Arguments against Soul

[FlatAssembler]

I was under complete sedation for nine hours once, when I opened my eyes it felt like only a moment had passed.

That's precisely my point.
I think most people, including the apologetics, imagine soul as if it were, to use computer language, the BIOS of the brain, except that it never runs out of power. That idea sounds fine at first, but there are actually many problems with it. First of all, how do you define "person"? If it's psychological continuity, and I think almost everybody these days would agree on that definition, then that soul isn't actually you.
And there is another problem with that, namely, if there were souls which behaved like a BIOS of the brain, we would expect to be able to tell how long we have been unconscious once we wake up, just like a computer can tell how long it's been shut down (assuming BIOS is working, and it's hard to imagine why a soul that can survive physical death would temporarily stop working). And obviously, we aren't.

---

It would be slightly less absurd to suggest that dolphins have a soul than that humans have a soul, don't you think? To dolphins, it can't happen that they are unconscious for a long period of time and then wake up: if a dolphin falls unconscious, it drowns. Yet, such things happen to almost every human at least once in their lifetime.

[Abaddon_ire]

I was under complete sedation for nine hours once, when I opened my eyes it felt like only a moment had passed.

That's precisely my point.
I think most people, including the apologetics, imagine soul as if it were, to use computer language, the BIOS of the brain, except that it never runs out of power. That idea sounds fine at first, but there are actually many problems with it. First of all, how do you define "person"? If it's psychological continuity, and I think almost everybody these days would agree on that definition, then that soul isn't actually you.
And there is another problem with that, namely, if there were souls which behaved like a BIOS of the brain, we would expect to be able to tell how long we have been unconscious once we wake up, just like a computer can tell how long it's been shut down (assuming BIOS is working, and it's hard to imagine why a soul that can survive physical death would temporarily stop working). And obviously, we aren't.

---

It would be slightly less absurd to suggest that dolphins have a soul than that humans have a soul, don't you think? To dolphins, it can't happen that they are unconscious for a long period of time and then wake up: if a dolphin falls unconscious, it drowns. Yet, such things happen to almost every human at least once in their lifetime.

Perhaps, then, the soul is analogous to the programmer of the BIOS of the brain? It writes it, installs it, runs it, updates it as necessary, but when the hardware dies, the programmer does not. If the BIOS crashes, the programmer can reset it. If that resets the BIOS clock, then that accounts for amnesia. If the amnesia is cured, the programmer had a backup. It the personality is altered in the process, the programmer installed a new version. And so forth.

Of course, that fixes some problem with the analogy, but introduces a whole new bunch of problems. For example, it implies reincarnation. Which starts a whole new analogy about a whole other religious belief. E.G. Why do people experience memories of past lives? Because the programmer reused some old code for the new version. Why do some people experience alien abduction? Because the BIOS was infected with a virus. Or the programmer swiped some code from another programmer. DNA then becomes no more than a computer code and also actual information as the ID loons claim, and so on.

When one thinks about it, one could invent a whole new religion based on how computers work. If I had time, I would do it for the giggles.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I, for one, would be glad to offer prayers to the Omnisia so that the machine spirits are kept satisfied.

[EgoDeath]

@tackattack

My intention was not to laugh at you or dismiss you my friend, and my apologies if I was making it come across that way. I'm only trying to illustrate that, yes, while there are definitions in the dictionary of what we call a soul, simply for the purpose of making conversations about this very vague concept easier, I don't think that these definitions constitute as anything even reomtely scientific.

My main point is just that people talk of a soul but really don't even know what it is. So while we can continue to give vague definitions and dance around the point, as humans on this Earth trying to make sense of everything, we don't really even have a grasp on what the "soul," actually is. I feel like I've illustrated my point pretty well.

So, really, nothing scientific is going on when people are talking of "soul." And we shouldn't pretend like there is. And I'm not saying that you are doing that, although you did start to venture into that grass a little bit, But I simply think that humans, religious and non-religious alike, should be brutally honest about what's actually going on... What's actually going on is that we are talking about a belief that some people hold, that is wholly and totally unsupported by any sort of scientific evidence or observation. And it's a belief that gives people a lot of comfort about dying, and losing loved ones... Which is fine for what it is.

But without some sort of working scientific definition, all we have is, at BEST, vague conversations about nothing, essentially. And please don't make the mistake that every Christian makes and say, "Well, science doesn't explain everything!" - because I'm not making that claim. I'm simply saying that when we talk of "Soul," there is nothing scientific going on, and so we shouldn't treat this concept of "Soul" as something that we actually understand down to the t. Because it seems like we don't really understand it at all, other than just as a very vague concept.

And look man, if you believe in a soul, and you know damn well there's nothing scientific about that belief, then coo. I'm Totally fine with people believing whatever the hell they want, essentially. So long as you're not hurting people, or actively trying to shove your beliefs down people's throats, especially children, then I don't really care if you believe in a soul or Heaven or Hell or whatever else, because it's your life.

To each their own, friend.

[Mr Greene]

At work.

I, for one,  would be glad to offer prayers to the Omnisia so that the machine spirits are kept satisfied.

Strike the first rune upon the engine's casing employing the chosen wrench. Its tip should be anointed with the oil of engineering using the proper incantation when the auspices are correct. Strike the second rune upon the engine's casing employing the arc-tip of the power-driver. If the second rune is not good, a third rune may be struck in like manner to the first. This is done according to the true ritual laid down by Scotti the Enginseer. A libation should be offered. If this sequence is properly observed the engines may be brought to full activation by depressing the large panel marked "ON".

[Peebothuhlu]

I, for one,  would be glad to offer prayers to the Omnisia so that the machine spirits are kept satisfied.

Strike the first rune upon the engine's casing employing the chosen wrench. Its tip should be anointed with the oil of engineering using the proper incantation when the auspices are correct. Strike the second rune upon the engine's casing employing the arc-tip of the power-driver. If the second rune is not good, a third rune may be struck in like manner to the first. This is done according to the true ritual laid down by Scotti the Enginseer. A libation should be offered. If this sequence is properly observed the engines may be brought to full activation by depressing the large panel marked "ON".

 All witness the miracle of the machine. May the Omnisia's blessing and apeasment bring succour to the machine spirits.



Not at work.

[tackattack]

---

@tackattack

Either soul is the best explanation for mind and morality..as you indicated, or it isn't.  

I have no problem imagining a world in which you have a sixth sense that I don't, and a soul.  I see no reason why, in that world where you have a sixth sense and a soul, that soul would be an explanation for mind or morality.  I think that you're tacitly assuming too much.  As though, if a soul existed, it explained either thing by default.

We can imagine any combination of these ideas you're playing with.  That I don't have a soul but do have the sixth sense.  That I have the sixth sense but not the soul.  That I have both.  In no combination does soul ever present itself as an explanation for morality or mind.  Frankly, whether my morality depends on soul isn't even a credible issue of disagreement.

I know that you believe in soul. The existence of soul isn't even a productive discussion between us. Lay that aside. You believe in soul. I know that. What I don't know is why you believe that soul is an or even the best explanation for mind or morality. This is no small thing, and there's no necessary reason for us to disagree here. You indicated that your belief in soul was predicate on this claim..but is that true? Even if it isn't, that wouldn't mean that there was no soul - it would only mean that you had to find a way to more accurately communicate why you believe in their existence. You either believe in soul for this invalid reason, or you have some other not-blatantly-invalid reason for believing in soul. If it's the latter..I'm trying to help you articulate that - not trying to prove that there is no soul or meandering around in a useless conversation about it's existence.

---

And I greatly appreciate your sounding board for my ideas Gae. It wasn't a predicate for belief, but a path of discussion for said belief. To clarify I don't believe you can find the soul in mind or morality. But in the absence of mind, where there is cognition there is soul. If mind is all there is then 0 instances of knowledge or experience outside of mind can exist. I simply don't believe that statement is true and allow for the possibility that there is something beyond mind, which could be soul as a best answer. The same applies to objective morality. Any morality that isn't individual morality or identifiable societal moral pressure would be other, and in that space fits objective morality and soul.

Thus I believe for a few quick points,
1. while I was blacked out, I remember nothing, but time passed and I was still me from all accounts, indicates i am not my memories.
2. There is a force that affects my will and focus, not related to mind or brain, indicating I am not all that focuses my will to act
3. There are complex circumstances that I have no control over, that seem orchestrated, indicating that I do not direct my life entirely


I fully get your point, that even if all this were true it still doesn't prove a soul exists, and you're right. But in the absence of a better answer, souls, for me, answers these questions. The point was to prove that an honest and rational exploration of a topic could be had, even with shakey definitions. I understand that most people on here are materialists and find it quite pointless to discuss anything non natural at all, much less non-scientifically. I just hope that opening myself up to the conversation and exploration proved that point. Gae, I don't believe you and I aren't very far apart on a lot of things (contrary to how it seems sometimes), but those little difference are important and I can respect those differences.

---

@tackattack

My intention was not to laugh at you or dismiss you my friend, and my apologies if I was making it come across that way. I'm only trying to illustrate that, yes, while there are definitions in the dictionary of what we call a soul, simply for the purpose of making conversations about this very vague concept easier, I don't think that these definitions constitute as anything even reomtely scientific.

My main point is just that people talk of a soul but really don't even know what it is. So while we can continue to give vague definitions and dance around the point, as humans on this Earth trying to make sense of everything, we don't really even have a grasp on what the "soul," actually is. I feel like I've illustrated my point pretty well.

So, really, nothing scientific is going on when people are talking of "soul." And we shouldn't pretend like there is. And I'm not saying that you are doing that, although you did start to venture into that grass a little bit, But I simply think that humans, religious and non-religious alike, should be brutally honest about what's actually going on... What's actually going on is that we are talking about a belief that some people hold, that is wholly and totally unsupported by any sort of scientific evidence or observation. And it's a belief that gives people a lot of comfort about dying, and losing loved ones... Which is fine for what it is.

But without some sort of working scientific definition, all we have is, at BEST, vague conversations about nothing, essentially. And please don't make the mistake that every Christian makes and say, "Well, science doesn't explain everything!" - because I'm not making that claim. I'm simply saying that when we talk of "Soul," there is nothing scientific going on, and so we shouldn't treat this concept of "Soul" as something that we actually understand down to the t. Because it seems like we don't really understand it at all, other than just as a very vague concept.

And look man, if you believe in a soul, and you know damn well there's nothing scientific about that belief, then coo. I'm Totally fine with people believing whatever the hell they want, essentially. So long as you're not hurting people, or actively trying to shove your beliefs down people's throats, especially children, then I don't really care if you believe in a soul or Heaven or Hell or whatever else, because it's your life.

To each their own, friend.

---

fair point and well delivered friend, no offense was taken. I think you did make your point and mine at the same time. Science is a great way to study the physical and natural world. It's the wrong toolset if something is neither of those things (and by all common definitions it is neither). Gae argues that soul is either nothing or completely natural. I acquiesce that it might one day be understood and natural. I don't think strict materialists would be able to even work on that definition without questioning their foundations though, much in the same way we don't see electromagnetic fields with our natural senses like some species of fish do. We might not be able to ascertain the scientific details down to a T for the soul, but to argue that it doesn't exist in a materialists world view, is dismissive on fundamental biases. That is fine for practical day-to-day actions and interactions, and I agree, to each their own.

[The Grand Nudger]

And I greatly appreciate your sounding board for my ideas Gae. It wasn't a predicate for belief, but a path of discussion for said belief. To clarify I don't believe you can find the soul in mind or morality. But in the absence of mind, where there is cognition there is soul. If mind is all there is then 0 instances of knowledge or experience outside of mind can exist.

Being fair, knowledge is probably easier to accomplish sans mind than experience...though it's not really certain that both are the sole possession of a mind.  Sure, it's something that minds, we think, can do...but you can stab a person with a pencil or a knife, too.  

I simply don't believe that statement is true and allow for the possibility that there is something beyond mind, which could be soul as a best answer. The same applies to objective morality. Any morality that isn't individual morality or identifiable societal moral pressure would be other, and in that space fits objective morality and soul.

What does morality have to do with a soul.  What would a soul have to do with morality? Put some meat on that.  Also, if you could, explain why personal and social moralities are somehow incompatible with or not part of the soul set? It seems to me that you're just lumping things you like and and don't like into two categories with no other metric to justify their inclusion in either.

This is especially hilarious to me, because you're going to be hard-pressed to point to any soul based claim to morality, none of which are objective, that wasn't explicitly an example of social pressure and leverage.

Thus I believe for a few quick points,
1. while I was blacked out, I remember nothing, but time passed and I was still me from all accounts, indicates i am not my memories.
2. There is a force that affects my will and focus, not related to mind or brain, indicating I am not all that focuses my will to act
3. There are complex circumstances that I have no control over, that seem orchestrated, indicating that I do not direct my life entirely


I fully get your point, that even if all this were true it still doesn't prove a soul exists, and you're right. But in the absence of a better answer, souls, for me, answers these questions.

How, is what I've been trying to get you to explain.  I've always been specificaly focused on how soul is even -an- explanation for morality, let alone the best explanation.  This is what you said.  What do you mean by the absence of a better explanation? The only explanation required for objective morality, is that facts exist.

My point, was that soul not being an or the best explanation for morality wouldn't mean that souls don't exist. I spent a whole paragraph de-escalating and preemptively doing away with any possible consequence for you having gotten this thing about souls and morality wrong. It had nothing to do with any of that not proving that a soul exists, and everything to do with you being wrong about souls and morality -not- proving that souls don't exist. Souls, if they exist, will be completely unharmed by your being wildly offmark with regards to moral objectivism.

The point was to prove that an honest and rational exploration of a topic could be had, even with shakey definitions. I understand that most people on here are materialists and find it quite pointless to discuss anything non natural at all, much less non-scientifically. I just hope that opening myself up to the conversation and exploration proved that point. Gae, I don't believe you and I aren't very far apart on a lot of things (contrary to how it seems sometimes), but those little difference are important and I can respect those differences.

I don't think that we are having that conversation, though.  You're typing..sure, but not about the only thing I've attempted to have a discussion with you about.   Can you tell me what little difference between you and I amounts to you thinking that soul is an explanation, and the best explanation, for morality?  I'm not asking you to prove soul.  I know you can't.  I had and still have a more mundane question.

Why you believe that soul is an, and the best, explanation for morality.

Full disclosure, I think that this is pious prattle. It's something you've been taught to say, but can't competently articulate when asked because you don't understand it and probably don't even believe it. Fun aside...one of the most widely cited positions in moral realism is non natural realism. There won't be any problem discussing the meaningfully non-natural in morality..it's just that no realist system requires or needs reference to any soul.