Arguments against Soul

[Abaddon_ire]

---

---

And now, we start muddling definitions. I suppose that would be dependent on what you define as "you". As a presumed materialist I assume your definition of you is the sum of your physical parts and their functions. As a dualist my definition would be the sum of the parts and their functions (physical or otherwise). Or to reference Locke "two thinking Substances may make but one Person."It's simply that we're attempting to define that other substance and how it thinks.
Your brain does store memories and thoughts. They can be lost if brain is damaged. Hence the reason for NDEs. If thoughts can form without brain activity, then perhaps it's just a HDD not the computer and the computer has a BIOS.
No, a soul being able to see doesn't break any laws. It's a function. "We" physically see (function) with physical eyes (measurable, quantifiable, sensory). An other "We" that (for this conversation) we call 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.

Except that I have had an NDE and you are talking utter crap.

OK I believe I'm seeing your point. As I referenced above, the method with which a soul sees could very clearly be natural, thus making souls natural and not supernatural. As a theist, I do contend that a soul is natural being created by God. In a world where there is a soul, and where that soul is posited yet unknown, and where it goes on NDE trips that have sensory content, there might still be things that I think are soul which are in fact natural, like a brain.  As a substance dualist I de believe that the mind and body are distinct and separable. I'm not sure if a pluralist would be a better definition of my stance in that because I'm not sure how deep I can dive into Aristotle's hylomorphism in 15-30 minutes at a time. But if we can keep it cursory and simple enough for me I'd be happy to continue exploring. If you think I was double-talking, it wasn't my intent and I hope this clarifies better.

It does. It clarifies that you are attempting to define a "soul" into being even if your arguments do not agree with each other. The is pretty low, even for you.