Should Souls be default and also Medaka Box and Spirituality

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with Ryu.

 

[Wokistan]

The bigger issue is the title rn, as this becomes a far more general issue. There's also the greater availability for posts in a fresh thread.

 

[Agnaa]

You clearly don't understand that this is actually relevant to the topic. Whether or not we accept Medaka having souls is going to rely on how we handle these standards. Also as such this conversation is going to happen in this Medaka discussion regardless. I don't see how moving to a new thread for a while then coming back here makes any difference.

So quite a few things to unpack here. It may be tangentially relevant and impact how this thread resolves, but that doesn't mean it should be kept in this thread. I've been in CRTs where some huge issue has cropped up, and a different CRT was made for that issue to keep the issues separate. We also split off CRTs that come up during battles into their own threads for a similar reason.

It makes a difference in how many eyes get laid on the thread about the site-wide revision, it makes a difference to how much irrelevant shit they need to dig through in each thread.

Anyone who wants to discuss the soul standards would need to dig through 100 posts here of people talking about Medaka Box when it's not relevant. Anyone who wants to discuss Medaka Box would need to dig through 3 dozen posts of people talking about the site's soul standards.

 

[Ryukama]

This discussion is going to be brought back into this Medaka CRT regardless if we talk about the standards in another thread. The standards are entirely relevant to this topic and the outcome of the topic even depends on the standards.

 

[Agnaa]

Also why is it like a taboo to deal with multiple subjects or discussions in the same thread? If all subjects and discussions are relevant to each other they should be brought up. Separating each and every one of them into their own thread isn't an organized way of discussing ideas. If anything it's even less organized than handling it all in one thread.

The only place I remember this ever being applied on the site is when they're small issues. If you stuff multiple 200+ post issues into the same thread it muddies up the discussions with people discussing different things, fills up the thread quicker, makes it harder to read, makes people less likely to look at it than they would if the topics were separate, etc.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

"Also the idea is 'most people believe in souls so we have to assume all fiction has souls' but then why are we favoring one interpretation over all others?"

So instead we favor the minority's interpretation over all others? That's a biased viewpoint.

"composite soul"

No. The simplest belief is that of your consciousness that exists separate from your body. That's all that's being assumed.

 

[Wokistan]

At the very least, we really shouldn't assume them for IRL files. Fiction is one thing, but with reality we can be more strict, and demand proof for everything, and souls haven't really been objectively proven there.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

I agree with Ryu

 

[Chartate101]

"Also the idea is 'most people believe in souls so we have to assume all fiction has souls' but then why are we favoring one interpretation over all others?"

So instead we favor the minority's interpretation over all others? That's a biased viewpoint.

"composite soul"

No. The simplest belief is that of your consciousness that exists separate from your body. That's all that's being assumed.

We aren't favoring any viewpoint other than an objective one

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

No. The simplest belief is that of your consciousness that exists separate from your body. That's all that's being assumed.

Oh, well if that is all then Medaka Box has already proven that conciousness is entirely in the brain

 

[Chartate101]

Also if it hasn't already been clear, I agree with Ryy

 

[Ryukama]

"So instead we favor the minority's interpretation over all others? That's a biased viewpoint."

But you're still doing that by rejecting all other interpretations over the interpretation of a single religion's. Maybe even an interpretation that no one IRL believes in. That's the whole point. You're favoring "the minority's interpretation" as well. The only difference is whereas I'm favoring a minority's interpretation because burden of proof doesn't support the majority's, you're favoring a minority's interpretation based on no evidence and by claiming it's the majority's interpretation when it really isn't.

Okay that's the basic jist for (most) souls. But what about all other functions and specifics of souls in each interpretation? If you reject these, then you are rejecting these interpretations all together and going with "the minority's interpretation". You can't choose one basic element of a soul and ignore every other aspect of a soul. At least if you're going to claim this cherrypicked interpretation to be "the interpretation the majority of people in the real world believe in".

Also again, why not assume all verses have a god or the same god? Why not assume all verses have an afterlife or the same afterlife?

 

[Agnaa]

Because this thread has gone on for over 100 posts, I've actually already made posts here on the soul issue.

Do you think that Monika shouldn't automatically be able to affect people?

What do you think about a character that can "rewrite the stories in people's heads" to have mind/memory manip? Should this automatically work on verses that don't outright describe people's minds as stories?

I believe that souls should be assumed in verses where the average person has a soul. And that this is broader than just souls, any thing being manipulated which is assumed to be held by the average person and gives no powers to the average person should be equalized between verses in fights.

Characters should be assumed to have souls when going against soul manip users. They should be assumed to have "stories in their heads" when going against SCP-3043, they should be assumed to have character files when going against Monika, and many, many more.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

At the very least, we really shouldn't assume them for IRL files. Fiction is one thing, but with reality we can be more strict, and demand proof for everything, and souls haven't really been objectively proven there.

Given how all of our IRL profiles are weapons, don't see how this would be a problem, but if we made profiles for IRL people, that could be quite a problem.

Say we made a profile on Barack Obama (silly, but go with it). Barack is a Christian and therefore believes in souls. How dare you go out of your way to analyze him in a way that's completely opposite of his beliefs and assume he doesn't have a soul.

 

[Wokistan]

Composite human and the crews of vehicles.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

That's fair, I guess.

 

[Desmond253]

@cal which religion is the default?

 

[Wokistan]

If we are to do this here, which I'm not sure is the best idea, the thread should probably get a highlight. It's a pretty big issue.

 

[Ryukama]

Say we made a profile on Barack Obama (silly, but go with it). Barack is a Christian and therefore believes in souls. How dare you go out of your way to analyze him in a way that's completely opposite of his beliefs and assume he doesn't have a soul.

If we made a profile on an IRL atheist, would they not have a soul then? Or an IRL Buddhist having a soul the same way Buddhism has souls? (Not a rhetorical question. Geniunely curious on your standards of this).

Also (despite what some assholes may insist) we know Obama's a Christian. We don't know if every written work of fiction was written by a Christian who inserted their Christianity within the story. Or if every work of fiction holds our composite or overly simplified definition of a soul.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

We already have stuff going on here so we should at least continue here for a while. Best to not cut the conversation just for the sake of it

 

[AguilaR101]

It's very simple, no actual explicit statements of them actually lacking a soul or the concept of one = They have a soul and get promptly soulhaxed by anyone with the ability.

 

[GreyFang82]

Ok, so I think it should be something that should be that you don't have one until you prove it. Setting it as a default doesn't make sense, and although very popular media do usually have something about an afterlife or souls doesn't mean all should just because of that.

Also do souls only default to humanoids or plants as well? Do all living things get it or only some?

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

It's very simple, no actual explicit statements of them actually lacking a soul or the concept of one = They have a soul and get promptly soulhaxed by anyone with the ability.

What about implications that they do not have one?

Also, that is an interesting take on the burden of proof kek. It is not so simple

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

"So instead we favor the minority's interpretation over all others? That's a biased viewpoint."

But you're still doing that by rejecting all other interpretations over the interpretation of a single religion's. Maybe even an interpretation that no one IRL believes in. That's the whole point. You're favoring "the minority's interpretation" as well. The only difference is whereas I'm favoring a minority's interpretation because burden of proof doesn't support the majority's, you're favoring a minority's interpretation based on no evidence and by claiming it's the majority's interpretation when it really isn't.

Even if I was, the one interpretation is still the majority of the world. Say I was supporting a view of the monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. That's 31.5% of the planet. Islam is another 23.2%. That alone is over 50% of the world.

>Burden of proof

If you were in ancient Greece or earlier, apply burden of proof that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth was flat (which, as you weren't getting, is BEFORE we knew for a fact of heliocentrism and globes). You couldn't. That didn't stop that being the default assumption for everything at the time.

Okay that's the basic jist for (most) souls. But what about all other functions and specifics of souls in each interpretation? If you reject these, then you are rejecting these interpretations all together and going with "the minority's interpretation". You can't choose one basic element of a soul and ignore every other aspect of a soul. At least if you're going to claim this cherrypicked interpretation to be "the interpretation the majority of people in the real world believe in".

It literally doesn't matter. Everything after what I said doesn't impact how soul manipulation would affect them.

Also again, why not assume all verses have a god or the same god? Why not assume all verses have an afterlife or the same afterlife?

 

[Agnaa]

Ok, so I think it should be something that should be that you don't have one until you prove it. Setting it as a default doesn't make sense, and although very popular media do usually have something about an afterlife or souls doesn't mean all should just because of that.

Also do souls only default to humanoids or plants as well? Do all living things get it or only some?

If humanoids and plants in the soul manip user's verse have souls or are affected by soul manip, then yes. If they're not shown to, then no.

 

[Ryukama]

Also do souls only default to humanoids or plants as well? Do all living things get it or only some?

This is important since some religions also believe that all living things have souls. Some even believe nonliving things still have souls.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

"If we made a profile on an IRL atheist, would they not have a soul then? Or an IRL Buddhist having a soul the same way Buddhism has souls? (Not a rhetorical question. Genuinely curious on your standards of this)."

Yes. I'd assume that if we made a profile on them.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

For you people who think souls should be on by default, I raise you another question. What do you do with a verse that a soul is not spiritual?

 

[Agnaa]

I believe that souls should be assumed in verses where the average person has a soul. And that this is broader than just souls, any thing being manipulated which is assumed to be held by the average person and gives no powers to the average person should be equalized between verses in fights.

Characters should be assumed to have souls when going against soul manip users. They should be assumed to have "stories in their heads" when going against SCP-3043, they should be assumed to have character files when going against Monika, and many, many more.

Bumping this, do SCP-3043's and Monika's abilities just not work against anyone not from their own verses?

 

[Wokistan]

Using examples that we don't really see as great like ancient Greece doesn't really help your point. Burden of proof is a standard that is in theory pretty integral to modern Life, using ancient culture to discredit the idea is a weak argument.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What? So even in real life you're saying souls are variable based on belief?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

There's a reason we have rules to not make profiles on real people, @Matt.

 

[GreyFang82]

The thing is, I feel like a secular decision is the safest, if you endorse one interpretation over another then that is favoritism and insulting.

The idea of having a soul because of belief can give one person advantage over another once again showing bias without reason.

However, saying they don't have any until shown is equal and fair.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

What? So even in real life you're saying souls are variable based on belief?

Topic aside, that actually sounds like a fun concept for a verse to have. What a being believes their soul is like governs what their soul is like. I may use that someday. Thanks for the idea

 

[Agnaa]

For you people who think souls should be on by default, I raise you another question. What do you do with a verse that a soul is not spiritual?

?????

It depends how the verse treats it? If the verse just says "Souls aren't spiritual" and there's no implication or demonstration on how that affects soul manipulation, it does nothing. I don't think a verse saying "Death isn't spiritual" should change how death manipulation works without any further context.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Using examples that we don't really see as great like ancient Greece doesn't really help your point. Burden of proof is a standard that is in theory pretty integral to modern Life, using ancient culture to discredit the idea is a weak argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a large portion of our fallacies and the like come from the Athenian legal system.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Wokistan]

And what we derive from ancient cultures is what we deemed worthy to persist in our modern world. Heliocentrism and guilty before proven innocent (outside of some places like the Japanese legal system) aren't among those.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

It depends how the verse treats it? If the verse just says "Souls aren't spiritual" and there's no implication or demonstration on how that affects soul manipulation, it does nothing. I don't think a verse saying "Death isn't spiritual" should change how death manipulation works without any further context.

I/O and some other verses have souls as a digital, not a spiritual concepts. Would they have the kind of souls you people say are on by default? Ripping the digital imprint out of somebody wouldn't really do anything lol

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What if your soul is composed of tones and syllables?