(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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
