The Instigator
AlondraFondren
Pro (for)
The Contender
LearnerLogic
Con (against)

If a tree falls in the forest and you get crushed and die are you dead or naw?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
AlondraFondren has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2017 Category: Funny
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 101349
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

LearnerLogic

Con

I will be arguing on behalf that if a tree falls in a forest and get crushed and die, you aren't dead.

-Definitions

Before I begin, I will lay out some basic framework. Conciousness is a part of the brain. Suppose one splits the brains of two people, hemisphere wise, then they swap a hemisphere. The brain will thus be a different thing, and the person will have very different experiences, but worst, will have a discontinuous jump in conciousness, as two conciousnesses would die and two would be reborn by this switching. Reason for this is you are made up by what you remember and what you think, and see, and so on. These two hemispheres control these two parts, but not both together. Because conciousness is supposed to be continuous experience between one phase of a person in time to another, the conciousness of the original two people has died and been replaced with a new conciousness. This does not violate Mary's Room experiment. This states that a person who knows everything about a given subject but hasn't experienced it, has learned something new. The fact is that this simply states an outside observer of a brain won't feel what it is like to have the brain give ideas, but still then can conciousness be a part of the brain.

-Ship of Theseus
A classic philosophical thought experiment can be used here to figure out what exactly can be meant by the word, 'you.' Imagine you have a ship, and after riding in the ocean, starts to wear down, so the parts get replaced, until all parts are completely replaced. Then those old parts are used to create a new ship. Which is the original ship? Suppose the old ship has had a continuing experience vital to it, say Achilles was on the ship before weared down and thus continued to impact it, even if the parts are completely different. Your body can be applied the same way. Quite clearly, you are made of many cells, and cells in nature replenish themselves, die, and new ones come, but still remain you. Point being that your whole body is changing. Thus, you aren't the part that makes you up, but your continuous consciousness of one moment to another. Therefore, if you die, you aren't you anymore, because the conscious experience has quite literally stopped with no hope of coming back. Unlike someone suffering a stroke, the break in consciousness is eternal, and thus no one can ever fill in that gaps or find the connection between before the break and after the break, because there will never be consciousness to resurface again. Then, because you are conciousness, when your body dies, you stop existing, but don't die, as you and death both can't coexist, leading to the ultimate conclusion that the statement 'are you dead?', is wrong, as if it were right, you and death would coexist.

Thus you aren't dead if you are crushed by a tree.


Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LearnerLogic 10 months ago
LearnerLogic
I also had 3 other points ready, including some quantum physics, but realized my argument was sufficient enough, seeing how the thing was a joke.
Posted by LearnerLogic 10 months ago
LearnerLogic
Oh apologies this is a different debate, ignore my previous comment. However I want to use the most axiomatic definitions. Quantum physics though would have been a good idea, but I imagine unnecessarily complicated and even possibly detrimental to both our ideas, and would possibly lead to mixed definitions or reference frames.
Posted by LearnerLogic 10 months ago
LearnerLogic
I did plan on doing that, until I realized that it would have been off topic, in that we are arguing whether truth and reality has evidence for its existence. Quantum physics, regardless on what interpretation you use, wouldn't have say have a truth value in the future as truth is being referred to something that will be no matter what, in that quantum mechanics wouldn't work with, because it isn't a no matter what question(unless you want to get into determinism), but probabilistic. So although the future is not provable, isn't necessarily true either.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 10 months ago
passwordstipulationssuck
@LearnerLogic I would have argued Quantum Physics. Then you could have really made his brain hurt.
Posted by LearnerLogic 10 months ago
LearnerLogic
The debate is of course a joke XD.
I decided if I can make something so obvious seem wrong or even technically be wrong.
Posted by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
Two rounds?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.