= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Azathoth123 comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (724)
You can take a car to bits, or a brain to bits, but you can't take a soul to bits.
...
Although horocruxes work by ripping the soul apart. So souls in canon Harry Potter are not supernatural by that definition... which seems dubious. Maybe they are supernatural, but dark magic can turn them natural?
Why are you reducing to bits rather than atoms? Which is more basic?
I meant bits as a synonym for 'pieces' not as in terms of information.
That still leaves the question of whether brains should be reduced to atoms or bits unresolved?
You can reduce a brain to atoms, and a mind to bits?
Possible bits are more basic, since physics seems to run on maths, if that makes sense. But I wouldn't say this with especially high confidence.
That's my point. Being "ontologically basic" is an extremely subtle concept.