Arguments against Soul

[tackattack]

I assume your definition of you is the sum of your physical parts and their functions.

No, my definition of "me" would be my thoughts and ideas, my psychological continuity. My dead body will not be me in any meaningful way. Similarly, a soul that doesn't have my thoughts and ideas (and the bible says in Ecclesiates 9:5 that souls of dead people don't remember who they were in earthly life), that soul also isn't me in any meaningful way.

Soul may have the same function of seeing just with different methods. Much like blind people being able to imagine objects or "see" with their other senses.

Which senses can an immaterial soul have that don't break the laws of physics? It can't have a sense of vision since it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation (it can't be seen or detected by measuring electromagnetic radiation), and being able to see without interfering the photons would break the laws of quantum mechanics. Similarly, it can't have a sense of hearing, because that requires interacting with the air, and it would thus be detectible. Obviously, a soul can't have a sense of touch, since it's immaterial...

Ecc. 9:5 does talk about the living and the dead, and the dead not knowing anything, just as they don't eat or breathe. I  don't think that's a good scripture to hang the memory wipe narrative of souls on.
As far as souls and senses I clearly stated that. Sight is a function, not a method. Eyes are one method, imagination is another, extreme hearing like sonar is another electromagnetic detection like in some fish is another. You can have sensations of touch and motion without the necessary material form as is the case with phantom limbs. All of that is very medically understood. I just posit that while a soul doesn't obviously have eyes or ears, it may still have the function of seeing or hearing in some method foreign to us blobs of flesh.

As for your psychological continuity, are you still you when you dream? OFC u are. It's part of your continuity. You have a conscious and unconscious brain that both inject to the continuity. What if there were an immaterial self that also were part of that continuity? So would you be you if you died and that immaterial essence didn't cease? That's all I'm really suggesting.

@adey67 Does your subconscious interact with your senses? How do you know that? Is it useless? How do you define conscious experience and define it by it's sensory nature and state?


@Gae Bolga I am trying to pick your lane so we're driving to the same location. I thought you were moving the definition of supernatural. I do contend that a soul is a better definition for those things then idk. I consider a soul super-natural, in the most relevant sense some force beyond scientific understanding. That doesn't mean that it will always be so. Perhaps paranormal essence would be a better definition. Just as we once attributed disease to demons quantum entanglement and computing might hold many answers for what we see today. I'm open to that.  

As for relevant additions of information, I'm not certain how to qualitatively measure/detect a soul. I feel I have a soul that is distinct from my mind and body. I infer that having a soul that is separate from the mind and body is a better explanation for out of body experiences, NDE and ghost apparitions is a better explanation than it's all fake. I infer an objective moral author separate from personal/societal morality is a better explanation than morality isn't objective. I infer that a soul explains why individual qualia while referencing, the same object, are experientially different is as good a definition as subjective perspective. The sum of these criteria and the others, as a whole, are better explained, IMO by the existence of a soul. I am attempting to honestly participate in the conversation though, I'm sorry if it's not being perceived as such.