Arguments against Soul

[tackattack]

If we had some kind of soul that could sense anything at all, then we would never have a state we refer to as unconsciousness.

---

This is getting a little confusing since I stepped away for my wife's B day. But I'll attempt to answer any questions asked of my stance. @Rahn127 - that would be a true statement if the "soul" existed in the conscious state and we had direct conscious access to "soul"'s memory.

---

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.

So how do you know that a soul is incorporeal? How do you know it's "non-baryonic?" Furthermore, are you a physicist? Or are you just using these words to make it sound like you're saying more than you're actually saying?

I mean, if something is immaterial, how do we even know it is there? Faith?

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

So, this is just a fancy way of saying you talk about the soul through philosophy. You're admitting that there is no objective, empirical way to observe the soul. Which is just as good as saying that we don't actually know it's there, not that we know what "it" even is.

How did you discover this method of observation? See above

So, basically, you didn't discover any method.

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.

So once again, you're admitting that you simply claim to personally experience the soul, and that there is no empirical evidence for it.

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

So once again, the answer is you don't know.



So far, we've learned absolutely nothing about the "soul...." Other than, of course, that you've admitted that we cannot observe it objectively, that there is no empirical evidence for it and that you don't eve know what it is made of, how it works, or what it is. We've learned that it is, according to you, possibly immaterial, which is just as good as saying that it isn't there.

Not a very compelling "definition," is it?

---

---

I am not a physicist. I do study and love space and physics topics. A lot of people have a problem with immaterial, invisible, supernatural, etc. but all that really means to me is it's not made up of protons, electrons and neutron so I thought a more scientific response would ease tension to facilitate better communication, but I guess you can't please everyone right? You're caught up measuring water with a ruler my friend. Something not so "woo, woo" like the laws of physics, math and morality are immaterial, yet you have no problems with their usefulness day-to-day. There is nothing that necessitates perceptions must enter consciousness to affect our behavior. Many studies prove otherwise. This is just a casual conversation on the Phenomenological existence of a theorized immortal soul.  I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything, just trying to express my belief and prove that a conversation could be had, even if it's dismissed or laughed at.

My physical senses don't seem to work the same way that yours do Tack.  I don't feel any soul.   In fact, my physical senses don't provide me with any non natural information whatsoever.

You either have senses I don't, or you have a soul that I don't.  I still have a moral sense, and a mind.  What's the best explanation for my not having a soul, while still retaining those things you've claimed soul is the best explanation for?

---

I believe you do have a soul Gae. We can quibble about the definition and the source. Just as some fish sense electromagnetic fields, and bees detect the charge of ions, and mantis shrimp see circular polarization, why couldn't there be a sense that I have that you don't or that's more practiced than yours? Now I understand all those things other animals see are natural and measurable and a soul might eventually be labeled as a perfectly understandable and natural part of being human. I'm certain, though that other fish perceive the mantis shrimp  as having something they don't, and from their perspective super-natural. 

So, @tackattack, what do you think about the argument that, if souls really existed, we wouldn't expect people who have been unconscious for a long time not to remember anything during that time, that we would expect them to remember either facing silent darkness or leaving their bodies?

Why wouldn't we? If our primary known inputs for memory into the mind are interrupted (blackouts, or unconsciousness , etc.) then there would be a blank in our conscious mind over that period. I experienced this and it makes perfect sense that it's blank. However my sense of time wasn't impaired and I can also deduce the timeframe my inputs were interrupted. I was still me during those times, I just wasn't recording anything. As for leaving bodies, idk, I haven't experienced that. I would theorize that separating the soul from the body/mind then allows the soul to act/record independently from the mind.