have one identity. That's true. It's a true oxymoron. Our similarities makes us different still. An interesting true paradox but true.
"When you think about it, you realize that snowflakes are unique, so what is the point of comparing them? "
Outside of the commonality of being unique, there's nothing else to compare unless we're talking about percentages of uniqueness.
Say if one thing has only 1-2 percent contrast with another thing to make it unique, that would make it 99-98 percent the same. So you may have a lot to compare between those two items that are still technically unique.
"How can you make comparisons between objects that are unique? "
Review response above.
"And what is the point of assigning values to something like snowflakes?"
Value has to do with the affect or effect of a thing with something else. That's how anything has value. Like a functionless car has no value to me as oppose to a car that is running.
" Can you really talk about good and bad snowflakes? "
Well, I guess only in a sense of the ones that causes blizzards, perils, fatal vehicular accidents. But people will just use the language of a bad snow storm versus a bad set of snowflakes.
"And how could there be a perfect snowflake when they are all unique, since perfection implies a comparison to something imperfect?"
Well now with talking about perfection, that can be subjective. People use the term perfect but don't believe in it when it comes to certain things. So I wouldn't know how that works or what a perfect snowflake is.
"Well, what is the point in making comparisons between people, when each person is a unique individual?"
Really depends on the individual circumstance. Someone doing it can have a different point than myself. Employers make comparisons between candidates particularly when there's one role to fill or a limited amount of roles. Same thing in a political election or any election.
" What is the point in assigning values to people’s uniqueness? "
Once more, just the weight of the effect of someone has like somebody's unique credentials may be worth more in salary in comparison to another individual's unique credential profile.
"And can you really talk about good and bad people according to some standard in this world?"
I can't because logically it doesn't follow. How can good do bad and vice versa?
Good can be good because it is good. When it comes to people , we make good and bad choices/actions.
"Humans are the same being, but we're all blessed with our unique Individuality, no comparison should be made between us unless you want to limit your gifts. You can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all."
By saying this that we are the same and unique, you agree with my position.
Which says we have one identity while still having multiple identities. Which I don't believe was your position.
Now with you claiming that position as it appears, your actual position is that making comparisons in people is invalid or should not be .
People can and will compare based on different reasons. I would argue to refute an invalid reason to compare versus making a comparison in and of itself.
Now you may say because we're unique fundamentally is the reason not to compare.
But do you know how many variations of reasons there could be out there to justify making comparisons?
Nobody does, you'd have to know all things. That's why it's justified to wait for the reason somebody is comparing for. Hear out their case.
Round 3
The point you need to address is the fact we have an objective identity in the same being, regardless if you identify with it or not. You never actually argued against this point.
"The point you need to address is the fact we have an objective identity in the same being, regardless if you identify with it or not. You never actually argued against this point. "
I say it again .
We people are all the same. We all are people, duh. We all are human.
We are the same with different colors, creeds, religions, minds, shapes and sizes.
Now if you agree with that, then this wasn't much of a debate.
yeah....this was obviously a draw.
I'm unsure if this was an argument against the idea i present or? human complexity is not relevant whatsoever for my philosophy. Genetics are irrelevant too.
What can go wrong when the Human body is made up of 37.2 trillion cells?
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.
I said Hitler not me? i clearly do equate insects to the whole, based on the scientific theory. there's no evidence of most insects being sentient so i don't have much moral contemplation for most species, i don't lose sleep when i step on a worm. I see them like a machine. Dolphins, octopus, elephants and apes i think is probably immoral to kill species like this. Although i do personally believe insects are apart of the whole, of course. I don't lose sleep over throwing a rock, even if i believe its part of me, same with most insect species.
hang on why are you not equating insects to humans if they are also part of the 'all'?
To claim you know what humans should and shouldn't regret must mean you know some absolute moral imperative, care to elaborate?
why would someone not regret hurting others if they are you? i see it as the opposite, we only care for others in so far as we can see ourselves in them. That's what "dehumanisation" is. Hitler would equate Jews to things such as insects and diseases to create as big a distinction between himself and them as much as possible to not have to put himself in their position, that he cant possibly be like them. The definition of empathy is to imagine yourself feeling what they feel, once you accept you are others this makes that act even easier. I brought up the free will argument because your argument is an emotional one, just like people who cling to the idea that free will exists just because they feel like it exists and how obvious it is. How is it a strawman? its an analogy. If it is a strawman, explain why without simply stating so and not elaborating.
Well, I look forward to what you will say here, and find it so far, interesting.
That's interesting; I believe my other theory, which is superior to this one, will provide you with an answer to this. Because it is not dependent on the material universe, but rather simply on the existence of awareness. If we assume nothing, all we can know of existing is our own awareness, but that's a debate i should be having in the future.
Well, I'm 'not my arm in a sense,
And in another sense 'am,
The arm can be lost, but Lemming will remain,
My spine can be broken, living in an iron lung, but Lemming will remain,
I won't be 'all I was, able to do and feel all I did, but I'll still 'be,
Once my mind is gone?
No, then 'I'm gone,
Make a copy of me, kill me and replace me with the copy,
Well, other people might not notice, copy might not notice,
But Lemming Original sure died,
Personally I'm hopeful that the ship of Theseus we are, manages to 'continue 'being the original by continuous consciousness, I hate the idea of dying X many times in my life, before the copier itself dies.
Saint Augustine: Is consciousness continuous, where we are conscious at each single point in time, or is it discrete, where we are conscious only at certain moments of time?
A corpse would not be Lemming, in a sense.
Mummies find no eternal life in their wrappings, though their echos verb a time longer.
I literally said nothing about free will at all, nice attempt at a strawman and better luck next time.
Also, there is absolutely no reason to regret if the victims of your abuse are just an extension of you, you are actually enabling psycopaths with your outlook, not me.
You as a conscious existence cease to be, but to argue parts of you don't persist in some form even as an unconscious existence would be equivalent to saying your arm is not your own. You as the lemming you are wont be, but you will live through as other facets of reality, maybe one day your energy once more being transformed into sentient life. But you're still yet to demonstrate how separation can exist, you can appeal to common sense and the senses and how obvious it seems, that doesn't make it right. You're still yet to make a case for how you can fulfill the criteria of form theory and tracking theory without contradicting one of the other, unlike i.
I'm unsure how the fact humans are individual persons and experience their own emotions and go through their own struggles defeats my argument, not made from an appeal to emotion, but from science. Just because people act as if we have free will (everyone does and believes so) doesn't mean its correct. Just because it appears to be common sense that separation exists, doesn't make it so. Science surprises us all the time. Just because people believe themselves separate, dissociating themselves from caring about others, doesn't make it so. Humans are wrong all the time about how we believe we should act, otherwise we wouldn't feel regret.
This is all fancy talk until you have survivor's guilt while you avoided severe torture, mutilation or death etc. After a traumatic ordeal.
Your agony is not their agony and vice versa.
The pleasure felt by a sadistic and competitive winner of a contest is independent of the pleasure of the loser masochist or agony of the loser non-masochist.
When I die some day (Ideally of old age)
My heart stops to beat, my matter decays and transforms,
I will no longer be,
It doesn't matter to me, that the building blocks that made up me shall continue, for 'I shall not.
A square or a circle, drawn upon a piece of paper may need 'something to 'be,
Whether ink, graphite, or an indentation,
But when the shape has been rubbed or burned away,
Even if energy cannot be destroyed, the square or circle that was, 'has.
It matters if two items are energy because that which we are is what gives us being, as we're being. If we strip ourselves down and down and down, all we can be said is to be energy. That's why its far more precise than simply saying you're the brain, that's why its more precise to say your trillions of mini computers working together over the brain and it becomes more precise the deeper you go. Energy is ingrained in your identity, as it is literally your being and existence, so why wouldn't it matter? is a better question.
People can differentiate between things based on borders, based on geometry. That's how we point out division between things. We are which constitutes us, as we're being, so that which makes us must also necessarily be being. Energy is the thing which creates being, but this building block of being has no borders nor division which means it is simply one substance, as we would see a tin of red paint as one substance. If reality is then made of this one substance, how can it said to be a different substance? how does a whole new substance come from one substance and not two different substances interacting? unless it was fashioned from its own being. This then necessarily means matter is also energy, as proven by Einstein. The fact matter has a centre too it, doesn't matter mean its truly separate. Unless its an emergent property of energy, matter constantly transforms back into energy, and energy into matter. Its simply energy taking on a transient state of false separation as it still exists as energy, unless it can be proven separation is an emergent property of energy, can you do that? Matter is simply energy taking on a lower vibrational frequency. It doesn't change substance, it simply changes its own density through changing its vibration, energy is vibration.
Why does it matter if two items are made from energy?
Paint is all pretty much paint, but people differentiate between paintings easily enough.
We're all blood and meat and bones, but differentiate between ourselves easy enough.
Even without a center of the universe, two things in relation to another can easily enough be separated?
It doesn't matter if things appear separate, or even if consciousness ceases as such if certain perceived mechanism don't interact properly. My philosophy is still consistent despite these facts, despite the theory of tracking and form. one flower petal, does live and die different to another flower petal on the same stem but this once more doesn't deny that all of this is energy of the same substance which has no divisions as something with division needs a centre. The only argument against this is an argument to emergent properties. If my debate opposition brings it up, you'll find my response to it. A split brain is still made of the same energy, but the energy that makes up the brain and sends signalling is now going to different places. Leading to a different experience of self and reality, but still energy. I'm unsure why eyes have to be conscious for this theory to make sense. This theory applies to in-animates and life all the same.
Without emerging, how can a self exist?
Two flowers upon a vine, are not each other, though sharing the vine, and before budding, they were not, when they die, they will be, not.
From what I've read, a split brain doesn't have two consciousness, only one.
Just because one half of the brain can't transmit to the other doesn't mean both are conscious, just because one's eyes get removed from one's head, doesn't mean the eyes acquire or 'were ever conscious.
Atoms do have centres i don't deny that, i deny the fact of this then meaning we're all actually separate. As any theory not based on the most fundamental element cannot pass both the structural theory of identity and the tracking theory of identity at the same time without contradicting one or the other. All you can actually argue for is emergent propertism, if my debate opponent choose to go in that direction, i am already prepared for it. Just because you don't experience others feelings or in their body, doesn't necessarily mean you don't look through their eyes also. Its simply another version of you locked into that body. which is why you cant experience their feelings as i cant experience yours. If what we are is being, it should be that which gives us being and which constitutes our being which is us. Its more arbitrary, less laser like to draw that line on your feelings or arms or emotions as opposed to energy itself. It would be like someone saying they are their brain which isn't wrong, but if you were more precise you would say you're trillions of mini computers interacting together to form a whole.
I don't really understand what atoms and molecules are,
But looking at online pictures, they look like spheres, sphere's have centers,
Therefore, what we're made of has centers.
As for distinguishing one clone from another, one Ship of Theseus from another,
Well despite being the same shape,
They're not in the same location in existence,
My clone is not me, 'I'm me, thinking my 'own thoughts, feeling my 'own experiences.
I see that as simply human ego talking, the facts point out that your pinky being separate from the whole or its own entity is an illusion too, your pinky is constantly changing structure all throughout your life, therefore it does not pass the structural theory of identity, just because we cannot see this change doesn't necessarily mean its not happening. We notice distinctness between things based on if they have a centre. A triangle has a centre which then necessitates an edge or boundary. So does every other geometric shape, but that which has no centre cant have an edge, or this works the other way around, that which has an edge necessitates a centre. To use a syllogism:
P1. separate beings have their own centres
P2. the most fundamental building block of being has no centre
P3. all entities are the same being
Can you demonstrate on how a centre can come from something without a centre? If we look to our liver, our liver is a living mass of cells but the cells within the liver, are living and have the property of living, which gives the liver itself life as its components are living. The liver can only die when the smaller components, cells die. Following this analogy, how can something with a centre come from something with no centre or possible distinctness in its substance if it is made from the thing with no centre simply allowing itself to become denser? if energy has no centre, and matter is energy condensing itself to be harder. matter also too shouldn't have a definable centre outside of perception. If all is energy, how can the energy be distinguished even in the form of matter?
I currently think it's a reasonable enough position to hold,
To sort all energy (People) into a single set of sorts,
Though I prefer to be an individual Egoist, myself.
My pinky is identifiable as it's own finger, capable of being hurt on it's own,
Though a pain in it may resonate out to other body parts, or other body parts resonate to it,
Shares blood with the rest of the body, acts in tandem, is usually thought of as part of a whole body.
But is replaceable, that the whole see's no difference between a transplanted pinky and the old, (Assuming no transplant rejection).
Though sometimes I worry about consciousness, individuality, if we're material, where does it lay.
Cerebral cortex, some might hazard, but if all about it get's replaced, material and experience,. . . . Feels there's no holding on at times, to our 'selves, but I ramble.
In the end I hold to the visceral experience of 'appearance of self.
We can debate the moral implications of me and you being the same being but different persons, id disagree on it being a nihilistic reality.
Looks like mereological nihilism to me.
So you're aware, this isn't the argument i will be using with you when we have our debate. This is the prototype and far weaker argument than the one i have in store for you, as this argument relies on the material universe existing to begin with, the argument i have in store for you does this but even better as it doesn't even rely on the material universe, and it even kills solipsism. Or at least, the idea that you can only know of you yourself existing. I'm a freak of nature, an anomaly, a glitch in the matrix. let it be known.
What do you think, my beloved?
well you're definitely correct. I'll edit it for us.
"I believe that the self is an illusion and that there is no logically substantiated line between me and another."
Not mutually exclusive. I am you, you are still you. The self still can exist, it just encompasses everybody.