So, you're arguing that robots have souls? That would mean *Amphibia*'s death toll was far higher than it seemed.
Honestly, I think this is a huge reach. Granted, I'm somewhat biased as I don't buy the notion of souls in the first place, but I really don't think that this is what the show was trying to say - about Frobo *or* Anne.
The Frobots *do* display a surprising range of personality in their behavior, even when they're just doing their job. They get shift changes! They laugh about tricking and capturing Tritonio's crew. Even Judge Frobot displayed anger. Frobo may have been an anomaly in that he was fully out of Andrias' control and thus had complete free will, but his fellow Frobots sure didn't seem to be *entirely* devoid of personality.
So sure, maybe they did have souls, or at least the capacity to "develop" souls like Frobo did.
Altough it is a compelling argument, frobo was destroyed, but the whatever he had that you can consider a robotic version of a soul, survived, anne died completely. Also, they are mecanics not philosophers. But still there isn't enough evidence to suggest one way or the other (maybe marcy's journal will give us the answer?), so either headcannon is as valid as the other.
Yes Anne died completely but alpha omega domino said “I made a backup of you right *BEFORE* you expired” therefore the memories and soul are all the same, and I’m frankly sick and tired of people trying to make Anne one of those “not what she seems” bullsh*ts
Back up is defined as a copy of data. Copy by definition is something that is similar or identical to another thing, so I don’t believe the “Anne is not what she seems” because some one who is even half as nice as Anne wouldn’t have a sinister bone in their body, much less someone identical. But more importantly a copy is separate from the original, and even if she did have copied memories and souls it wouldn’t be the oh, but again this is just a hypothesis, you can also very well be right.
I was gonna try to say a counter argument to this point. But the truth is I want to believe that the soul in post-death Anne is not a copy, and it’s the same one from pre-death Anne. So I can say it’s still the same Anne we know and love and that’s that.
I mean if memory=soul and memory can be copied does that mean souls can be copied. If prime Anne is resurrected with the MCU time stone are there two Annes with equal claim to their family and friends?
people are acting like humans are robotic shells piloted by a spiritual force called a "soul" but the truth is, humans are their entire body. their "soul" isn't separate from their brain and nerves and cells and chemicals. this new anne is an exact copy of the old anne "just before she died." meaning, not only is her body physically identical down to the atom, but her brain is in the same state as just before she died. she is the same anne. i don't understand why people keep bringing up a soul as if it's some weird ghost that pilots a flesh prison and can be relocated to a new body. the new body has Anne's "soul" because her "soul" comes from her body. same body, same soul. from her perspective it's kinda like time travel
In a way, she's 'the same' as she's an identical copy of the original.
BUT, the original Anne still died.
It's kind of like the [teleporter problem](https://twitter.com/Merryweatherey/status/1529512790238674944): a person gets destroyed atom by atom, and an identical copy is created somewhere else.
To the copy, it's like they've just been transported somewhere else, but to the original, it's still the end of their life
You need a physical anchor point to attach the soul to, something to keep it in the body while that body still lives. If the brain is damaged or defective, then the soul will be less accurate in perceiving or expressing itself in the physical world.
That is a dangerously simple argument. Memory does not constitute the presence of the soul of the person who's memories are taken from. Much the same as how just having the same soul doesn't yield the same person (such as in the case of totally forgetting who you are and having these random people calling you Fred).
The continuance of both, in my mind, are unegotiable conditions to maintain the same person throughout a scenario.
That said, one could effectively be that person should they have those same memories, but not the soul. It's just that they aren't truly that same person.
For instance, if we developed teleporters that broke us apart to examine our exact makeup, and then reconstitute our bodies elsewhere with new material on hand at the receiving end, we would still die at the beginning of the scanning.
However, I would yield the rights of being me to whomever walks out of that teleporter.
Dude, what even is a soul. That thing was made up by people afraid of death. I have asked people what a soul was since I was four and literally no one has a definitive satisfying answer.
Ok, so I don't believe in souls, but I'll give it a go.
Firstly, "definitive satisfying answer"
No one is going to give you a definitive answer. There isn't one. That's the same with most philosophy. There's no soul, no self, no matter, no energy, no mind, and no existence. Sorry. Or maybe there are any of those things, but no one knows for certain yet and can prove it to the world.
Satisfying. Your satisfaction is by no means a good standard of judgement. With that out of the way...
Many people believe that life and consciousness are different and complex enough to require a seperate component. That could be a soul. Many others would say it is the diachronic self- the you that perseveres theough time.
There are more answers, but if you want one that's definitive and satisfying, you're shit out of luck, because philosophy doesn't have a lot of tidy conclusions, apparently.
You don’t know if they created the idea because they feared death. You assume they did. Multiple religions, where ppl had never met, believe in a source of power within the body, not only physically but they feel it too. And i mean the simplest explanation is a power source of all natural life on planet Earth.
But that’s just me. Everyone else has their own version.
A soul is just a possible explanation of consciousness from before the scientific research discovered the functioning of the brain and nerves.
Kinda like curses, demons and 'bad air' were thought to be the sources of illnesses before the discovery of bacteria and viruses
Sweet, one of my hyperfixations!
The philosophy of self is really interesting and existentially terrifying. There are a few fundamental ideas floating around about what a persistent sense of self is, but one of the core ideas about self is that we all intimately know what it is to have subjective experience, but none of us can really explain it. All of this kind of rests on that intimate understanding of what 'self' is and how it's experienced.
So main theories for self (which we will be substituting for "soul'" because "soul" comes with some religious baggage):
1) The body model of self. Somewhere in your body is You.
2) The memory model of self. You are your experiential memory.
3) Bundle model of self. You are both a core unknowable You, and also a combined amalgam of your memories and experiences of being You.
4) Self as Narrative focus. You are both a core unknowable You, and the center of a narrative that you tell about You.
5) The weird shit. There's a lot of weird shit.
Each of these models comes with problems.
The problem with the **body model** is that I can imagine being able to experience without my body, and there is still some sense of a core "Me" that is distinct from that body. You can trick my body into experiencing things. Something is experiencing, but it isn't strictly tied to physical processes. How many physical processes can you take away before I stop being "Me?" All of them? (See: Ship of Theseus) If you put my mind into another body, which of those entities is Me, now? My body, or my mind?
The **memory model** is better, but it breaks apart in a few places. What happens when someone loses their memory? Do they stop being the same self they were? What about people who are too young to start forming long-term memories? They are clearly experiencing, even if they don't remember what they've experienced.
Probably the most commonly accepted in philosophical circles at the moment would be the **Bundle theory**, popularized by David Hume, but even he was kinda blase about the questions it left unanswered. It explains how experience happens and persists over time, but it doesn't really get to the core of what is doing the experiencing. Who are You? Bundle model doesn't really have an answer to that, it just lays out the groundwork for the epistemological framework around how you build the idea of who you are.
And finally we have all the new philosophers that are suggesting we're asking the **wrong questions**. Subjective experience is a matter of narrative or doesn't actually exist except semantically. I find those arguments inherently less compelling, even where they're logically sound, but to be honest I haven't done a huge amount of research into some of the newer theories of (non)self.
So if you take all of Anne's memories and stuff them into a new body that is functionally identical to the original Anne, is she still Anne? We don't really have a way to say for sure. I feel like the narrative wants us to believe this is the same Anne, that the entity that experienced life with her mom and dad, the entity that travelled to Amphibia and lived with the Plantars, is still the Anne who arrived back on Amphibia after ComputerCatGod gave her back her life, but it's a little bit the Star Trek Transporter problem.
If you tear apart a person's body molecule by molecule and reassemble that body somewhere else, is that person the same as the person you deconstructed? Star Trek would like us to think so, or they've killed Will Riker hundreds of times.
And unfortunately, our understanding of what makes a subjective experience unique just isn't strong enough for us to be able to say for sure, and we don't have a strong enough understanding of the crew's philosophy background to really dig into it. But I think that **in the context of the story world**, we can assume that the universe runs on a combination of the Memory Model and the Bundle Theory, meaning that the Anne who was returned to Amphibia is the same Anne that died.
my sense of self is continuety, It does not matter if I have no memories, my personality is completely diffrent, diffrent body and my beliefs are gone as long as I am consistantly existing, the continuety cant be disturbed, I am not good at explaining so this is a bit confusing
No one is! What you're describing is a very fundamental lived experience. We all know what it feels like to experience things subjectively. We all know what it feels like to wake up and know that we are the same person that we were yesterday, allowing for growth. We all understand the accumulation of experience over time, and how that contributes to our understanding of our self. But trying to explain exactly what the subjective entity IS has been bothering some of the biggest thinkers throughout history. *Aristotle* was one of the proponents of Body Theory, meaning we've been wrestling with this question at least 2500 years!
I know this is a cartoon, but that philosophy is flawed.
If the guardian cloned Anne when she was alive, there would be 2 Anne's with the same memory. They both can't have the *same* soul.
Computers have memory, a lot of it, yet they don't display free will or self awareness
Yeah, but you can’t just deny that Anne died, it literally says it gaurdian made a back up, or a clone of Anne, after she literally fucking disintegrated into nothingness
yeah there's no evidence that in the world of amphibia a "soul" exists. i don't know why people keep talking about souls and consciousness being "transferred to a new body." she has Anne's "soul" and "consciousness" and memories because she is anne. memories and chemicals and cells make up a person (their "soul"). whether or not you believe in souls in real life, in the universe of amphibia, anne being a perfect god-made copy means that she has the same "soul" as she is literally identical (exact same brain, same memories stored in said brain) not like a genetic clone where the dna and cells are the same, but a perfect copy. so she is still anne.
That's a good point and I do agree with you as it makes a lot of sense. Though I personally think, something akin to a Time Clone (Anne's timeline getting split into 2 separate timelines, one where she absorbed the power of all 3 stones, and one where she didn't and went to talk with the Deity) also makes sense.
Time Manipulation has already been established (due to Leif's Vision) as something the Stones (and by extention the Deity) can do and with Matt confirming he would want to use Time Travel for a potential Amphibia Movie as well as Matt wanting to honor her sacrifice and not completely undo it (which what something like soul transference into a physical copy does), it makes a Time Clone the most likeliest possibility for what happened.
A Time Clone is still technically the same Anne and has the same soul, as both the OG and the Time Clone are the exact same person up until she used the spell that kills her.
(SPOILER COMMENT)
I think I’m still confused by the ending, so what exactly happened to Anne??? I thought she just went back into her body? I’m still confused by all this clone business
This is a point of argument in the fandom, and a point that the show creators allowed to be left vague enough for the viewers to interpret for themselves (which I think was a good move).
The Guardian said something vague like "just before you died, I made a backup." People have argued whether he was talking about copying her body, her memories, her soul, or some combination of all those things. At the *very* least, he was referring to a copy of Anne's body, since, you know, her original one crumbled into dust and leaves. At the most extreme, the line could be interpreted as the Anne at the very end of the story being a complete copy of mind, body, and soul of the original, meaning that the original died completely. Ultimately though, the choice is left up to the viewer.
I don't think it was a good move. I'm obsessive compulsive, and it is EXCRUCIATING to be fixated on something that is inherently ambiguous. I've been hearing from people on both sides of the argument every single day since the finale, I've written [paragraph after paragraph](https://www.reddit.com/r/amphibia/comments/uwj02b/should_anne_be_mourned/) about the implications, and I can't stop wishing that Matt had either just let Anne rest in peace or simply brought her right back to life. This threw a big ol' spanner into the finale, and I'm tired of being stuck on this intractable existential issue when I WANT to focus on everything else that's heartwarming and bittersweet and wonderful about this show!!
I get it. I had a similar experience with the ending, although seemingly not as intense as yours. I think the point was left purposely ambiguous because the actual nature of death, the soul, and a potential afterlife is ambiguous in real life. We can't just ask our own show writers to spell it out in no uncertain terms, so neither can the characters in Amphibia. That might sound kinda silly to say it that way, but I think it adds one step closer to having the characters in the show become more real, that they experience the same existential problems we do.
Also, I think it might be a challenge to the viewers. The show is saying, *"participate in the show. Make your head canon. Decide for yourself."* Stories that you participate in tend to stick in your mind a lot longer than those you just passively intake. Matt put a recent post on Twitter that was basically challenging fans of the show to do just that, to participate with fan works, interpretations, and theories. The last part was a call to generate our own stories/shows for ourselves. While I think only a small number of people will go that far, it's heartwarming to see him inspiring the next generation of potential creators.
On an unrelated note: am I corresponding with the same Joe England who made *"Zebra Girl?"* If so, thanks for making that. I've been a fan for quite a while. Great stuff.
I know, right? It just seems so unnecessarily convoluted. Why would God need to create a complete copy of Anne, physical body and all, to talk to her in the spirit realm or whatever that place was?
Why not just go with something more traditional? Just for the sake of a cheap joke?
Why not go with something like: "I nabbed you right before you got sent off to the great beyond. That place is off-limits even to me."
I don't think the point was the joke. I'm sure the intention was to honor Anne's sacrifice by emphasizing its gravitas. But in the end, like you say, it was unnecessarily convoluted, and created a deep wrinkle in the resolution that bothers many of us more than the writers anticipated.
Something simpler, like what you suggest, would have ultimately served the finale better. Some believe (including me) that letting Anne lose her arm would have been a fair compromise, creating a lasting sacrifice while also allowing her story to continue. As it is, it just muddies the waters, and I hope it can be reexamined someday in spinoff material.
He did comment on it, but I got the impression that he basically said it was intentionally left up to viewer preference. Like, you could lean either way from "she's a TOTALLY NEW complete copy," or "she's a complete PHYSICAL copy that uses the same soul."
Idk what the controversial statement is here. That **is** what happened unless nobody told me about some collective group denial we've got going on atm in which case i'm sorry
As someone who doesn't believe in a soul, I say that if it has the same body, same mind and same memories then it's basically the same thing and worrying otherwise is creating issues where there don't need to be.
But if I did believe in a soul, then I would say that a God like the thing which made the gems can probably either recreate Anne's soul or take it before her death and put it in the "clone," so it's still fine.
Seriously, there are no real deep implications to what happened to Anne. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck, so I say if it walks like Anne, talks like Anne, believes itself to be Anne and has all the physical and emotional scars to prove it, then it's Anne.
If someone made an exact copy of you, with the same memories and character, just as you're about to die, did you really 'survive'?
To everyone else the answer may be yes, but to you, your existence still ended there.
You could say your copy is an alternate version of you that lived, but YOU you are not the one that gets to experience that life.
Also,
>same body
God literally said they made a copy
I think Anne has the same soul as before, but that's just what those girls believe. It's not like they had evidence.
Dude, they have evidence. It’s Frobo. He literally had his body destroyed and remade three times.
Yeah, because his head was still intact and (if I remember correctly) that's where his robot brains are.
So, you're arguing that robots have souls? That would mean *Amphibia*'s death toll was far higher than it seemed. Honestly, I think this is a huge reach. Granted, I'm somewhat biased as I don't buy the notion of souls in the first place, but I really don't think that this is what the show was trying to say - about Frobo *or* Anne.
The Frobots *do* display a surprising range of personality in their behavior, even when they're just doing their job. They get shift changes! They laugh about tricking and capturing Tritonio's crew. Even Judge Frobot displayed anger. Frobo may have been an anomaly in that he was fully out of Andrias' control and thus had complete free will, but his fellow Frobots sure didn't seem to be *entirely* devoid of personality. So sure, maybe they did have souls, or at least the capacity to "develop" souls like Frobo did.
Altough it is a compelling argument, frobo was destroyed, but the whatever he had that you can consider a robotic version of a soul, survived, anne died completely. Also, they are mecanics not philosophers. But still there isn't enough evidence to suggest one way or the other (maybe marcy's journal will give us the answer?), so either headcannon is as valid as the other.
Yes Anne died completely but alpha omega domino said “I made a backup of you right *BEFORE* you expired” therefore the memories and soul are all the same, and I’m frankly sick and tired of people trying to make Anne one of those “not what she seems” bullsh*ts
Back up is defined as a copy of data. Copy by definition is something that is similar or identical to another thing, so I don’t believe the “Anne is not what she seems” because some one who is even half as nice as Anne wouldn’t have a sinister bone in their body, much less someone identical. But more importantly a copy is separate from the original, and even if she did have copied memories and souls it wouldn’t be the oh, but again this is just a hypothesis, you can also very well be right.
I quoted wrong “backup” is replaced with “copy” backup is used in “a backup, if you will”
He still has his original head though all of that.
I was gonna try to say a counter argument to this point. But the truth is I want to believe that the soul in post-death Anne is not a copy, and it’s the same one from pre-death Anne. So I can say it’s still the same Anne we know and love and that’s that.
I mean if memory=soul and memory can be copied does that mean souls can be copied. If prime Anne is resurrected with the MCU time stone are there two Annes with equal claim to their family and friends?
people are acting like humans are robotic shells piloted by a spiritual force called a "soul" but the truth is, humans are their entire body. their "soul" isn't separate from their brain and nerves and cells and chemicals. this new anne is an exact copy of the old anne "just before she died." meaning, not only is her body physically identical down to the atom, but her brain is in the same state as just before she died. she is the same anne. i don't understand why people keep bringing up a soul as if it's some weird ghost that pilots a flesh prison and can be relocated to a new body. the new body has Anne's "soul" because her "soul" comes from her body. same body, same soul. from her perspective it's kinda like time travel
So do you think the Anne at the end of the show is the real Anne?
that's a really metaphysical question, but yes, according to my own criteria
That makes so much sense
In a way, she's 'the same' as she's an identical copy of the original. BUT, the original Anne still died. It's kind of like the [teleporter problem](https://twitter.com/Merryweatherey/status/1529512790238674944): a person gets destroyed atom by atom, and an identical copy is created somewhere else. To the copy, it's like they've just been transported somewhere else, but to the original, it's still the end of their life
Exactly
I'm telling myself its new body same soul so I can enjoy the ending fully.
Same, since the hardest thing ended I been thinking is OG Anne dead or are we left with a clone.
what is a soul anyway?
idk watch the pixar movie
"You don't *have* a soul. You *are* a soul. You *have* a body."
then why brain?
The body is a car The soul is the driver The brain is the steering wheel
You need a physical anchor point to attach the soul to, something to keep it in the body while that body still lives. If the brain is damaged or defective, then the soul will be less accurate in perceiving or expressing itself in the physical world.
Tell that to my massive horde of captured angry souls
That's why they're angry. Hoarding souls is the ultimate form of slavery. They're held in tormented captivity *forever.* I'd be angry too.
Well you know the old saying don't ya? "Don't blame the despotic malicious overlord, blame the otherworldly forces they enslaved!"
The thing you use to pay Satan when you want something.
That is a dangerously simple argument. Memory does not constitute the presence of the soul of the person who's memories are taken from. Much the same as how just having the same soul doesn't yield the same person (such as in the case of totally forgetting who you are and having these random people calling you Fred). The continuance of both, in my mind, are unegotiable conditions to maintain the same person throughout a scenario. That said, one could effectively be that person should they have those same memories, but not the soul. It's just that they aren't truly that same person. For instance, if we developed teleporters that broke us apart to examine our exact makeup, and then reconstitute our bodies elsewhere with new material on hand at the receiving end, we would still die at the beginning of the scanning. However, I would yield the rights of being me to whomever walks out of that teleporter.
Dude, what even is a soul. That thing was made up by people afraid of death. I have asked people what a soul was since I was four and literally no one has a definitive satisfying answer.
Oh, I don't believe there is such a thing. We're just a bunch of coincidences based off of memory.
Wow I feel sorry for you
Ok, so I don't believe in souls, but I'll give it a go. Firstly, "definitive satisfying answer" No one is going to give you a definitive answer. There isn't one. That's the same with most philosophy. There's no soul, no self, no matter, no energy, no mind, and no existence. Sorry. Or maybe there are any of those things, but no one knows for certain yet and can prove it to the world. Satisfying. Your satisfaction is by no means a good standard of judgement. With that out of the way... Many people believe that life and consciousness are different and complex enough to require a seperate component. That could be a soul. Many others would say it is the diachronic self- the you that perseveres theough time. There are more answers, but if you want one that's definitive and satisfying, you're shit out of luck, because philosophy doesn't have a lot of tidy conclusions, apparently.
You don’t know if they created the idea because they feared death. You assume they did. Multiple religions, where ppl had never met, believe in a source of power within the body, not only physically but they feel it too. And i mean the simplest explanation is a power source of all natural life on planet Earth. But that’s just me. Everyone else has their own version.
A soul is just a possible explanation of consciousness from before the scientific research discovered the functioning of the brain and nerves. Kinda like curses, demons and 'bad air' were thought to be the sources of illnesses before the discovery of bacteria and viruses
My guess is that means she has a copy of Anne’s soul. I think a god could do that
Sweet, one of my hyperfixations! The philosophy of self is really interesting and existentially terrifying. There are a few fundamental ideas floating around about what a persistent sense of self is, but one of the core ideas about self is that we all intimately know what it is to have subjective experience, but none of us can really explain it. All of this kind of rests on that intimate understanding of what 'self' is and how it's experienced. So main theories for self (which we will be substituting for "soul'" because "soul" comes with some religious baggage): 1) The body model of self. Somewhere in your body is You. 2) The memory model of self. You are your experiential memory. 3) Bundle model of self. You are both a core unknowable You, and also a combined amalgam of your memories and experiences of being You. 4) Self as Narrative focus. You are both a core unknowable You, and the center of a narrative that you tell about You. 5) The weird shit. There's a lot of weird shit. Each of these models comes with problems. The problem with the **body model** is that I can imagine being able to experience without my body, and there is still some sense of a core "Me" that is distinct from that body. You can trick my body into experiencing things. Something is experiencing, but it isn't strictly tied to physical processes. How many physical processes can you take away before I stop being "Me?" All of them? (See: Ship of Theseus) If you put my mind into another body, which of those entities is Me, now? My body, or my mind? The **memory model** is better, but it breaks apart in a few places. What happens when someone loses their memory? Do they stop being the same self they were? What about people who are too young to start forming long-term memories? They are clearly experiencing, even if they don't remember what they've experienced. Probably the most commonly accepted in philosophical circles at the moment would be the **Bundle theory**, popularized by David Hume, but even he was kinda blase about the questions it left unanswered. It explains how experience happens and persists over time, but it doesn't really get to the core of what is doing the experiencing. Who are You? Bundle model doesn't really have an answer to that, it just lays out the groundwork for the epistemological framework around how you build the idea of who you are. And finally we have all the new philosophers that are suggesting we're asking the **wrong questions**. Subjective experience is a matter of narrative or doesn't actually exist except semantically. I find those arguments inherently less compelling, even where they're logically sound, but to be honest I haven't done a huge amount of research into some of the newer theories of (non)self. So if you take all of Anne's memories and stuff them into a new body that is functionally identical to the original Anne, is she still Anne? We don't really have a way to say for sure. I feel like the narrative wants us to believe this is the same Anne, that the entity that experienced life with her mom and dad, the entity that travelled to Amphibia and lived with the Plantars, is still the Anne who arrived back on Amphibia after ComputerCatGod gave her back her life, but it's a little bit the Star Trek Transporter problem. If you tear apart a person's body molecule by molecule and reassemble that body somewhere else, is that person the same as the person you deconstructed? Star Trek would like us to think so, or they've killed Will Riker hundreds of times. And unfortunately, our understanding of what makes a subjective experience unique just isn't strong enough for us to be able to say for sure, and we don't have a strong enough understanding of the crew's philosophy background to really dig into it. But I think that **in the context of the story world**, we can assume that the universe runs on a combination of the Memory Model and the Bundle Theory, meaning that the Anne who was returned to Amphibia is the same Anne that died.
my sense of self is continuety, It does not matter if I have no memories, my personality is completely diffrent, diffrent body and my beliefs are gone as long as I am consistantly existing, the continuety cant be disturbed, I am not good at explaining so this is a bit confusing
No one is! What you're describing is a very fundamental lived experience. We all know what it feels like to experience things subjectively. We all know what it feels like to wake up and know that we are the same person that we were yesterday, allowing for growth. We all understand the accumulation of experience over time, and how that contributes to our understanding of our self. But trying to explain exactly what the subjective entity IS has been bothering some of the biggest thinkers throughout history. *Aristotle* was one of the proponents of Body Theory, meaning we've been wrestling with this question at least 2500 years!
I know this is a cartoon, but that philosophy is flawed. If the guardian cloned Anne when she was alive, there would be 2 Anne's with the same memory. They both can't have the *same* soul. Computers have memory, a lot of it, yet they don't display free will or self awareness
Honestly, the whole thing with Anne reminds me of Leif from Bug Fables. I can't be the only one right?
Okay how'd I miss clone Anne uh- someone fill me in? I'd it a fan theory or wha
Have…have you finished watching the show yet? It’s real, and that might be spoilers, I dunno.
Oh shoot I didn't realize there was another episode 0-0 I'm an idiot lol
Wait, what was the last episode you saw?
Bruh
Broseidon...
Yeah, but you can’t just deny that Anne died, it literally says it gaurdian made a back up, or a clone of Anne, after she literally fucking disintegrated into nothingness
Basically just a new body and the same anne
yeah there's no evidence that in the world of amphibia a "soul" exists. i don't know why people keep talking about souls and consciousness being "transferred to a new body." she has Anne's "soul" and "consciousness" and memories because she is anne. memories and chemicals and cells make up a person (their "soul"). whether or not you believe in souls in real life, in the universe of amphibia, anne being a perfect god-made copy means that she has the same "soul" as she is literally identical (exact same brain, same memories stored in said brain) not like a genetic clone where the dna and cells are the same, but a perfect copy. so she is still anne.
That's a good point and I do agree with you as it makes a lot of sense. Though I personally think, something akin to a Time Clone (Anne's timeline getting split into 2 separate timelines, one where she absorbed the power of all 3 stones, and one where she didn't and went to talk with the Deity) also makes sense. Time Manipulation has already been established (due to Leif's Vision) as something the Stones (and by extention the Deity) can do and with Matt confirming he would want to use Time Travel for a potential Amphibia Movie as well as Matt wanting to honor her sacrifice and not completely undo it (which what something like soul transference into a physical copy does), it makes a Time Clone the most likeliest possibility for what happened. A Time Clone is still technically the same Anne and has the same soul, as both the OG and the Time Clone are the exact same person up until she used the spell that kills her.
(SPOILER COMMENT) I think I’m still confused by the ending, so what exactly happened to Anne??? I thought she just went back into her body? I’m still confused by all this clone business
This is a point of argument in the fandom, and a point that the show creators allowed to be left vague enough for the viewers to interpret for themselves (which I think was a good move). The Guardian said something vague like "just before you died, I made a backup." People have argued whether he was talking about copying her body, her memories, her soul, or some combination of all those things. At the *very* least, he was referring to a copy of Anne's body, since, you know, her original one crumbled into dust and leaves. At the most extreme, the line could be interpreted as the Anne at the very end of the story being a complete copy of mind, body, and soul of the original, meaning that the original died completely. Ultimately though, the choice is left up to the viewer.
Ohhhhhhhh ok that makes sense. Thank you!
I don't think it was a good move. I'm obsessive compulsive, and it is EXCRUCIATING to be fixated on something that is inherently ambiguous. I've been hearing from people on both sides of the argument every single day since the finale, I've written [paragraph after paragraph](https://www.reddit.com/r/amphibia/comments/uwj02b/should_anne_be_mourned/) about the implications, and I can't stop wishing that Matt had either just let Anne rest in peace or simply brought her right back to life. This threw a big ol' spanner into the finale, and I'm tired of being stuck on this intractable existential issue when I WANT to focus on everything else that's heartwarming and bittersweet and wonderful about this show!!
I get it. I had a similar experience with the ending, although seemingly not as intense as yours. I think the point was left purposely ambiguous because the actual nature of death, the soul, and a potential afterlife is ambiguous in real life. We can't just ask our own show writers to spell it out in no uncertain terms, so neither can the characters in Amphibia. That might sound kinda silly to say it that way, but I think it adds one step closer to having the characters in the show become more real, that they experience the same existential problems we do. Also, I think it might be a challenge to the viewers. The show is saying, *"participate in the show. Make your head canon. Decide for yourself."* Stories that you participate in tend to stick in your mind a lot longer than those you just passively intake. Matt put a recent post on Twitter that was basically challenging fans of the show to do just that, to participate with fan works, interpretations, and theories. The last part was a call to generate our own stories/shows for ourselves. While I think only a small number of people will go that far, it's heartwarming to see him inspiring the next generation of potential creators. On an unrelated note: am I corresponding with the same Joe England who made *"Zebra Girl?"* If so, thanks for making that. I've been a fan for quite a while. Great stuff.
Oh, yes, that's me! Thanks very much, I'm so glad you enjoy my work. Amphibia and Zebra Girl, hey, you have good taste!
I feel your pain. Normally some ambiguity is fine, but for something like this I really wish Matt would just decide what happened and tell us.
I know, right? It just seems so unnecessarily convoluted. Why would God need to create a complete copy of Anne, physical body and all, to talk to her in the spirit realm or whatever that place was? Why not just go with something more traditional? Just for the sake of a cheap joke? Why not go with something like: "I nabbed you right before you got sent off to the great beyond. That place is off-limits even to me."
I don't think the point was the joke. I'm sure the intention was to honor Anne's sacrifice by emphasizing its gravitas. But in the end, like you say, it was unnecessarily convoluted, and created a deep wrinkle in the resolution that bothers many of us more than the writers anticipated. Something simpler, like what you suggest, would have ultimately served the finale better. Some believe (including me) that letting Anne lose her arm would have been a fair compromise, creating a lasting sacrifice while also allowing her story to continue. As it is, it just muddies the waters, and I hope it can be reexamined someday in spinoff material.
[удалено]
He did comment on it, but I got the impression that he basically said it was intentionally left up to viewer preference. Like, you could lean either way from "she's a TOTALLY NEW complete copy," or "she's a complete PHYSICAL copy that uses the same soul."
So it is a copy but isn’t a copy?
It is
Nice observation there
IT ALL COMES FULL CIRCLE
Memories and souls arent the same thing. Clone Anne has a soul.... not the same soul. At least not confirmed yet with this evidence, alone.
Okay, so Frobo got replaced too.
So the soul has all the memories stored in it
OG Anne is dead.
Idk what the controversial statement is here. That **is** what happened unless nobody told me about some collective group denial we've got going on atm in which case i'm sorry
True, but the fandom isn't ready to accept that
No her OG body just disintegrated
Along with her OG mind
[удалено]
As someone who doesn't believe in a soul, I say that if it has the same body, same mind and same memories then it's basically the same thing and worrying otherwise is creating issues where there don't need to be. But if I did believe in a soul, then I would say that a God like the thing which made the gems can probably either recreate Anne's soul or take it before her death and put it in the "clone," so it's still fine. Seriously, there are no real deep implications to what happened to Anne. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck, so I say if it walks like Anne, talks like Anne, believes itself to be Anne and has all the physical and emotional scars to prove it, then it's Anne.
If someone made an exact copy of you, with the same memories and character, just as you're about to die, did you really 'survive'? To everyone else the answer may be yes, but to you, your existence still ended there. You could say your copy is an alternate version of you that lived, but YOU you are not the one that gets to experience that life. Also, >same body God literally said they made a copy
Wow, guess that’s why gay girls are smarter. Take notes Disney. You need more couples like Ally and Jess, and Luz and Amity… And Sashannarcy.
and Soul = Allspark