(September 1, 2019 at 12:45 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: What do you guys here think, what is the best argument against the existence of the soul (and therefore ghosts and afterlives)?
I used to think that the "Damage of the middle of the brain leads to two distinct personalities governing halves of the body." was an argument that would convince anybody, but, evidently, it won't. See here:
How do people who believe in souls explain away the fact that epileptic patients who have the middle of their brain severed appear to have two distinct personalities governing halves of their bodies?
In short, people respond with "Where is some reliable source for that claim?", and, to be honest, I am not sure what would be a reliable source for this. My psychology textbook saying that isn't really good evidence that's true, is it? I mean, my Croatian history textbook tells me most scientists agree Global Flood really happened.
Perhaps the best response to that is "And where is some reliable source of the claims about Maria's Shoe, and other things that supposedly prove the existence of soul?", what do you think?

Maybe good to have a clear definition of what a soul is.

In Aristotelian hylomorphism, the soul is the form of the body, including not only its shape and construction but its operations as well. This is always present with the hyle, the material of the body, which today we would call carbon, hydrogen, etc. 

The Christians have faith (no proof of course) that this same morph is transferred at death to a different hyle. I don't believe that, but I still think that when Aristotelians and others talk about soul as morphe it can be a useful term.

Well, Soul, like jazz, is something I wouldn’t consider good music.

(September 1, 2019 at 2:16 pm)mordant Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 1:46 pm)Acrobat Wrote: That we’re just molecules in motion. Moist robots.

Machines of meat!

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-storie...Made.shtml

"Maybe it' s just a meat phase they're going through"....

Loved that story.

Looking at my old tennis shoes, I can say for sure they have no soles.

(September 1, 2019 at 12:45 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: What do you guys here think, what is the best argument against the existence of the soul (and therefore ghosts and afterlives)?
I used to think that the "Damage of the middle of the brain leads to two distinct personalities governing halves of the body." was an argument that would convince anybody, but, evidently, it won't. See here:
How do people who believe in souls explain away the fact that epileptic patients who have the middle of their brain severed appear to have two distinct personalities governing halves of their bodies?
In short, people respond with "Where is some reliable source for that claim?", and, to be honest, I am not sure what would be a reliable source for this. My psychology textbook saying that isn't really good evidence that's true, is it? I mean, my Croatian history textbook tells me most scientists agree Global Flood really happened.
Perhaps the best response to that is "And where is some reliable source of the claims about Maria's Shoe, and other things that supposedly prove the existence of soul?", what do you think?

We don't need to argue against a soul, it's for those that claim such a thing to argue for it.  How do they explain away facts?  They do it by rationalization.

(September 1, 2019 at 6:37 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 12:45 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: What do you guys here think, what is the best argument against the existence of the soul (and therefore ghosts and afterlives)?
I used to think that the "Damage of the middle of the brain leads to two distinct personalities governing halves of the body." was an argument that would convince anybody, but, evidently, it won't. See here:
How do people who believe in souls explain away the fact that epileptic patients who have the middle of their brain severed appear to have two distinct personalities governing halves of their bodies?
In short, people respond with "Where is some reliable source for that claim?", and, to be honest, I am not sure what would be a reliable source for this. My psychology textbook saying that isn't really good evidence that's true, is it? I mean, my Croatian history textbook tells me most scientists agree Global Flood really happened.
Perhaps the best response to that is "And where is some reliable source of the claims about Maria's Shoe, and other things that supposedly prove the existence of soul?", what do you think?

Maybe good to have a clear definition of what a soul is.

In Aristotelian hylomorphism, the soul is the form of the body, including not only its shape and construction but its operations as well. This is always present with the hyle, the material of the body, which today we would call carbon, hydrogen, etc. 

The Christians have faith (no proof of course) that this same morph is transferred at death to a different hyle. I don't believe that, but I still think that when Aristotelians and others talk about soul as morphe it can be a useful term.

Yet another of Aristotle's many mistakes.

Boru

(September 1, 2019 at 6:37 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Maybe good to have a clear definition of what a soul is.

In Aristotelian hylomorphism, the soul is the form of the body, including not only its shape and construction but its operations as well. This is always present with the hyle, the material of the body, which today we would call carbon, hydrogen, etc. 

The Christians have faith (no proof of course) that this same morph is transferred at death to a different hyle. I don't believe that, but I still think that when Aristotelians and others talk about soul as morphe it can be a useful term.

Why do we need a definition, it adds little to the conversation. No matter how you define soul it will remain a concept of the mind.

Or is this an example of your need to express "I know more than you"?

Give me your best arguments against....

A soul
A shoul
A gork
A snork
A bjork
A pline
A line
A hinj
A frinj
A retel
And a ketel

I can define each one if you like.
Can you give me your best arguments against the existence of all of them ?

It would seem to me that in order to argue against the existence of something that you'll first need to discover if that thing exists.

If it doesn't exist, then there is no need to argue for it's non existence.

I agree with others, there is no reason to take the position that there is no soul, in a debate. Why take on the burden of proof, unnecessarily?

But, while we don't know everything about consciousness and the mind, we know enough to understand that there is no evidence for anything like a soul, nor is there any need for one.

But, the split brain patients you mention, are a pretty good argument against a soul.

Especially, this patient:  One hemispher atheist, the other believer

Other problems for a soul:

Chimera's - in rare cases, one fetus in the womb will absorb the fetus of their potential twin. What happened to the other soul? Does the surviving twin have 2 souls? Did the deity recall the 2nd soul?

Molar pregnancy - cell becomes fertilized, then becomes a tumor. Again, what happened to the soul that entered at conception?

Fertilized eggs that do not implant before onset of menses - again, where did the soul go?

Soul It's real.