I suck at these, apparently. I especially hate the motorcycles, but this goes for almost anything. Do I select the tile with just some wheel in it? Is the wheel a motorcycle too? What about the rider, are they the motorcycle? I mean, when a bike passes you on the road, you don’t say “I got passed by a motorcycle and its rider”. What about the pole the traffic light is on, does that count as part of the traffic light? I end up doing them for like ten minutes until my wife comes over and gets it first try.
I find this to be wildly flawed, as the soul question defines that one choice requires “soul death” but in no way implies what that means. Without understanding the variable of what this post-soul death defreezing looks like, there is no valid position to take.
I agree, but this is a fun thought exercise, not a scientific questionnaire. If you are convinced that your soul is you or your brain is you then you’ll answer differently. I picked soul death freeze, which was the only answer I deviated from the norm.
We have to make decisions based on incomplete, flawed, or outright misinformation regularly. But yeah I just enjoyed it as a bit of fun.
If you can freeze, kill your soul, and then still wake up again, we have instantly invalidated the working definition of soul they are trying to use. If they want to redefine the understanding of “soul” that’s fine, or if they want to bring the entire concept into question that is also fine, but by explicitly stating the material nature of one while contradicting the function of a soul as understood invalidates the question.
If I protect the body it’s “why does the soul need a body” and if I don’t protect the body it’s “how does reconstructing the body make sure the soul comes with it” it’s a catch-22 is what it is.
It doesn’t define what a body without a soul is at all. If we are to presume a soul exists, as the question instructs us to, then we need the variable information of what those without souls who are unfrozen become. It feels like they’re forcing assumptions where no justification for said assumptions are made.
Yeah, i think the point hinges on the various interpretations of the soul. For example, the Catholic concept where the soul is not necessarily tied to the experience of consciousness vs other conceptualizations where it is. The inclusion is just odd. Maybe it’s supposed to be an exploration of how statistics vary between this interpretations or lack there of.
But how often must we make decisions based on incomplete information in our lives? Usually not such serious ones though. It’s not meant to be scientific, I just thought it was fun.
I’m fine with incomplete information, but they presented conflicting information, at least in my eyes.
By defining the “soul” as we understand it in common usage, the very concept of “soul death” is only comparable to actual death, so by stating that people do live without them, they’re effectively invalidating the idea of a soul as understood in the first place.
Let me be clear, I understand the point they are trying to make, and I understand that this very sticking point is the crux of the question. But I still feel they are invalidating their own question by acknowledging folks do wake up post-“soul death.”
It’s weird, I followed the instructions too closely opposed to basing it on emotional response. Not sure whether i would answer differently responding emotionally. I’m only in 7% agreement with the sample population lol!
I find the statistics mildly disturbing on the last query.
I suck at these, apparently. I especially hate the motorcycles, but this goes for almost anything. Do I select the tile with just some wheel in it? Is the wheel a motorcycle too? What about the rider, are they the motorcycle? I mean, when a bike passes you on the road, you don’t say “I got passed by a motorcycle and its rider”. What about the pole the traffic light is on, does that count as part of the traffic light? I end up doing them for like ten minutes until my wife comes over and gets it first try.
do motorbikes and mopeds count as motorcycles?
They do but shouldn’t. I had a captcha scooter recently.
Note: They didn’t ask me to find the “scooter” squares.
Scooters are motorcycles by most definitions (and afaik motorbike is just the british term?)
Huh, I’m not sure I agree, as least in American English. If course there are similarities though.
Highly recommend Buster extension. You click on it and it uses the audio version and solves it for you. Works like 95% of the time.
Ah, so we can now use an automated robotic script to prove we’re human? :)
Relevant: https://novehiclesinthepark.com/
That was interesting, and l liked the one it links to at the end, Staying Alive, even better.
I find this to be wildly flawed, as the soul question defines that one choice requires “soul death” but in no way implies what that means. Without understanding the variable of what this post-soul death defreezing looks like, there is no valid position to take.
I agree, but this is a fun thought exercise, not a scientific questionnaire. If you are convinced that your soul is you or your brain is you then you’ll answer differently. I picked soul death freeze, which was the only answer I deviated from the norm.
We have to make decisions based on incomplete, flawed, or outright misinformation regularly. But yeah I just enjoyed it as a bit of fun.
If you can freeze, kill your soul, and then still wake up again, we have instantly invalidated the working definition of soul they are trying to use. If they want to redefine the understanding of “soul” that’s fine, or if they want to bring the entire concept into question that is also fine, but by explicitly stating the material nature of one while contradicting the function of a soul as understood invalidates the question.
Very good point, conceded.
If I protect the body it’s “why does the soul need a body” and if I don’t protect the body it’s “how does reconstructing the body make sure the soul comes with it” it’s a catch-22 is what it is.
Did it say anything about needing a soul to survive?
It doesn’t define what a body without a soul is at all. If we are to presume a soul exists, as the question instructs us to, then we need the variable information of what those without souls who are unfrozen become. It feels like they’re forcing assumptions where no justification for said assumptions are made.
Yeah, i think the point hinges on the various interpretations of the soul. For example, the Catholic concept where the soul is not necessarily tied to the experience of consciousness vs other conceptualizations where it is. The inclusion is just odd. Maybe it’s supposed to be an exploration of how statistics vary between this interpretations or lack there of.
But how often must we make decisions based on incomplete information in our lives? Usually not such serious ones though. It’s not meant to be scientific, I just thought it was fun.
I’m fine with incomplete information, but they presented conflicting information, at least in my eyes.
By defining the “soul” as we understand it in common usage, the very concept of “soul death” is only comparable to actual death, so by stating that people do live without them, they’re effectively invalidating the idea of a soul as understood in the first place.
Let me be clear, I understand the point they are trying to make, and I understand that this very sticking point is the crux of the question. But I still feel they are invalidating their own question by acknowledging folks do wake up post-“soul death.”
You are correct and I concede.
It’s just meant to be a thought exercise.
They’re certainly exercising thought
It’s weird, I followed the instructions too closely opposed to basing it on emotional response. Not sure whether i would answer differently responding emotionally. I’m only in 7% agreement with the sample population lol!
I find the statistics mildly disturbing on the last query.
Yeah the last question was the only one I deviated from the majority on.
To be fair, you also don’t get passed by a carbio and its head(s)