Arguments against Soul

[tackattack]

---

@tackattack, Hi nice to make your acquaintance. Being totally honest I don't know, I think it's highly likely that the subconscious can at least be influenced by our senses, certainly our dreams can be influenced by our days experiences and all these things are linked but I'm not a neurologist or even an MD so I can make no definitive statement on that, as for the other questions we can run around in circles and tie ourselves up in knots trying to define consciousness and everyone will reach a slightly or even very different understanding of what it is but that achieves nothing and does not I think invalidate anything I've stated previously, things are pretty much as I have said and there isn't really any way round it, it's tough to see it all laid bare like that especially if you are strongly invested in a particular belief system either religious or non religious but it kind of is what it is I'm afraid. I do think however that the continuous development and increase in computer technology is the key here, as soon as we are able to sufficiently map the brain we may find answers to our questions about the mind and consciousness, one things for sure though, the answer will come from science not from philosophy or abstract thinking, of that I'm certain.

---

Nice to meet you as well. Abstract thinking is a fundamental part to scientific inquiry. A lot of our reasons for inquiry into scientific areas come from a societal philosophy. I think we can at least both agree that we look forward to discovering more about the mind and consciousness through AI and technology.

---

I don't think that's a good scripture to hang the memory wipe narrative of souls on.

Why? And it's not just the scripture, it's also the most basic common sense: if malfunctioning of the brain leads to memory loss, so does the death of the brain.

Eyes are one method, imagination is another, extreme hearing like sonar is another electromagnetic detection like in some fish is another.

What do you mean by "imagination"? Imagination doesn't provide you with the actual data.
If a soul uses extreme hearing or electromagnetic detection, such a soul would be detectible by physical instruments.

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.

While it's not entirely medically understood, it's clear that you need physical nerves to feel phantom pain. Spinal cord stimulation almost always helps relieve phantom pain resulting from an amputated limb.
Sometimes pain can indeed result from not-currently-understood malfunctioning of the brain. But suggesting that, because of that, it's possible for a soul without a brain to feel pain is beyond absurd.
Do you think that plants and animals without a brain (sponges, jellyfish...) can also feel pain? If a soul without a brain can feel pain, so can anything then.

As for your psychological continuity, are you still you when you dream?

Of course. When I dream, I can still remember some things about my real life. This remembering of things is called psychological continuity.

---

Granted that your definition of pain is only one dimensional I'll agree that feeling physical pain requires nerves. Also your definition of "actual data" isn't in line with psychological continuity theories on personalities. As with body dysmorphic disorders. What we image can have a real effect because it does load "actual data" into what and who we perceive ourselves, others and things to be.

---

@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.

When do you feel you have a soul, Tack?  Are you writing religious poetry or describing a sensory experience of a soul?

We've already agreed that soul is an explanation for ghosts.  I'm wondering about the other things.  The credible things..that you're trying to use to launder ghosts.

I'm glad that you're a moral realist, but ghosts have jack shit to do with moral realism....and this is a thinly veiled argument from bad consequences on it's face.  So what if a god, and lets cut the shit with "objective moral authors"..lol, would be better?  The question at hand isn't whether one thing is better than another, but whether that thing is real in the first place.  There are a great many fantasies that are notable improvements to fact.

Similarly, a subjective perspective is a brute fact of experience that we seek to explain, and can explain, not an explanation itself.  If your "soul" is competing with brute facts for space in reality, it's DOA.

---

I rarely know how to classify myself in the wide range of potential beliefs, so I greatly appreciate the moral realist label, for whatever that's worth. You may be arguing for whether a soul is real or not, but I clearly laid out in the beginning I could not meet the materialist definitions of "real" and was actually speaking about which theory were a better solution. Many people here try and press the sufficient reason that everything can be explained. Indeed consciousness, souls, aliens, and God all might one day be explained. I consider a soul an epistemical brute fact I suppose, so probably DOA for you. I guess an alternate stance some have is that we are a soul, rather than we have a soul. I am of the belief that we are a soul. That the physiological continuum that defined you at 3 and now at 30 is based on multiple inputs. Some are metaphysical, physical... I just believe that another input is spiritual. I believe that soul exists and informs the spirit (as it informs our soul), which returns to God after mortal life ends. The Spirit (Holy Spirit) in us, is not the same as the soul. A thought is not the same as a brain state. An identity is not the sum of only all of the physical inputs to a brain. We seems to have the ability to choose our course and our attention so we are not only deterministic. I'm not attempting to wax poetically, Gae. I'm just attempting to prove a conversation is possible and that a conclusion not likely. I do appreciate out conversations though.

To answer your question. I feel I have a soul when I experience cognitive dissonance and something informs the me (now) that something needs balancing. I feel I have a soul when a Spiritual or societal moral input conflicts with my personal morality (now). I feel I have a soul when something informs my intuition (now) that something is happening or needs to happen that I would have no insight over. etc...

---

And so you'd obvious rather not define and discuss souls when presented the opportunity to, noted.

Wrong. I'd be rather excited to hear a real definition of what a soul is if you actually have one! However, I guarantee you don't. Please tell me:

What is a soul made of, physically?

How do we observe the soul, objectively?

How did you discover this method of observation?

Did you follow the scientific method in discovering and defining what the soul is?

Furthermore, how, exactly, does the soul work, specifically?

If you've actually found out what this "soul" is, you'll soon be the most famous person in the history of the world, for you will have made a discovery that has never before been made.

I'll wait patiently for your answer.

Once again, of course we have "definitions" of plenty of nonsensical shit out there. Doesn't mean these "definitions" give us anything worth talking about, and that was my original point.

I thought it was pretty obvious from my original post. You're smarter than that.

---

I'll just answer your questions as best I can then, and leave the other shit out there:

What is a soul made of, physically? I don't know what an incorporeal thing would be "made of", perhaps something non-baryonic.

How do we observe the soul, objectively? I would assume through phenomenology, but that rests on your definition of objective.

How did you discover this method of observation? See above

Did you follow the scientific method in discovering and defining what the soul is? No. Most people are just experiential in their day-to-day, as am I.

Furthermore, how, exactly, does the soul work, specifically? see above and previous posts.