(September 26, 2019 at 7:50 am)Jehanne Wrote: It comes down to if you are proposing anything beyond the Standard Model (quarks, electrons, etc.); if you are not, then, as far as I am concerned, this is a discussion about semantics and reductionism.
So you are sure that souls, if they exist, are things that can be explained by the Standard Model. If that's something you are sure of, then it indicates you have confident knowledge of what souls are.
The fact that the Standard Model can explain things about physics is not proof that everything is explainable by physics.
Suppose you went to a field with a metal detector, and found some coins. Then you could announce that everything in the field was made of metal, because that's all you found.
The description of soul that I've been working with is entirely compatible with physics, but yours seems to be based on question-begging assertions: soul MUST be mind. Soul MUST be fit into the Standard Model. To dismiss anything else as semantics is just a method of restating the question-begging: it has to be the way I say or it's just talk.