Instigator / Pro

The self


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 570 / 5,000

Either of us may take any position. While in normal debates, the two may take opposing sides, it is fine if we argue for the same idea. The arguments can be analyzed on their own independent of whether we disagree or agree with each other. So I am not concerned with it if we argue for the same side, and thus this is unrated.

The round structure is flexible, but round 1 we can just state our own positions generally without any evidence of logic to support. We can present definitions and acceptance in this round. Every other round we each can use however we want.

Round 1
I'll be arguing a somewhat pro-transcendentalist view of the self. While traditional transcendentalists refer to it as a "soul" or "spirit" I'm not too keen on that language. I'll simply refer to it as "The self". Based on not only my experience but reported experiences from others, I lean towards that, perhaps the self exists outside of our normal matter realm. Perhaps it's dark matter or something else that controls the body, down to each neurochemical response in the brain, and whatnot. 

I am not fully committed to this view though. I'm closer to a more "agnostic" view but since I lean towards this view from agnosticism, I'll argue it and see how it goes.

I see no need to define anything. Every word will be given the most sensical definition based off of context clues. If you're arguing a word means something we all know it doesn't (i.e nice means angry or something) that will be ridiculous. So, I don't have any particular definitions needed to be presented here, if my opponent wants to present some, feel free. 

I will be arguing a multi-level view of the self.

My theory is that the self is a separate point of consciousness, from the original point of consciousness which I call God. 

There is only one thing in the universe-this thing is ENERGY, and it is conscious. 

This consciousness separates itself through creating morphic fields into a hierarchy of self-points, which can be called "holons".


Holon- a thing that is simultaneously a whole and a part

Morphic field- a field of energy separating, partially controlling and sustaining each holon on every level. 
Round 2
Well, my position is not a clear position on what the self is, so I do not have any logic or evidence to present on what it is, except for what I can say what it is not.

So, while I'm keeping this extremely short right now, I think this is a very compelling argument.

Premise 1: The self cannot control two bodies at once. My reasoning for this premise is there's never been any instance where this has logically occurred(and not better explained by some other phenomena like mental illness) in the thousands of years of recorded history. Given this claim is based on a lack of evidence for something, I do not have any evidence. I find it logical to make this conclusion given there's never been any evidence for the billions of selves in existence to be able to do this. So, the lack of evidence for thousands of years is very telling. Should my opponent challenge this, I would request an instance where this has occurred.
Premise 2: Two different selves would be controlling a body that has the same genes(identical twins) with constantly the same neurotransmission going on. Even two different selves control two conjoined twins who share the same body. This article chronicled 13 different cases of conjoined twins, and reading over their stories obviously indicates there are two different people here, but one body, including one that shared the same head(and thus brain) but was two different selves.  I see no reason why humanity won't advance to a point wherein we can control neurotransmission completely in all of the brains. We're constantly finding more and more about neurotransmission in the brain, here are just a few recent articles talking about studies finding new things to show we are constantly finding more about neuroscience. [1] [2] [3] So, given premise 1, these two bodies made up of exactly everything the same would be controlled by two different selves. 
Conclusion: If the self doesn't control two bodies at once, and two different selves would control two bodies that are precisely identical in both genes and neurotransmission, this blows the theory that the body and brain combined constitute the self. If that's the case, one would be arguing that two such people would be controlled by the same self, which seems illogical. This leads one to the conclusion that the self is independent of the body and neurotransmission in some way, and perhaps present in a different way other than matter, perhaps dark matter, we simply don't know, but we can certainly conclude it exists outside of normal matter.

Not sure what else to say here.
I have no contention with pros argument.

Round 3
I'll waive this round out of courtesy, given it seems my opponent and I may be in agreement here.

As I had said in the description, you can argue for the same position in a different way. It doesn't exactly weigh on us as debaters for whether we are good at debating if we have opposing positions. Feel free to argue for the same position with different arguments. The arguments can be assessed on their own without having a difference in conclusions between us.

As to where the self could exist "outside" the body, it could possibly exist in the morphic field itself. Since everything is energy, and energy is consciousness, I don't see that there would be a problem with this conjecture. Our bodies are just energy in a different form. Thus self would have to exist beyond a mere physical body. 

Hierarchy of Souls

I believe there exist a hierarchy of souls, which is another name for the self. This is best seen and shown in something like an ant colony. Each ant is made up partially of microorganisms, each which has their own self/soul. Each individual ant has a soul, and there is a colony soul.

There may be a species self/soul in the human population as well, in my opinion. I don't think civilization growth is by accident, there is a controlling factor, which may be the species soul. The human race may be one giant organism, such as we see in an ant colony, an aspen grove, or fungi species. 

As for the individual human "self" as I said previously, it is a holon, a part within a whole, and a whole being itself. I think the self in located in the morphic field, which surrounds, penatrates,and organizes our bodies and being, controlling growth and functions. When the body dies, I must say I have no idea what happens to the self, although I do believe it goes on somehow. 
Round 4
Well, I suppose in hindsight it may have been better for my to have decided to challenge someone with an opposing view. I am not sure what to say either, and I also forgot about this debate until now. I suppose I'll waive this round too, especially since I have less than an hour left and I'm not sure that is enough time to provide a quality argument.

I will waive this round as well, due to lack of argument between us.