Hypothetical discussion on souls

[MythRat]

This is a sort of thought experiment, or an outline of my thought process, I've had knocking around my head for a while but I've never had the opportunity to discuss it with non-theists and I'm interested in hearing that side of it. I started thinking about this because I was raised in a family that firmly believes in reincarnation but I'm more scientifically-minded and I was trying to think of how/if reincarnation could fit into my understanding of science. This is purely hypothetical and probably full of holes but I'm interested in seeing where the discussion goes.

Assume for the sake of argument that souls exist and are something physically definable. According to most beliefs, souls inhabit peoples' bodies, are indestructible, and have an element of self. For these things to be possible in any scientific manner, a soul would have to be some kind of energy (it couldn't be something physical like an organ, we'd have found it by now). A soul being energy would account for it being immortal since energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed or transferred. For a soul to have an element of self, it has to have some level of sentience; if something is sentient, made of energy, and inhabits living bodies, it seems reasonable to think it does so as part of a symbiotic relationship (e.g. the soul gets to walk around and have experiences and the body gets to have some 'deeper' connection with the universe).
If an immortal, sentient energy-thing is hanging out in bodies for some mutual benefit, it stands to reason that moving from one body to the next as each expires would be more beneficial as it would allow the soul to have more experiences and allow the bodies a stronger connection to the universe depending on the 'age' of the soul (this is reincarnation in a nutshell).
None of this assumes that souls were created by any god, that souls have self and bodies do not (or vice versa), that souls have or impart any form of inherent morality, or that any communication between soul and body is perfect or even consistent (accounting for things like deja vu or hearing god; which could be the soul remembering things the current body hasn't experienced or the soul trying to communicate with the body directly, respectively).
Are these arguments reasonable given the assumption?

[LastPoet]

Anything is reasonable, when the assumptions are unproven or impossible to test. Assuming enough technology, you can be a brain in a Jar.

[Captain Colostomy]

Not a slam, but you know it's shaky ground when assumptions must be used.

[MythRat]

Not a slam, but you know it's shaky ground when assumptions must be used.

Well, the course in logic that I took was only one semester and it was a long while ago but, iirc, assumptions are the basis of all logical arguments whether factual or hypothetical.

"An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night."

From this page.
An assumption is not inherently fallacious or flawed, it's merely something which is assumed to be true; in this case it's assumed "for the sake of argument" meaning "this probably isn't true, but if it were, would the following inferences make sense?"

[Zone]

It's technically still possible that consciousness could survive separately from the body even if we have no idea how that could work naturally. But it would better not to base your life around it concentrate on the real world and real people, the stuff you know exists for certain.

[LastPoet]

! define soul.

[pocaracas]

Imaginary souls (or cans, or ghouls, or moules, or force) can do anything you can dream of. Just try to keep it consistent so you have a shot at publishing the sequel.

[MythRat]

It's technically still possible that consciousness could survive separately from the body even if we have no idea how that could work naturally. But it would better not to base your life around it concentrate on the real world and real people, the stuff you know exists for certain.

Well, like I said, it's just an idea that's been kicking around my brain for a while that I wanted to discuss with a different viewpoint than usual. It's just for fun, not really something I base my life around. I think about this the same way I think about what kind of anatomical structure and biochemistry dragons would have to have in order to exist in reality, haha. Not real but still entertaining to think about.

! define soul.

That's what I just did: I crafted a hypothetical definition of a "soul" and followed it up with inferences on how such a thing could function. That's the entire point of this exercise.

[LastPoet]

Well, if it is hypothetical, then you can define it as you please, adding bullshit as you go. Congratulations, you just defined religion.

[max-greece]

Well you would have to show that the "soul" exists even when the brain dies. We have all sorts of evidence that brain death is the end of the individual. We have further evidence that damage to different parts of the brain affect an individual's ability to function, the more damage the greater the effect. With that in mind the function of the soul (in terms of how much of you would be in it) appears VERY limited. The soul wouldn't have memory - we know that's in the brain, or language skills or motor skills (obviously).

What does that leave? Judging by severe cases of diseases like Alzheimers - not much.