Arguments against Soul

[Abaddon_ire]

lol you say "there we have it" as if its some "gotcha" moment. LOL how ironic, as we still have nothing. we have no sufficient definition to give us anything meaningful, real or observable to talk about. hence, i repeat, the conversation about the soul hasn't even begun. thanks for proving my point.

Not sure that any "gotcha" was intended. If one defines the "soul" as the seat of consciousness alone, then "soul" = the hunk of meat that is the brain since as far as can be determined, that is where it's at by all measures. We can probe it and measure it's activity. We can give it direct stimuli and change it's perception by meditation techniques, drugs, physical intervention, surgery, or even accidental injury. Far as we can tell by any measurement, the brain is the seat of consciousness. 

However, the religious do not define it that way at all. The religious do not define it as merely the seat of consciousness even remotely. And none of them can agree anyway, so engaging in that game of pin-the -tail-on-the-donkey is an exercise in futility.

Nevertheless, we are all stuck with the simple fact that the term itself comes with a ton of baggage. Religious baggage. Mention the word "soul" and immediately we all of us spring to whatever religious garbage we are most familiar with by default and not one of those preconceptions will match because every one of us has been exposed to some "soul" concept or another and none of us has been exposed to ALL concepts of a "soul".

Thus, I have no objection per se to "soul" being defined as "the seat of consciousness". That merely means the brain. No biggy there. Consciousness is an emergent property of a physical system. I am OK with that.

That said, there is zero chance of any religious agreeing to that definition, so the discussion is moot.