Arguments against Soul

[Mister Agenda]

There are a lot of definitions of soul; including the some total of one's thoughts, memories, emotions, and personality. What the classical Greeks called 'psyche'. I can directly observe that I possess those qualities so I at least have that kind of soul, although it's based in my brain and will die with me.

[EgoDeath]

Like I said, of course there are definitions of soul. I was originally making a point through what I was saying and I think some of you guys have purposefully avoided that point to argue about something else entirely. Such is the nature of an internet forum i suppose. when we talk about soul as the "vehicle" or "essence" or "energy" or "form" that allows consciousness to continue after death, which is what the vast majority of individuals think of when they talk of soul or hear the word soul.... that my friends is a nonsensical conversation to have. Once again, it's much like talking about god. we don't even know what it is that we're arguing for or against.

in concerns to god, for example, the conversation hasn't even begun because we don't even know what the hell we're talking about because god isn't even defined *note read as "isn't sufficiently defined in order for us to have a real, meaningful conversation about it - end note*

Same goes for this supernatural idea of a soul

once again, i highly doubt i have to qualify everything im saying for you guys like this. it seems like you guys were just after having a spar, and thats not what im after

edit:

to mister

I have a cat named Spirit, so I suppose that I do also have A SOUL MUWAHAHAHA

[The Grand Nudger]

Well there we have it. Soul as seat of consciousness. That's the definition of soul that you reject. I don't think that it's a nonsensical conversation...it's a conversation literally about sense.

[EgoDeath]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

You likely observe consciousness and conclude that it is real. The sufficient and meaningful definition of "soul" as the seat-of-consciousness was not flawed, in your estimation, because it referred to no content - but because it misattributed content.

[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.

[EgoDeath]

once again, vague "definitions" that's give us nothing meaningful to actually discuss means nothing. It might as well not even be defined at all. The conversation about soul hasn't even begun. Like I said, there's no reason for an argument against soul when there's not even a coherent argument for soul.

[tackattack]

ok so no more speaking to the impossibility of not having a conversation. Let's talk about souls, in as much as I have time. I'm a dualist, and I assume you're not (most likely a physicalist, naturalistic/ materialistic, etc.), so let's start there.
1. I infer the existence of a soul because it seems the best answer for a cumulative set of explanations

Which road do you want to head down: qualia, qualitative consciousness, determinism, free will, mind, NDE, supernatural, morality, etc.

[FlatAssembler]

qualia

What makes you think it's real? If it were real, how come do all or nearly all people report irritation when they hear high-frequency sounds, yet nobody reports irritation when they hear low-frequency sounds? If qualia were real, we would expect some people to report irritation when they hear low-frequency sounds, right?

qualitative consciousness

What does that mean?

determinism

Determinism is impossible by the laws of physics, such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nothing to discuss here.

free will

Free will exists in the sense that determinism is impossible at the quantum level, and of course some quantum effects play a role in our brain. But that's all there is, it causes our brains, as well as our computers, to make mistakes sometimes.

mind

All that we know about mind points to it being generated by the physical brain. Had computers existed back in the day, probably no philosopher would suggest mind is immaterial.

NDE

Anecdotal evidence of the lowest possible quality. Many NDEs contain hallucinatory features, such as encountering living persons or demonstrably fictional characters in the transcendental realm, and the right inference from that is that all NDEs are hallucinations.

supernatural

Supernatural explanations can't be scientifically tested and there is every reason to dismiss them. And they have a horrible track record of being always superseded by a scientific natural explanation (in antiquity, people used to believe earthquakes were a sign of God, now we know they aren't...).

morality

The fact that some actions lead to good consequences and some lead to bad consequences doesn't require any kind of supernatural explanation. And good and evil are easily defined in terms of natural realm: evil is simply that which causes suffering.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see two things not like the others Tack. The relationship between souls and NDEs or the supernatural is obvious. The rest, not so much.

I'd contend that NDEs and the supernatural powerfully argue against soul being related to the rest.