Arguments against Soul

[EgoDeath]

Assuming the existence of something which we don't even understand because you would like to be "the best answer" means absolutely nothing.

[FlatAssembler]

I see two things not like the others Tack. The relationship between souls and NDEs or the supernatural is obvious. The rest, not so much.

I'd contend that NDEs and the supernatural powerfully argue against soul being related to the rest.

It's ironic that people are often claiming free will proves the existence of God, when in fact it proves that an omniscient God (and God is usually defined to be omniscient) can't possibly exist.

[Belacqua]

I see two things not like the others Tack.  The relationship between souls and NDEs or the supernatural is obvious.  The rest, not so much.  

I'd contend that NDEs and the supernatural powerfully argue against soul being related to the rest.

It's ironic that people are often claiming free will proves the existence of God, when in fact it proves that an omniscient God (and God is usually defined to be omniscient) can't possibly exist.

How does an omniscient God prove that free will can't exist? 

You can freely choose an action. God, knowing the future, would know that you will choose it. But that doesn't mean that you didn't choose it.

[The Grand Nudger]

This old chestnut again. Yes, a predetermined choice means that you didn't choose in any meaningful sense of the word, and so, can only have a compatibilist, rather than free, will.

At least with regard to that selection. Maybe there are other things that aren't predetermined. : shrugs :

[tackattack]

---

qualia

What makes you think it's real? If it were real, how come do all or nearly all people report irritation when they hear high-frequency sounds, yet nobody reports irritation when they hear low-frequency sounds? If qualia were real, we would expect some people to report irritation when they hear low-frequency sounds, right?

qualitative consciousness

What does that mean?

determinism

Determinism is impossible by the laws of physics, such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nothing to discuss here.

free will

Free will exists in the sense that determinism is impossible at the quantum level, and of course some quantum effects play a role in our brain. But that's all there is, it causes our brains, as well as our computers, to make mistakes sometimes.

mind

All that we know about mind points to it being generated by the physical brain. Had computers existed back in the day, probably no philosopher would suggest mind is immaterial.

NDE

Anecdotal evidence of the lowest possible quality. Many NDEs contain hallucinatory features, such as encountering living persons or demonstrably fictional characters in the transcendental realm, and the right inference from that is that all NDEs are hallucinations.

supernatural

Supernatural explanations can't be scientifically tested and there is every reason to dismiss them. And they have a horrible track record of being always superseded by a scientific natural explanation (in antiquity, people used to believe earthquakes were a sign of God, now we know they aren't...).

morality

The fact that some actions lead to good consequences and some lead to bad consequences doesn't require any kind of supernatural explanation. And good and evil are easily defined in terms of natural realm: evil is simply that which causes suffering.

---

I'd be more than happy to discuss my views on souls down 1 or maybe 2 of these paths at a time, but in this format it would take far too much of my little time to do them all. Do you have one or two you'd particularly care to discuss. You seem ambivalent at some and irked by others so I'd like to not presume your preference.

Assuming the existence of something which we don't even understand because you would like to be "the best answer" means absolutely nothing.

And so you'd obvious rather not define and discuss souls when presented the opportunity to, noted.

@Gae Bolga it wasn't an exhaustive list of reasons, simply a path for the conversation to move into as I've thought about those areas with relationship to souls. I'm always up for other directions as well. Do you have any suggestions?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, my suggestion was that we explore those items you listed. Two of those things have an obvious relationship. The rest, I'll wait for some comment from you on why you feel they're all part of the same set. I also suggested that nde's and the supernatural powerfully argue -against- the soul as being related to the others.

You cannot genuinely hold those beliefs while accepting soul-as-seat of consciousness. If there is a soul, and it's meaningfully non-natural, and people leave their bodies with it, then none of the things that a natural organ does are properties of that explicitly defined-as-other x.

[tackattack]

@Gae Bolga I'll content that there is a soul, and use your definitions that it is meaningfully non-natural and leaves people's bodies. Given those were true, why would a list of natural properties (P) be mutually exclusive to the functioning properties (F) of an other (x)? for example, If I (primary natural X) were to create a robot (other x) why couldn't that x have the same ability to calculate, think, decide, move an elbow identical to X. x could be designed, or learn, P so that they're included in the F of x.

Let's just deal with the NDEs and supernatural paths to a soul then work on the others and set A's relation to the others. I believe nonphysical veridical perception of NDEs are best explained by substance duality than a physical-ist view. I believe ghost and apparitions are too common and specific to be explained as our minds playing tricks on us and is better answered if ghosts are either derivative soul or spirit in unrest.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do these ghosts and apparitions, derivative souls and spirits in unrest have sensory experiences?

Telling me that you believe in ghosts doesn't tell me why you believe in ghosts. In fact it doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. If, however, we're going to go down the rabbit hole of "I believe this, because I believe that"..well.....have fun? You said you thought that this was the best explanation, not the one that you're invested in by other equally unevidenced beliefs.

Is an argument from incredulity convincing, and do you think that ghosts and apparitions are more common or specific than minds "playing tricks"?

-Bonus q, and something I've long wondered about this take, these semantics - what would qualify as a mind not "playing tricks"? What does a mind have to be doing to clear that hurdle for you? If you prefer, approached from the other angle, if soul is the seat of consciousness, and mind "plays tricks"...wouldn't that mean that soul is ultimately playing the trick? What would soul have to do to clear the same hurdle?

[tackattack]

@Gae Bolga I apologize if it came across as an argument from incredulity, it wasn't my intent. We all look for the best reasons for our belief, that's how people (even scientist and materialists) work. We look for the most consistent explanation, which may or may not be the simplest according to Occam's razor. Usually that's science, but not always. I have not had observable experiences with visual apparitions. I have spoken with people I trust that share of their experiences with visual apparitions. None have reported apparitions speaking, hearing, touching (in the normal sense) them physically. I would assume, from what I understand of ghosts and apparitions that they do not have sensory experiences based on the standard sensory perceptions "alive" people have. I would rate them as alive though as in able to learn/think.

You haven't answer my question as to why on why features of X or other x would be mutually exclusive.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the super round, giving you plenty to think about.  Is god of two substances?  Does the rationalization of "I believe in this because I believe in that" actually fit with your beliefs about the nature of the all?

---

It's true by definition that something defined as meaningfully non natural cannot be...well...natural. You've defined experience as non natural, and contended that ghosts leave their bodies and have experiences. Well, fine, but if so, this can't be..when we look..an example of a natural organ doing natural things in the natural world. Any opf those things are not the things you're referring to, because the things that you're referring to are non natural.

You've explicitly staked out an opposition to any such fact. We don't need eyes to see, if ghost eyes can see. We don't need skin to feel, if the ethereal plasma can feel. We don't need ears to hear, if casper can hold a tune, and we certainly don't need brains to manage all of this data if our immortal souls are doing it just fine.

So, would you like to look?