Souls?

This is a long post originally written by Boris several years ago and who was, in my humble opinion, the most intelligent and informed member in the history of sciforums. At the time of writing he was a student of computational neuroscience.

The post covers most of the issues that demonstrate the significant improbability of souls. It is a long read but I believe well worth reading. The original text is in the archives although I have corrected spelling errors here and added some formatting for readability, otherwise the text is the same. I am copying it here again since many new members have never seen this. Enjoy.

The issue of whether souls exist or not is an essential consideration for theism, since if souls do not exist then an afterlife does not exist which is the domain for theism to reward or punish. I.e. without an afterlife who cares whether gods exist or not.

Argument from interaction

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate,

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material.

But that's a funny thing, considering that the soul is supposed to interact with the body. After all, we are only aware of our world through our senses; and our conscious decisions directly translate into physical actions -- e.g. if I wanted to clap my hands together, I could do it. So it seems that material information must have a way to enter the soul, and material information must have a way of emanating from the soul and travelling to the body.

The latter of these phenomena has a definite effect on the body, and hence must be indirectly detectable. This is because the body is indeed material, and any changes introduced within it are thus immediately detectable with proper instruments. Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible. Matter is temporary, while the soul is eternal. Matter is corrupt, while the soul is perfect. Matter possesses extension, density, mass, color, temperature, etc. -- while the soul has none of those properties. Matter can be subdivided, yet the soul cannot. How can "something" exist that possesses a mix of these contradictory properties? How can something be corrupt and perfect at the same time? How can something be massive and massless, colorful and colorless, extended and shapeless? So it seems there is no reasonable way that the gap between the immaterial and the material can be crossed so as to enable the communication between the soul and the body.

To sum up, two distinct points are raised here: first, the definition of the soul and its relationship with the body are contradictory, and second, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the soul can exchange information with the body.


Argument from neuroscience

For the purposes of this argument, we must first determine that of all the body parts, it is the brain that makes us who we are. After all, you can take a normal human, amputate all of her limbs, and she will still be defined as a human being. You can take a human being and cut out his heart, lungs, kidneys, bowels, etc. and he would still be a human being (for as long as surgical machines can do the work of the missing organs.) If you cut off somebody's head, and somehow manage to keep it alive, then it's the head we would point toward when we discuss that person; the headless body will no longer be ol' Joe -- since here's ol' Joe's head that speaks in Joe's voice and thinks and feels like Joe, and possesses all of Joe's knowledge, etc. So we can keep imaginatively (and nonchalantly) stripping Joe of body parts until only the brain is left floating in a jar. At this point, we can still safely point to the brain and say that it's Joe; we can incinerate the other body parts, but as long as the brain is alive, Joe is alive too. Incidentally, that's why clinical death is defined as brain death. Any other failed organ can be replaced, at least in principle; however a brain cannot be replaced. Even if Joe clinically died, and you transplanted Brent's brain into Joe's skull, all you would have done is transplant Brent's persona into Joe's body; Joe would still be dead as a doornail.

Now then, it seems that the brain is the crucial part of us that makes us who we are. Incidentally, the brain also physically controls the body. If you want to bend a finger, a train of signals has to travel from your brain down your spinal cord and through your peripheral nervous system all the way to the muscles of that particular finger, so that they contract or expand so as to bend the finger in the way you wanted. If the pathway between the brain and any particular part of the body is breached even at one spot, you will lose your control over that part of your body. Hence, the brain is not only the defining part of what it is to be human -- it is also the part that actually controls the body! So, if the soul is to interact with the body, it is clear that the soul must interact with the brain.

But where in the brain does this interaction with the soul occur? It turns out that there is no possible answer. As you may or may not know, the brain can be crudely subdivided into an old brain and the new brain, the latter composed of the left and right cerebral hemispheres. The old brain consists basically of the brainstem, and in humans is more or less a mere interface between the new brain and the spinal cord, as far as cognitive function is concerned. This is not to say that the old brain is insignificant, since it contains physiologically crucial centers controlling everything from heart beats to breathing to sleep-wake cycles. However, it is the new brain that is responsible for any behavior that we would consider above comatose. The new brain possesses vast tracts processing and combining information from the five senses, it possesses structures that plan, initiate, and control movement, it possesses structures responsible for emotions, it possesses structures involved in memory, attention, spatial navigation, object recognition, production, perception, and comprehension of speech, etc, etc, etc. In fact, brain damage studies show that every last bit of the new brain in adult humans is involved in at least one, and often several, cognitive tasks. So, it would seem that the soul must be in contact with the entire brain if it was to account for all of our human faculties. However, this does not hold when we consider abnormal physiology.

Certain birth defects cause some children to be born with only one cerebral hemisphere; other children lose a hemisphere to surgical intervention very early in life. Despite the fact that for an adult to lose a hemisphere would be absolutely devastating in terms of loss of function and aspects of personality, these children grow up to be nearly normal in all respects. This is just one example where the amazing plasticity of the brain shows itself in full glory. Thing is, the plasticity is lost early in life as the brain becomes increasingly organized, since for a highly structured brain plastic change would actually mean loss of function rather than gain. Yet, the very fact that people are alive who function normally with only one hemisphere (and a brain that is organized vastly differently!), as opposed to the "normal" people who have two hemispheres and a totally different brain organization -- poses difficulties for any proposed mechanism of interaction between the soul and the brain. Already, it would seem that the mechanism is not dependent on the soul, but must adapt to the developing brain on-the-go, so as to connect the soul to the brain correctly, whatever the final architecture of the adult brain may be.

The functional portion of the brain is composed of vast and very complex networks of a total adult average of 10,000,000,000 special cells called neurons (the bodies of these cells contain pigment and are often collectively referred to as "gray matter"). Each neuron sends out slender connections to other neurons, and an average neuron is connected to about 10,000 others (these interconnection fibers are wrapped in other special cells that form an electrical insulation around these "wires"; as a result the connections look white to the eye, and en masse are referred to as "white matter"). Of course, there are trillions of other cells in the brain besides neurons, which compose blood vessels, provide insulation and scaffolding for the connections between neurons, nourish neurons and clean up their waste, fight invading pathogens, etc -- but neurons are what actually does all the work of cognition. Neurons work by sending electrical impulses to other neurons, and accepting similar messages. Without going into too much gory detail, the effect of the messages on any particular neuron is mediated by a slew of factors from the actual chemicals used to pass the message between neurons, to the actual characteristics of the voltage signals that neurons send to each other. But the great and overriding point here is that neurons are literally billions of independent cells, communicating among each other, and every now and then sending impulses through your peripheral nervous system to affect what your body does. It seems that to control the body, the soul would have to connect individually to every last neuron in the brain and control what it does. But neurons die all the time, and new neurons are born also (although at a much slower rate.) Furthermore, the actual connections between neurons change constantly, and so the role any particular neuron plays in the overall function of the brain varies with time. So, how does the soul know what each neuron's current function is? Additionally, it seems that scientists can predict neuronal behavior precisely, based purely on the electrochemical impulses it is receiving from other neurons. So it appears that there is no mysterious soul behind the curtains telling this neuron to fire and that one to hold off once every millisecond; behavior of neurons is determined exactly by the input they receive from other neurons. And some of those other neurons receive a lot of their input from sensory organs, such as the pressure, pain, temperature, etc. (in other words, somatosensory) receptors on your skin and other organs, or from your eyes, ears, nose, or tongue, or from the vestibular apparatus in your inner ear, etc. So it seems that the brain is a deterministic machine that is driven by inputs from its environment. And all of those receptors and organs have also been studied in detail, and found to be purely biochemical and physically deterministic. There is no place left for the soul to operate!

There is no end to the problems that neuropathology brings for the soul, and I am not going to attempt to list even a small portion of such problems. However, I already mentioned the conundrum posed by neural plasticity. I'll present just one more "problem", and then move on to the next argument. The problem has to do with the split-brain patients.

Some people are subject to debilitating seizures, which are uncontrollable through drugs. A seizure is really a runaway chain reaction where a bunch of neurons starts firing chaotically, and the chaos spreads across the cortex, disrupting any cognitive function in its wake. Seizures can sometimes be combated through drugs, which help regulate neuronal activity and stop it from crossing a vital threshold above which it spins out of control. Newer methods include electrodes implanted directly into the particular brain region where seizures originate, so that an implanted computer can detect an onset of the seizure and apply a mild electric current between electrodes, which in effect "resets" the surrounding neural tissue and stops a seizure in its tracks. However, a while ago such advanced treatments were not available, and in extremely debilitating cases the only recourse was surgery. Most often, the small brain region where seizures originate was surgically removed (the mild loss in cognitive function was a small price to pay for the freedom from frequent seizures, and was especially tolerable for children whose brains are still plastic enough to compensate for the injury). However, in a few cases the offending region was crucial to certain treasured faculties, such as for example production or comprehension of speech, or control of posture. In other cases the offending region was just too large. In these cases, the surgeons did the next best thing to excising the part of the brain -- they selectively cut some of the connections between this brain part and other parts of the brain, so that the seizures would only occur locally and would not spread.

Seizures can occur in relatively localized regions of the cortex, but for some unfortunate people they occur globally, spreading from one hemisphere to the other like wildfire. In these cases, where excision was not an option, surgeons used to sever the huge bundle of fibers (called "corpus callosum") that connects the right hemisphere with the left. The corpus callosum is the major connection between the hemispheres, and although there are other small communication channels via which certain parts of the two hemispheres exchange information, when the corpus callosum is severed for all practical purposes the hemispheres are cut off from each other. For this reason, the patients that underwent this type of surgery came to be known as split-brain patients. And they permanently exhibit the weirdest behaviors. They really do have two separate, almost independent brains in their skull. Most of the time, the brains coexist peacefully. However, sometimes they don't agree with each other and the results can range from comic to absurd to horrible.

Because of the way the brain is wired up to the body, each hemisphere controls the opposite half of the body. So, the right hemisphere controls the left arm, leg, etc., while the left hemisphere controls the right half. One patient had a problem with his left hemisphere: apparently, it just couldn't stand his wife. At the mere sight of his spouse, his right hand would immediately form a fist, his right leg start making valiant attempts to get the body closer to the wife, and his right arm start violently swinging at the wife with a clear intent to do damage. With his left leg he would fight his right leg, and with his left hand try to restrain his right hand, all the while displaying a grimace of rage on the right side of his face while the left side of the face expressed clear alarm and distress. Another lady had an even more serious problem, with the two halves of her body engaging in a vicious feud. She literally beat herself up, tried to choke herself in her sleep, tore her own hair out, and all of that occurred in the context of the right side of her body doing damage to the left side, and vice versa. Fortunately, such horrible side effects tend to mellow out as time passes, but the patients never return to normal -- to the end of their lives, they literally remain split in half. Yet, if a single, indivisible, unified soul was controlling the brain, then surely cutting the link between the hemispheres would not preclude them from functioning in harmony! At the very least, they shouldn't be trying to kill each other! But contrary to all common sense as we used to know it, the two hemispheres literally turn into two distinct personalities. Each of them is capable of independent emotion, independent knowledge, and independent interaction with the world. For example, questions can be asked of the right hemisphere, and it will answer them (though not verbally, because in most people the right hemisphere is incapable of language) -- but the left, verbal, hemisphere will never know about either the questions or the answers, and will in fact tell you so when asked. Even more poignantly, the right hemisphere possesses knowledge that the left hemisphere doesn't, and vice versa. Both hemispheres exhibit structured thought and problem solving abilities, independent of each other. Both of them express feelings and emotions, again independently of each other. Each has its own stream of consciousness, again independent of the other hemisphere. So indeed, the two hemispheres are in most respects separate, distinct, independent human beings! Yet, they originally only had one soul. How would the doctrine of souls explain such a phenomenon?

Yet another difficulty lies in the transfer of memory or knowledge between the brain and the soul. For example, you might remember what you did during the last Christmas, and when asked you would tell us a story describing what happened. This process of recalling facts and then verbalizing them involves many crucial faculties that are just about as central to our stream of consciousness as anything -- so presumably at least a large part of the process occurs in the soul and not in the physical brain. However, it is well known that the brain contains certain regions specifically dedicated to memory. When these regions are damaged, the result is amnesia -- loss of memory -- despite the fact that all other cognitive functions remain intact. Now, what happens when an amnesic is asked to describe something they knew prior to the brain damage, but of which they now have no recollection? The request gets correctly processed and understood by the subject, as can be verified by questioning him about it. Presumably, such higher understanding resides in the soul, so the soul indeed knows what is being asked. The patient is also perfectly able to verbalize other facts, and to tell stories not connected to the particular lost memory -- so these faculties are preserved as well. Therefore, if the soul still retains the memory whose representation is lost in the physical brain, it should have no problem verbalizing that memory and telling stories about it, and thus in fact amnesia would never even be observed! Yet, amnesia is real and very predictable based on which regions of the brain are damaged. So, it seems that destroying a part of the physical brain utterly destroys the memories it used to help encode. This means that the soul does not possess memory; memory is purely a property of the brain. Which means that when the brain dies, all memories die with it. Which means that the entire personality dies with the brain, since memory includes, in addition to explicit facts, everything from learned skills such as language, coordinated movement, or art, to such things as preferences, attitudes, beliefs, etc. Which comes into a huge clash with all the claims of afterlife where the souls are supposed to retain memory of earthly existence and even maintain their pre-death personality.


Argument from neuropsychology

This gets to the reason why we conjecture the existence of the soul in the first place. In the old times, when people knew very little about the nature of life or cognition, it baffled them that certain objects were indeed alive, and other weren't. It baffled people even more why certain living creatures, such as humans, have civilizations, art, language, religion, etc. while other living creatures have none of the above. People also wondered what happened to them when they slept, as they often seemed to depart the regular world for other bizarre realities, inhabit bodies other than their own regular body, fly, and do all sorts of amazing things that other normal things just aren't seen to be doing. And then, people wondered what it would feel like to die, and what happens to their friends and family once their bodies are destroyed, and they also wondered where their stream of consciousness came from, and how come they can't remember anything prior to their early childhood. Thus came around suggestions that what all life has is something special, some kind of a "living essence” that separates it from non-life. You will find that particular idea in every single culture that ever existed, which goes to show just how natural such a conjecture is, and how easily it arises. It may have been a reasonable suggestion, until relatively recently when science began to unravel the true mechanisms of life and cognition.

Today, we know that the simplest forms of life contain no "living essence" at all -- they are merely very complicated chemical structures that are able to obtain energy and material from their environment, and to reproduce themselves. Thus, in one deft blow the pre-existing void between matter and essence is bridged. It stands to reason that if unicellular life does not possess a soul, same holds for multi-cellular life -- since multi-cellular organisms are nothing more than intricately organized and coordinated colonies of single specialized cells.

But what of the stream of consciousness, the emotions, the awareness, the sensations, the knowledge, the reasoning power that we all possess as humans? How do all of these weird qualities derive from mere cells? Well, the answer has not yet been entirely completed, and I personally hope to play a part in completing it. But the beta version goes something like this.

In what may at first glance appear to be a grotesquely oversimplified analogy, consider modern computers. What you see on your screen is a pretty complex visual image representing an attempt at a simple, elegant, and easy to comprehend User Interface. Behind that interface lies complex functionality that enables you to create documents, exchange information with other people, play games, create art, listen to music, render computer movies, simulate collisions of galaxies, analyze data, design other computers, and in general do an amazing variety of things. Most of those applications depend on arcane algorithms and complex protocols to work, of which you as a user have no knowledge or comprehension; all you work with is a friendly (or at least not as arcane as the source code) UI, which abstracts you away from all the hair-raising complexity that dwells on your CD-ROMs and inside your particular beige box.

The brain presents a somewhat analogous picture. What we observe is the outside, equipped with a "user interface" consisting of the body. We can interact with the body, we can communicate through it to the brain, and receive replies from the brain through the body. In essence, the body abstracts the brain from us, and as generic "users", we are not aware of how exactly the brain does what it does -- nor do we particularly care, as long as the brain does its job, and does it well. However, the analogy with computers is not complete, since whereas with computers we at least have engineers and programmers who understand exactly how the computer does the things it does, with the brain, at least at the outset, we possess no such knowledge. Thus, the problem of figuring out how the brain works can be compared to the following hypothetical situation: imagine that the enlightened ancient Greeks happen to chance on a complete modern computer system, loaded with all the software, connected to an uninterruptible power supply that will last for decades, and programmed so that its user interface is in ancient Greek (so they can at least partially decipher what it is that it does.) Now imagine just how hard it would have been for the poor Greeks to figure out how all that graphical splendor and functionality arises from that box cluttered with weird metallic and non-metallic parts. Heck, they'd have to develop the theory of quantum mechanics before they could understand how a single transistor works, and they'd have to develop ultra-powerful microscopes to even find those transistors. They'd have to develop an entire theory of computation before they could understand how the mysterious box is able to exhibit such strangely life-like interactivity. Then, they would have to reverse-engineer all the circuits of the computer, and understand exactly how they interact and tie together into a working system. Then, they'd have to reverse-engineer all the binary machine code on the computer's hard drive, and determine how it affects the CPU and other components to do the things that they do when various programs are run. Then they'd have to find ways to de-compile the machine code into a human-readable language, so that they may finally understand how the programs are put together, and how they work. Only then will they finally understand that the computer is not a magic or cursed item, that it is not a living organism or a gateway into another dimension, that it is not a God in disguise and not a fundamental key to all creation -- but that it is what it is, a machine that processes information according to certain pre-set algorithms.

An equivalent claim is made for the brain: it is a machine that processes information according to certain pre-set algorithms. And we face a horrendous task of reverse-engineering the brain in order to understand it, in a way very similar to the plight of the unfortunate ancient Greeks. Only the brain is even more daunting than the most complicated computer in existence. It sports an equivalent of 10,000,000,000 processors interconnected in complicated ways, all working simultaneously at 50 Hz in a cacophony of communication. It is fluid, and constantly changes its very structure. It computes not only with electricity, but also in a large way with biochemistry, which makes the behavior of its individual CPUs much more complicated to unravel than the behavior of a typical circuit. It is inexorably tied to the body throughout its development and function, and so to understand the brain we must also understand the workings of the body in all of their intricate detail. The brain is shaped by genetics as well as sensory and chemical input as it develops and matures, so we must understand all of those processes with a high degree of confidence and in great detail over time spans lasting well over a decade from birth to maturity -- if we are to understand how the brain acquires its structure and generates its circuits. And then, once we unravel the story of the hardware, we must understand how it translates into the actual behaviors that we observe -- in essence, we then must reverse-engineer the brain's algorithms and put them into plain English before we ever hope to claim that we completely understand how the brain works. The task is clearly not for the weak of heart. In fact, it can be argued that unraveling the human brain is among the few most difficult challenges science has ever faced. And the task will clearly take at least decades, if not centuries, to complete. But we are already making the first brave steps, and so far we have learned enough to very crudely describe what lies behind our various and wonderful cognitive powers.

In the course of our studies, we have localized regions of the brain, or "nuclei", that either by themselves or in concert with other nuclei directly correspond to various human faculties. For example, there is a clearly defined subsystem in the brain that is linked to emotion. Lesioning the lymbic system will turn a person into an automaton incapable of generating or expressing absolutely any kind of affection for anything. Such patients even talk in rhythmically perfect monotone, like robots from cheap sci-fi flicks. As another example, the memory subsystem has been located in another brain structure, the hippocampus and the parahippocampal and entorhinal cortex regions. Damage to these areas predictably results in various forms of amnesia, with the exact symptomology dependent upon exactly which parts of the system were damaged, and how extensively. As another example, take the ability to understand spoken speech. This capacity is at least in part dependent on a part of the cortex called Wernicke's area, damage to which instantly turns the speech a patient hears into meaningless gibberish, and has the same effect on the speech actually produced by the person (though they are not aware that they make no sense to the others; in fact they are usually quite distressed at the fact that the others are talking gibberish and can't understand what the patient is saying.) Amazingly enough, in a fully organized adult brain there even are regions devoted specifically to reading written text, or specifically to writing text. Damage to these regions results in strange symptomology, such as for example a person being able to read, but no longer able to write, or being able to write, but not being able to read back what they just wrote. Such study of neural pathology has produced an innumerable flood of findings like these, and the deluge has yet to show signs of subsiding.

Additionally, computational modeling and animal research have been providing insights into other crucial powers of cognition. For example, the faculty of vision has been, is, and will be studied with utmost intensity. As examples, we have discovered cells in the brain that respond to lines of various orientations in the visual field, or variously oriented and scaled gratings of alternating light and dark regions; we have found cells in the visual cortex that respond to local motion in a certain direction, or to a contraction or expansion of the local texture (indicating approaching or receding objects); we have found cells higher up in the processing hierarchy that combine those basic features into more complex items, such as corner, or circle, or crosshatch patterns, and we've found cells yet higher up that respond to entire objects only of a certain type, such as faces for example. We've tentatively began to trace the diverging pathways in the visual processing stream, where one pathway specializes in recognizing objects, while the other pathway specializes in determining the location of objects in space around the observer, or the observer's relative coordinates with respect to objects. We are currently constructing rather successful computational models of how rats tell where they are, based exclusively on the rat neurophysiology and actual electrical recordings from individual cells in rat brains. We have constructed a very successful neuro-computational explanation of how barn owls determine the direction of the sounds they hear. People are digging in on all levels, from planning, coordination, and initiation of motion, to hearing, somatosensory perception, mastication, memory, emotion, mechanisms of attention, to cognitive and neurobiological development, to language, etc, etc, etc. Slowly but surely, the brain's enigma is giving way and grudgingly surrendering territory. And absolutely at no point anywhere within this extensive and burgeoning research field has any research group ever found even a remotest hint of anything supernatural.

But what we actually do, at this time, know about the link between brain and cognition -- is that the various cognitive faculties that in the past could not even be imagined to stem from mere matter, derive from specific regions in the brain, and the relationships between these brain regions and how linked regions combine to create cognition, are very physical and well-defined indeed. Additionally, severe damage to a brain region (in adults) connected to some cognitive ability completely and permanently destroys that ability; no hint of its past existence can be recovered through the use of other faculties, as should have been the case if the "lost" faculty actually resided in the soul.


Argument from evolution

Well, this one's short and sweet, and will work against only a narrowed selection of various doctrines. It basically says that since, obviously, simple life forms do not have souls, and we are merely evolved forms of the same thing, then surely we don't have souls either. At a deeper level, the argument challenges the believer to define at which point living beings acquire souls. Do only humans have souls? But then you have problems with primates, since they are so incredibly similar to us both physically and behaviorally. Do only primates have souls? But then you have a problem with the simians, since monkeys are so similar to apes both physically and behaviorally. Do only primates and simians have souls? But then you have a problem with the prosimians, etc, etc, etc. Eventually, you are forced to retreat to a generalization over all mammals, then over all animals, and finally over all life -- at which point you arrive at a stark contradiction with a clearly observable fact -- that the lowest forms of life do not have souls.


Argument from development

This is somewhat similar to the argument from evolution. Here, you are challenged to define just at what point during development a human acquires a soul. It couldn't be at the point of egg fertilization, since at that time everything is still purely biochemical, and the fertilized embryo has no properties normally associated with a soul. It couldn't be during early embryonic development, since an early human embryo is anatomically and functionally indistinguishable even from fish embryos. So when is it that a human acquires a soul? The answer to that question is impossible similarly to how it is impossible to define a cutoff across different lifeforms -- because just as the spectrum of lifeforms on earth is fairly continuous in terms of their capabilities, form and function, the development of an embryo is similarly continuous. At no point during development does the embryo suddenly make a quantum leap and exhibits some feature it didn't have a second ago. This continuity makes it impossible to define a cutoff at which the soul definitely must be there. From another (and more mathematical) perspective, since a fertilized egg has no soul, then by induction over this smooth continuum of development we arrive at the conclusion that even a fully developed adult human doesn't have a soul.


Argument from objectivity

This calls into question the very need to have a concept of souls or afterlife. Neither are objective, in that neither are tangible, measurable, or independent of observer (e.g. neither can be detected by "brainless", mechanical scientific instruments that don't have a propensity for misinterpreting things like humans do). Neither can be tested, neither provides any tangible evidence for its existence. In fact, if one starts out with a (still futuristic) complete physical explanation of cognition, then one is not going to be likely to conjecture the existence of souls or afterlife -- simply because there would be no remaining evidence available that would prompt such a conjecture. Hence, objectively, the theories of "vital essence", or souls, or afterlife are outdated and superceded by modern science. As any invalidated theory should, therefore, the ideas of soul or afterlife properly belong in the history books, but no longer in the domain of serious discourse.


Argument from equivalence

This is where we assume that the brain has, at some point in the future, been scientifically unraveled to the point that absolutely everything is known, understood, and explained about its form and function. Then, we can imagine that the scientists of the future endeavor to replicate a complete human brain, but not in flesh in blood, but as a program running in some blindingly powerful supercomputer. The brain is simulated down to the last atom, complete with information input from simulated eyes that mimic human eyes, and simulated ears that mimic human ears, and all other sensory modalities equally well implemented, with a simulated body providing feedback to the brain, and a simulated ultra-detailed environment for that body to roam and interact with. Because the simulation replicates the function of a real human brain to the last detail, and it replicates a realistic environment for that simulated brain to mature in, the simulated human will certainly develop its own conscious stream of awareness, learn the details and workings of its environment, exhibit emotions, intelligence, sensations -- it will be altogether equivalent in all of its functions to an actual physical human. But it is painfully obvious that the simulated human does not have a soul, because in reality he is nothing but a pattern of bits in the memory banks of our supercomputer. Ironically, if we were to simulate not one such human, but an entire tribe living in some virtual jungle, and allow the simulation to progress across many generations, the humans will develop language, culture, and even religion, and likely one of their first metaphysical conjectures will have to do with the fundamental distinction between life and nonlife -- the "vital essence".

Thanks Cris!

Everyone, please take the time to read the above post carefully, especially theists.

It looks like Boris did a very thorough job of pointing out a plethora of
contradictory evidence to the assertion that a 'soul' exists. Seeing as there
is no supportive evidence (aboslutely zero) for the assertion, the only
available conclusion is that a 'soul' does not exist.

IMO, this is not enough to sway a believer because evidence is simply not a
consideraion for them. What may work is the discovery of a 'theory of
everyting' and an application of that theory to do things that a believer
would consider impossible without divine intervention. Another angle may
be the artificial creation of thought (which I predict is the result of some
combination of checmical and electrical interaction). Again, applying this
could produce works that a believer would consider impossible.

what is the soul that boris refers to?
he gives it no defintion other than that which suits his purpose.

ellion,

So how would you define "soul"?

i would'nt it is a much misunderstood and maligning word, as is the word god.

to be fair though, i would use it in discourse if other parties are using it and i can pick up on their definition.

ellion: it's the popular concept of the soul, he refers too, but the soul has no true definition, it can not exist.
I'm sure we will all be happy, if you can counter his arguement.

If I define soul as "the unknown element that distinquishes between the animate and its opposite", would the arguments provided apply? Seems to me, NO. As there is definately something that isn't clearly understood or known that distinguishes between the animate and its opposite... isn't there?

I'm sure we will all be happy, if you can counter his arguement.
if you are not happy now, there is nothing i will do that will change that, you have tyo make those changes for yourself.

there is no argument to counter here boris has based an argument against his own defnition, it is only he that holds the keys to his self created contradictory evidence.

I believe that our souls are holograms attached to our body. Who do you think put it there?

If I define soul as "the unknown element that distinquishes between the animate and its opposite", would the arguments provided apply? yes, because he covers that implausable link, you can use any supernatural premise, gods, fairies, miracles,etc, and you will find if you substitute it with the word soul, it's covered in one paragraph or more of his article IE: Argument from interaction, Argument from objectivity.
if you are not happy now, there is nothing i will do that will change that, you have to make those changes for yourself.wtf are you talking about.there is no argument to counter here boris has based an argument against his own definition,no, it's based on the popular concept of the soul.

Who ever said that the popular concept of Soul was right?

Poor boris cannot disprove something he has no understanding of. It's like trying to measure radio waves with a ruler.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

i would'nt it is a much misunderstood and maligning word, as is the word god.

Then you don't know the word of god, either?

Do you disagree with this definition of a soul?

"The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life."

Soul is defined by what it does - not what it is made of. It (the soul) is the "will, intellect and
emotions" of a person

Scripture talks about A triunity in “man” - the Soul the spirit (life) and the body.

The word sou lis used to describe the part of a person that makes them different from all other
people- there will and intellect and emotions.

A better question to ask is “does the soul exist after we die?”

Any definition given to what the soul is - is purely speculation with out scriptural support.

What makes something alive.

Gen2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Above we have a body that God makes alive and then becomes a soul.

It (the soul) is the "will, intellect and
emotions" of a person

Really? I would suspect the "will, intellect and emotions" of a person are the "will, intellect and emotions" of a person. Why would you need to rename them?

Any definition given to what the soul is - is purely speculation with out scriptural support.

Then, support it with scripture rather than making something up.

What makes something alive.

Isn't that the same definition I gave?

A better question to ask is “does the soul exist after we die?”

Then, what is the soul?

"Really? I would suspect the "will, intellect and emotions" of a person are the "will, intellect and
emotions" of a person. Why would you need to rename them?"

Your confused. The soul is expressed as the will, intellect and emotions.

Who knows what the soul is? we just know that its actions are manifest in the will, intellect and
emotions, and that its expressed is threw the mind and then the body.

Your confused. The soul is expressed as the will, intellect and emotions.

Ok, then it would appear the opening post by boris is valid.

Wes,

If I define soul as "the unknown element that distinquishes between the animate and its opposite", would the arguments provided apply? Seems to me, NO. As there is definately something that isn't clearly understood or known that distinguishes between the animate and its opposite... isn't there? Plants are also animate. They move their heads towards the sun and their petals close at night and open in the morning. They have complex cellular biological activities much like ours – would a plant have a soul?

What you are trying to define is life. Is there a clear sharp boundary between life and non-life? Apparently not. We can look to many chemical reactions that appear passive and others quite active and then we can examine biology which appears no more than a more complex set of chemical reactions. Where does the line fall between life and non-life? It doesn’t exist; it is just a matter of degree.

Does a soul then simply appear as chemical reactions become more complex? Or is the term used because of past ignorance of underlying molecular activities?

Paul,

Who knows what the soul is? we just know that its actions are manifest in the will, intellect and emotions, and that its expressed is threw the mind and then the body.Why? Why isn’t the brain a sufficient explanation for the source of will, intellect and emotions.

Sure- if you agree we have no true will or intellect or emotions- that all those actions that we call
those are just then allusion and are purely materelasticly determined from the beginning of time.

Why has God given us a soul- so that we can make our own choices and are not just the
expression of way the atoms of the universe have made us.

But again you misunderstand the soul is expressed threw those things- one might think of the
action as a transducer in it’s expression.

You say that the will, intellect and our emotions are purely the product of the expression of the
atoms in our brain, but I say they are expressions of the soul.

When some one can collect together bunches of atoms and have them act like a human soul then
I will put more faith in that position. Its clear by now that our minds are not computers and that
computers will never have will, intellect or emotions, they might be able to at some point mimic
them as we program them to respond to input ( like 1+1 =2) and churn out a prerecorded
response. But they do not have the intellect to produce the formula 1+1=2.

Wes,

Plants are also animate. They move their heads towards the sun and their petals close at night and open in the morning. They have complex cellular biological activities much like ours – would a plant have a soul?

Then how about narrowing the definition to humans?

What you are trying to define is life. Is there a clear sharp boundary between life and non-life? Apparently not.

Tell that to my grandma who died the oher day, or all those clearly dead folks in the gulf. There's definately a clear line at some point.

We can look to many chemical reactions that appear passive and others quite active and then we can examine biology which appears no more than a more complex set of chemical reactions. Where does the line fall between life and non-life? It doesn’t exist; it is just a matter of degree.

There's not a lot of different degrees of being in buried in a coffin to rot, unless of course maybe you're buried alive.

Does a soul then simply appear as chemical reactions become more complex? Or is the term used because of past ignorance of underlying molecular activities?

Oh I definately think it was concieved in ignorance. I'm just trying to play around with a definition that might hold true to the original idea to some degree and still squeek by the argument, mostly for sport.

yes, because he covers that implausable link, you can use any supernatural premise, gods, fairies, miracles,etc, and you will find if you substitute it with the word soul, it's covered in one paragraph or more of his article IE: Argument from interaction, Argument from objectivity.
wtf are you talking about.no, it's based on the popular concept of the soul.

Who said anything about supernatural? I think the word "supernatural" is ill-conceived, for it whatever the subject of the word is possible, it's perfectly natural. Note that in reaction to cris's post I've narrowed the definition:

"the unknown element that clearly distinquishes between a person being alive or dead"

Thanks Cris!

Everyone, please take the time to read the above post carefully, especially theists.I want to read a book or e-book not that above post. I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading.
Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter.

Hilarious! :D

what is the soul that boris refers to?
he gives it no defintion other than that which suits his purpose.The complete definition of a soul is irrelevant to Boris's arguments. The only thing necessary for Boris's argument is that a soul is something that interacts with a human.

If you agree that a soul does this then all of Boris's arguments apply and need to be addressed directly.

If not then what does a soul do, what is it for?

~Raithere

Sure- if you agree we have no true will or intellect or emotions- that all those actions that we call those are just then allusion and are purely materelasticly determined from the beginning of time.So you believe in "the Soul" through fear of the alternative? So logical and rational of you. :rolleyes:

When some one can collect together bunches of atoms and have them act like a human soul then I will put more faith in that position. Its clear by now that our minds are not computers and that computers will never have will, intellect or emotions, they might be able to at some point mimic them as we program them to respond to input ( like 1+1 =2) and churn out a prerecorded response. But they do not have the intellect to produce the formula 1+1=2.
Dogs have emotions. They can be happy, sad, angry etc.
Dogs can also do some amazingly intelligent things - and some have the same intelligence and problem solving abilities as very young children (aged 2/3/4 etc).
Dogs also have a will. When left to their own devices they make their own choices. One dog my family had would tell US when it wanted to go out for a walk - and we were never going to get it to go if he didn't want to.

So - a non-human with the same will, intellect and emotion as a human.
Does a dog have a soul?
If not, why not if you think that a 1-year old human does?

I want to read a book or e-book not that above post. I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading.

Hilarious! :DThanks for the informative response to his post.
I suggest you actually read it and comment usefully on what it contains.
To merely say "Hilarious" suggests to me that you really can't find anything to counter the arguments with. If you can - please share them.

"the unknown element that clearly distinquishes between a person being alive or dead"
1. If someone's brain wasn't functioning at all (i.e. completely flat-lined on all EM readouts) would you say the person was dead - Yes or No?

2. And if there was some/any sign of EM activity - Yes or No?

If you answer No to 1 and Yes to 2 then you've already defined the "element" as being brain activity.

If you say Yes to 1 then please let me know how you define death.


Also - do you consider the "soul" to be immaterial?
If so, then Boris' post and his arguments are valid.

"So - a non-human with the same will, intellect and emotion as a human.
Does a dog have a soul?"

If you really believe that a Dog has the same capabilities that humans have - then I guess there is
no point in responding.

Dogs have a degree of intelligence but no intellect. A predator would not survive long with out
some degree of intelligence - even some spiders have more intelligence than Dogs.





Life is immaterial yes, a body does not move around or have will or intelligence or emotions with
out life.
All animals and plants have life or what the bible calls the breath of life from God.
The scriptures declare that when something dies, if it is a human being the life returns to God and
other living creatures return the earth, do animals have souls- maybe but not of the same type as
humankind- for God has give every living creature the Breath of Life from God, but they aren’t
made in the image of God with immortality and same degree of will, intellect and emotions.

With out a functioning brain, ones soul would not be able to interact with the body, even though
the body is alive.

Death is when the life force that animates a body can not be maintained in the body, the soul
might not be in the body but cells of the body can still function if given food and water and
oxygen.

By faith or trust in what God has declared I consider the life and soul as immaterial.

This is the purpose of revelation- to declare and teach us what we can not find out for our selves-
we have no way to know what happens when something dies, we can not test for it we can’t get
information it’s lost to us.

Sure his arguments appear valid if there is no God, but they are not valid if there is a God.

Ecclesiastes 3:19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one
dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [spirit] ; man has no advantage over the animal.


1peter2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them
into gloomy dungeons{Pits] to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when
he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and
seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and
made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a
righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man,
living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw
and heard) if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the
unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of
those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels,
although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such
beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand.
They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and
like beasts they too will perish.

"So - a non-human with the same will, intellect and emotion as a human.
Does a dog have a soul?"

If you really believe that a Dog has the same capabilities that humans have - then I guess there is
no point in responding.A dog, especially one such as a German Shepherd, has an IQ of around 30 - and acts similarly to a child of around 2 or 3. You even have to treat them in the same manner.
And a dog can rescue people from fires, detect drugs and bombs. Can a 2 year-old?


Dogs have a degree of intelligence but no intellect.LOL! So you can have intelligence without intellect??
Dogs have intellect, believe me!

A predator would not survive long with out some degree of intelligence - even some spiders have more intelligence than Dogs. Hmmm. Evidence of this? I'm not saying it's not true - but where's the evidence? I've never seen a spider that's been trained to do things.

By faith or trust in what God has declared I consider the life and soul as immaterial.So, finally admitting that the "soul" is immaterial - please re-read Boris' essay / words in the first post and offer some refutation.


...we have no way to know what happens when something dies, we can not test for it we can’t get information it’s lost to us.We actually have a damn fine knowledge base of what happens. I'm not a medical expert but most doctors are taught it, all forensic bods are taught it.
Let's just say it's rather disgusting, smells bad, and is good for the bacteria and wee little animals.

Sure his arguments appear valid if there is no God, but they are not valid if there is a God.LOL! "God exists because he does."
You believe what you have been brought up to believe.
By faith or trust in what God has declared...And where's the evidence that he has declared anything?

I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading.

I always read what other theists ask in order to respond to their posts. You should at the very least offer the same considerations. If you don't, there is no point in you posting here at all or even being a member of this forum.

You clearly are not interested in learning anything and would much rather sit in a room clinging to your bible while rocking back and forth.

Please continue to do so, stop posting here and go away.

if you are not happy now, there is nothing i will do that will change that, you have to make those changes for yourself.
wtf are you talking about.
you said you will all be happy if i can counter his argument.
but i think you will not be happy, nothing i will do will make you happy, i might make you laugh, i might make you smile, but i will not make you happy, find happiness yourself and you will not need any one to give it to you.

Then you don't know the word of god, either?what word would that be?


Do you disagree with this definition of a soul?

"The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life."what do you mean by immaterial part?
i do disagree with the actuating cause bit though, the cause of life is desire.


Then, what is the soul?good question, and one that is not duely considered in boris argument.

The complete definition of a soul is irrelevant to Boris's arguments. it should be relevant. why would it not be relevant to consider what it is that is being argued. would his argument be as acceptable if he gave as little attention to the argument form the neurological perspective? surely it would be dismissed as unsubstantiated bull.


The only thing necessary for Boris's argument is that a soul is something that interacts with a human.there are many things that interact with humans. if we do not know what it is that is being referred to, what it does, how it does it. then how can we seriously argue what it is not, what it is not doing, and how it is not doing it?

if we dont know what the soul is, how do we really know that the soul is immaterial, it could be a very subtle physical element capable of carrying information and interacting with the denser physical substances. if it is defined vaguely as something that we dont really know anything about how can we justify saying it is not really there?

in fact it is the vagueness of the definition of that called "soul" that qualifies the argument from neurology.

what word would that be?

The word of god, claimed by the theists to which it has been given, at least, their many versions of it. They have yet to agree.

what do you mean by immaterial part?

Without matter, form or substance - again, that to which theists claim to comprise the soul.

i do disagree with the actuating cause bit though, the cause of life is desire.

Do amoeba have desires? Plants? Viruses? Fungi?

good question, and one that is not duely considered in boris argument.

So, you are also unable to define a soul? If so, why do you believe in one?

it should be relevant.The only relevant part of any definition of "soul" is that it is immaterial.
Further, more precise, definition IS irrelevant to Boris' discussion.
Boris even starts in his first paragraph by saying "Yet, souls are defined as immaterial..." and it is on this alone that he is commenting on.

If one, however, feels the soul to be material - please provide evidence of it's existence.

Do amoeba have desires? Plants? Viruses? Fungi?are you saying that these things have a soul too?

So, you are also unable to define a soul? If so, why do you believe in one?why do you?

to come correct, you dont know what i believe.
making presumptions is something that you should give up Q. it is not your forte.

The only relevant part of any definition of "soul" is that it is immaterial.that simply is not true.

is the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?
is the only relevant part of any defintion of a dog the fact it has hair?
is the only relevant part of any defintion of the world the fact that it is not flat?
is the only relevant part of any argument that which suits your needs?

are you saying that these things have a soul too?

It is primarily customary to answer a question, but not with another question.

If souls existed, then they should also have souls. What say you?

why do you?

Again, answer the question. I don't have beliefs.

to come correct, you dont know what i believe.
making presumptions is something that you should give up Q. it is not your forte.

In your case, I'm forced to make assumptions because you won't answer questions.

Why do you believe in a soul if you don't know what it is?

Could you please make some attempt at answering questions without other questions, it would make for what is commonly termed a 'discussion.' If you feel you don't need/want to answer questions, then don't post at all.

that simply is not true.

Then, in your humble opinion, what is the truth?

that simply is not true.

is the only relevant part of any argument that which suits your needs?Relevant to THIS debate. :rolleyes:
Obviously not relevant to all things all times - but to THIS debate.
Boris' entire post is about the incompatibility of the IMMATERIAL soul with the MATERIAL reality.

If you want to change the debate then feel free to post another thread.

It is primarily customary to answer a question, but not with another question.these are your customs my friend. not mine.

If souls existed, then they should also have souls. What say you? indeed, if humans have soul that we cannot identify why then not other creatures?


Do amoeba have desires? Plants? Viruses? Fungi?yes i think they do. i dont think we would call them desires though, perhaps impulses or tendencies might be a more suitable way of describing their urges to life.

why do you?

Again, answer the question. I don't have beliefs.
it is a question i cant answer any more than you can answer; why do you belive in a soul?

In your case, I'm forced to make assumptions because you won't answer questions.this is because you ask questions i cant answer.

Why do you believe in a soul if you don't know what it is?see! how can i asnswer this question? why do you believe in a soul Q?


Could you please make some attempt at answering questions without other questions, it would make for what is commonly termed a 'discussion.' If you feel you don't need/want to answer questions, then don't post at all.okay. ask a question that is not based on an assumption of what i believe.

the following question is much better.

The only relevant part of any definition of "soul" is that it is immaterial.
that simply is not true.

Then, in your humble opinion, what is the truth?
the truth is that all of the defintion has relevance.


is the following true?
the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?
no it simply is not true. why? because the brain is so much more than material. to place the brain in the context of an argument you need to know more than, it is material. why not the same for the soul?
if you where looking for a defintion of the brain in the oxford dictionary and it read;

brain (brăn)
n.
1. made of matter.

you would be a bit cynical right?

Soul is an old word for the self, but since we don't know what the self is, it may be hard to understand.

these are your customs my friend. not mine.

Then, you shouldn't be here.

why do you belive in a soul?

A soul has never been shown to exist, what exactly is there to believe?

no it simply is not true. why? because the brain is so much more than material.

What more could you possible suggest the brain be? No one has ever found anything more than material.

Q you arer just acting dumb arent you?

Acting dumb about what?

it should be relevant. why would it not be relevant to consider what it is that is being argued. would his argument be as acceptable if he gave as little attention to the argument form the neurological perspective? surely it would be dismissed as unsubstantiated bull.Because the argument relies only upon the soul having a certain property (that it interacts with the human brain). Everything else about the soul is tertiary to the argument because this is the only premise regarding the soul his argument relies upon.

there are many things that interact with humans. if we do not know what it is that is being referred to, what it does, how it does it. then how can we seriously argue what it is not, what it is not doing, and how it is not doing it?Everything that we know of that interacts with the human mind does so through certain physical pathways. The point that Boris is making is actually rather simple, there is a fundamental problem with the concept of a soul interacting with a human mind which is that there doesn't seem to be any place for this interaction to take place.

if we dont know what the soul is, how do we really know that the soul is immaterial, it could be a very subtle physical element capable of carrying information and interacting with the denser physical substances.This point is covered already. If it is having an affect then we should be able to locate it, find where and how it interacts with the brain even if it were so subtle that we could not find the thing itself.

Imagine that for some reason we couldn't observe the eyes, they existed in some metaphysical state that we are incapable of perceiving. We would still know that something was there because we would be able to measure the reaction of the optic nerve. We would know that something that we could not perceive was affecting these neurons.

That's exactly what we would have to find in the brain to support the existence of the soul (presuming it affects the brain and isn't just pointlessly floating around and doing nothing).

if it is defined vaguely as something that we dont really know anything about how can we justify saying it is not really there?Actually it could be there but if it isn't having an effect upon the brain what difference does it make? If it has no effect on the brain then what a person does, thinks, believes, etc has absolutely no bearing on the soul and vice versa. They would be independent and unrelated in any meaningful way.

~Raithere

is the following true?
the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?

no it simply is not true. . Just being nitpicky - can you:
(a) not resort to ad hominem attacks, it is rather pathetic; and
(b) please identify the correct originator of any quotes you use.
I did not originally quote "the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?" That was you.
So unless you are referring to yourself as DORKUS, please keep the facts straight.


The fact remains, despite your unwillingness to accept it, that Boris' post is aimed purely at the "immaterial" soul.
It is THIS property that matters.
As long as your definition of "soul" includes this property then the rest of your definition is irrelevant to THIS debate. :rolleyes:

ellion,

So how would you define "soul"?

Cris, your question should be "how does Boris define the soul?"
Because if you don't enquire, then you have no basis for believing him. Your beliefs will be foolish and irrational.

So how does Boris define the "soul"?

Jan Ardena.

I did not originally quote "the only relevant part of any defintion of the brain the fact that it is material?" That was you.
So unless you are referring to yourself as DORKUS, please keep the facts straight.
dorkus is a pseudonym for my hypothetical post used to illustrate the point that what you said was a complete fallacy.

The fact remains, despite your unwillingness to accept it, that Boris' post is aimed purely at the "immaterial" soul. i do accept that boris' argument is aimed at the immaterial soul that is plain to see, what i dont accept is his deliniation of what an immaterial soul is, the souls functions, the souls substance, the souls processes, what are these according to boris?
all we get from boris is they are not material?
so what does he mean by not material? what are they, if they are not material?
does he mean they dont exist?
or they dont exist objectively?
what exactly is he refering too, and how exactly has he observed it?
i suspect he has not observed it,and he does not know what he is referring to?
in fact this is the crux of his argument, that he has not observed anything he could call a soul. big fucking deal!
this is the same ol' shit in a different bucket.
if his argument is to have any credibility he needs to at least identify what is meant by soul, and present some facts about its existential substance, purpose, process and function at least.

I read the first paragraph and it seems stupendous lunacy for me to continue reading.

I always read what other theists ask in order to respond to their posts. You should at the very least offer the same considerations. If you don't, there is no point in you posting here at all or even being a member of this forum.

You clearly are not interested in learning anything and would much rather sit in a room clinging to your bible while rocking back and forth.

Please continue to do so, stop posting here and go away.I remember some members (before) of God's household who quit because they felt irked in clinging to the good doctrine.

I already knew what soul is and what it means, in fact, the Bible declares that 8 souls were saved by water (that is, Noah and his wife, his three children and the wives of his children, all in all eight.)

So I'm sorry if I am an irritation to your thought. Besides, if there is a DELETE YOUR PROFILE portion I will delete my profile for your sake. Or I am requesting now the good attention of the moderators that they erase my profile if they can do so. That's my request to Cris and James_R. Thanks in advance, moderators.

i do accept that boris' argument is aimed at the immaterial soul that is plain to see, what i dont accept is his deliniation of what an immaterial soul is, the souls functions, the souls substance, the souls processes, what are these according to boris?The functions / substance / processes etc are IRRELEVANT to the debate.
As soon as one claims that the "Soul is IMMATERIAL" then the arguments he puts forth are valid.
Why does it matter what the processes are?
Why does it matter what the functions are?
All that matters to the argument is that the soul is IMMATERIAL.


all we get from boris is they are not material?
so what does he mean by not material? what are they, if they are not material? Immaterial: Not constituted of matter.

does he mean they dont exist?He doesn't mean that by the term "immaterial" but his arguments show that if it is immaterial then it either doesn't exist or can not interact meaningfully with the material - which basically constitutes the same thing.

what exactly is he refering too, and how exactly has he observed it?
i suspect he has not observed it,and he does not know what he is referring to?
in fact this is the crux of his argument, that he has not observed anything he could call a soul. big fucking deal!
this is the same ol' shit in a different bucket.

if his argument is to have any credibility he needs to at least identify what is meant by soul, and present some facts about its existential substance, purpose, process and function at least.Eh?
He has clearly stated a single property of "soul" - i.e. that it is "immaterial", a word that is clearly understood by most.
He has then gone on to state through his arguments how this single property, regardless of the processes, functions, etc of the "soul", leads to something that either can not exist or can not have any meaningful interaction with the body.

It is a purely logical analysis of hypothetical object (the "soul") to which the property "immaterial" has been assigned.

The "soul" could be defined as an "immaterial frying pan that drives my consciousness".
It could be defined as an "immaterial comfort blanket that keeps me safe in the dark".
It could be defined as ANYTHING immaterial - it doesn't make an ounce of difference to his arguments AS LONG AS IT IS IMMATERIAL.

Please define what your "soul" is and we'll see how it stacks up to his arguments?

Please define what your "soul" is and we'll see how it stacks up to his arguments?if i had to say what is my soul, i would have to say it is me. i am mysoul.

Souls?
Argument from interaction

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter. Hence, the paradox arises: by its definition, a soul must be both capable of interacting with matter, and not capable of interacting with matter. To elaborate, .

NOT A VIABLE ARGUMENT, since there are no grounds to assert that an immaterial reality has no power to affect material reality. Immateriality does not imply powerlessness or remoteness from material reality. Material is space/time continuum, immaterial is not. Simply because they differ in substantial realioty does not mean that one cannot effect the other. Immaterial is not less real than material. Read your Plato

Matter affects matter through interactions. For example, you can push a desk, or bludgeon a man, or dig a river. It is because matter is so "interactive", that we can make measurements, conduct experiments, and observe phenomena associated with matter. The soul, on the other hand, is by definition immaterial. Hence, with our scientific instruments we cannot detect it. If we could detect it, we could then determine its properties and structure and we would be able to materially interact with it, which would make the soul material. .

JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT OBSERVE A TREE FALL DOWN IN THE FOREST< IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT NO FALLING TREE EXISTS.
I must go, but I will continue my refutation later...

NOT A VIABLE ARGUMENT, since there are no grounds to assert that an immaterial reality has no power to affect material reality. Immateriality does not imply powerlessness or remoteness from material reality. Material is space/time continuum, immaterial is not. Simply because they differ in substantial realioty does not mean that one cannot effect the other. Immaterial is not less real than material. Read your Plato.Please give one iota of evidence of an immaterial item affecting reality.
Please.
Do.
It will be fun to read.
Even a hypothetical example would be good for a start - so we can show you how either it doesn't exist or it can not interact with any meaning.

The functions / substance / processes etc are IRRELEVANT to the debate.
As soon as one claims that the "Soul is IMMATERIAL" then the arguments he puts forth are valid.i disagree. what does it mean to be immaterial. is consciousness material? consciousness has interaction with the brain via chemical and biological processes but is it material in the sense that boris speaks of?


Why does it matter what the processes are?
Why does it matter what the functions are?
All that matters to the argument is that the soul is IMMATERIAL.
that simply is not good enough.

as i said above if you looked for a defintion of the brain and you found the definition only stated "the brain is physical" would that suffice as a definition? i should hope not. would you then build a reasonable argument around this definition?

besides which, how does boris know the soul is immaterial like i said it could be a very nimble form of matter which is cunning enough to out wit our soul detecting machines.

Immaterial: Not constituted of matter.so! what does it consist of? this is why the defintion given does not suffice. we need more infromation, what is it if not material? is it a principle? an idea? a perceived individuality? a relationship to a principality? a collection of personality charecteristics? what? what is it?


He doesn't mean that by the term "immaterial" but his arguments show that if it is immaterial then it either doesn't exist or can not interact meaningfully with the material - which basically constitutes the same thing.right, so he has defined the soul in such a way that it is easily refuted by his argument, and you are willing to accept this without question, are you?

The "soul" could be defined as an "immaterial frying pan that drives my consciousness".so the soul in this case is the stimulus that directs your train of thought. it is the relationship and the interaction that is not material the frying pan (if an objective frying pan and not an imagined one) is material but as an object it has a purpose beyond its material expression i.e the ability to drive your consciousness. and it is this immaterial aspect of the frying pan that you call the soul, yes?

It appears Lawdog is the only theist with the balls to attempt refutation.

i disagree. what does it mean to be immaterial.

The soul is defined to be immaterial simple because all other material portions of the anatomy have been accounted for, in which their functions are not found to interact with the supernatural.

If you say that you are your soul, then you are saying your entire body interacts with the supernatural, correct?

One can possibly assume it is when you cup your hands together in prayer, thus creating a supernatural antenae of sorts? Looking up towards the sky turns on a function of the eyes that can see god?

You really have to help out here as to how you, the soul, interacts with god.

Or are you merely avoiding the subject in order not to attempt refutation, as are the other theists?

You really have to help out here as to how you, the soul, interacts with god.

The body (person) interacts with the self. The mask interacts with the face. Matter interacts with the spirit (mind).

i disagree. what does it mean to be immaterial. is consciousness material? consciousness has interaction with the brain via chemical and biological processes but is it material in the sense that boris speaks of? Consciousness does NOT have interaction with the brain. It IS the SUM OF INTERACTIONS of the brain with itself via the vast neural network.
It does not interact WITH the brain.
It is purely an internally driven process - that has physical inputs and physical outputs. Without input there is no internal interaction and no outputs - thus no consciousness (sum of zeros is zero).

Also see Boris' "Argument from Equivalence".


as i said above if you looked for a defintion of the brain and you found the definition only stated "the brain is physical" would that suffice as a definition? i should hope not. would you then build a reasonable argument around this definition? Obviously the definition of "brain" and "soul" are more complex than whether or not they are matter or immaterial. That is not in dispute.

The whole of Boris' argument stems from the widely accepted understanding of the "soul" as being, among a plethora of other things, immaterial. The plethora of other things are not being questioned by Boris - he concentrates entirely on the "immaterial" nature of the soul.

besides which, how does boris know the soul is immaterial like i said it could be a very nimble form of matter which is cunning enough to out wit our soul detecting machines.Boris doesn't know what the soul is made of.
His argument is one of countering the claim that the IMMATERIAL soul exists AND INTERACTS WITH the material body.

so! what does it consist of? this is why the defintion given does not suffice. we need more infromation, what is it if not material? is it a principle? an idea? a perceived individuality? a relationship to a principality? a collection of personality charecteristics? what? what is it?The Soul is either MATERIAL or IMMATERIAL.
If it is IMMATERIAL - then Boris' post applies.
If it is MATERIAL then please provide evidence of it.

right, so he has defined the soul in such a way that it is easily refuted by his argument, and you are willing to accept this without question, are you?Boris is merely starting with an assumption of the soul (that it is material) and showing how it either doesn't exist or can not interract meaningfully with the physical / material.
If you disagree with the assumption that the soul is immaterial then naturally the rest of his arguments are not applicable to your definition of "soul".
If that is the case, then your definition must include the fact that the soul is "material" (as a soul can not be both "not material" and not "immaterial" - i.e. it is either material or it is immaterial).

If you agree that the soul is immaterial then Boris' arguments apply.

Or do you think the soul is material?

Matter interacts with the spirit (mind).

That is exactly the refutation boris has made clear, that the mind has not been found to be a spirit or interact with spirits. Did you read the opening post? If so, you should refute his points on the subject.

Matter interacts with the spirit (mind).

That is exactly the refutation boris has made clear, that the mind has not been found to be a spirit or interact with spirits. Did you read the opening post? If so, you should refute his points on the subject.

You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul. Another word for the mind.

You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul.duh!Another word for the mind.
and yet another moron, thats what Q said

You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul. Another word for the mind.

Really? I've never seen that definition for the mind before - did you just make it up?

Please give one iota of evidence of an immaterial item affecting reality.
Please.
Do.
It will be fun to read.
Even a hypothetical example would be good for a start - so we can show you how either it doesn't exist or it can not interact with any meaning.

Your personality, your thoughts. The ideas in your head, logic and mathematics, all immaterial, all affect us in huge ways on a daily basis.
I'm afraid you find yourself without reasonable argument.

duh!
and yet another moron, thats what Q said

Maybe I'm a moron, but you're an oxymoron.

You don't know what a "spirit" is. It is nothing. It is like the soul. Another word for the mind.

Really? I've never seen that definition for the mind before - did you just make it up?

You misunderstood nothing.

You misunderstood nothing.

Nothing: a nonexistent thing. Isn't that a correct definition? Do you have another?

It appears Lawdog is the only theist with the balls to attempt refutationwe are in the process of refutation first things first though, eh? since boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you?

If you say that you are your soul, then you are saying your entire body interacts with the supernatural, correct?no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul.


One can possibly assume it is when you cup your hands together in prayer, thus creating a supernatural antenae of sorts? Looking up towards the sky turns on a function of the eyes that can see god? one can assume all manner of things. why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray?


You really have to help out here as to how you, the soul, interacts with god. how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too.

Or are you merely avoiding the subject in order not to attempt refutation, as are the other theists?how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also?

Your personality, your thoughts. The ideas in your head, logic and mathematics, all immaterial, all affect us in huge ways on a daily basis.
I'm afraid you find yourself without reasonable argument.You are merely quoting abstract concepts, none of which interact with us at all.

You don't interact with "maths".
You DO interact with the visual stimuli of the lines, drawings etc on the paper, crunch away in your head (all of which is a physical process), and arrive at an answer that you then physically visualise and probably store to memory, and probably write down.

The same with logic.
It is a tool - a concept.
We do not "interact" with it in any way.

These two words are merely abstract concepts to describe the physical thought process that goes on in the brain to arrive at the right answer.

We are taught that 1+1=2.
We see the physical stimuli of the letters either on the paper, the board etc. We get the physical stimuli of the teacher telling us etc.
So, in simple terms, our brain builds a physical connection in the brain such that when we see 1+1 again we know that the answer is 2.
"Maths" is an abstract concept - but at no point do we interact with it.


"Personality" is immaterial - but it is also not something that interacts. Personality is nothing more than a concept. It is the way, peculiar to each individual, in which our brain crunches all the inputs to achieve the outputs.
The inputs are physical.
The outputs are physical.
The processing is physical. It is this processing, peculiar to each of us, that is our personality.
There is no interaction with the immaterial at any point.
The fact that everyone processes the same inputs to achieve different outputs is what gives us our unique personality - but it is not something that interacts.

If you disagree with any of this, please detail to me exactly how it is that you interact with logic, with mathematics, with personality, with any of your examples.

boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you?

Boris' presentation is fine in regards to his argument. For the time being, let's work with it as if it were hypothetical, can you manage that?

no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul.

If it is not supernatural, then it must be natural and confined to the laws of the physical world. That is very much the crux of the argument.

Like all theists, they have their own interpretation of god, so it would stand to reason they have their own interpretation of the soul, as you do.

But like I said, lets work with what is there. You can always start a thread defining your interpretation of the soul and work with that. Fair enough?

why do you think god lives up in the sky? why do you think i pray?

I don't know where god lives and I don't know why you pray, I'm just using that as an example.

how do you interact with your world? many, many different ways i Assume? this is how interact with my world too.

I interact with the physical world with my physical body, just like everyone else. Can you show that your world includes the supernatural and how you interact with it?

how do you know what other theists are doing are you having supernatural interactions with them that inform you of their behaviour, or are you just assuming this also?

I'm going by the evidence presented here. Do you see any theists attempting refutation of boris' post?

since boris' argument is based on a presentation of the soul which is so vague it could not possibly stand up to any argument, i think that this is a better place than any to start, what says you?You miss the point, I fear.
Boris' argument is based on the assumption, held by many (so he thinks), that the soul is immaterial.
It is THIS ASSUMPTION ALONE, regardless of anything else, on which he argues.

So you should either refute this assumption, or refute his arguments based upon this assumption.

You can not refute his arguments by saying "Well, he hasn't defined the soul in sufficient detail" as his case against it relies solely on the assumption that the soul is immaterial.

Either argue against the assumption, argue against his points based on the assumption, or agree with him.

Are there other options?

Nothing: a nonexistent thing. Isn't that a correct definition? Do you have another?

Only nothingness is, only nothingness can be.

"Nothing exists"

immaterial itemlook at those two words sarkus "immaterial" and "item" an item is an object like a frying pan, the immaterial is a purpose, a motive, a principle, an idea, anything not perceivable to the senses but experiential to the psyche, or simply non-existent. such as the stimulative driver of your thought train. the immaterial does not exist as a physically apprehendable object, it is something other than sensually perceptable. you cannot therfore demonstrate to the sense an immaterial item

Q you need to drop this perception of me as some stereotyped hard on for jesus dude.
it is not what i am, and you are eroding my respect for you with these assumptions.

Why not just refute boris' post instead of worrying about my perception of you?

Consciousness does NOT have interaction with the brain. It IS the SUM OF INTERACTIONS of the brain with itself via the vast neural network.is consciousness material in the sense that boris speaks of?


Obviously the definition of "brain" and "soul" are more complex than whether or not they are matter or immaterial. That is not in dispute.but i also think it is very relevant to have true and accurate definition of what it is that boris understands to be the soul, and this does seem to be in dispute.

The plethora of other things are not being questioned by Boris - he concentrates entirely on the "immaterial" nature of the soul. but this is my point if it is not material what is it? has boris given this enough consideration to present a solid argument, if he has why does he not present a more substantial defintion? if he has not why are you even considering it as a valid position form which to argue?

Boris doesn't know what the soul is made of.
does he then know what it does? no!
does he know how it functions? no!
does he know anything else at all about it? no, i dont think he does.
but this is only because he cannot identify the illusive defined entity in which case the guy is a fucking genius right? wrong!


His argument is one of countering the claim that the IMMATERIAL soul exists AND INTERACTS WITH the material body. yes i know this. but he is missing something rather large right from the start. fact.

Boris is merely starting with an assumption of the soul (that it is material) and showing how it either doesn't exist or can not interract meaningfully with the physical / material.i dont think an assumption is th best place to begin a serious argument.

if it is MATERIAL then please provide evidence of it.i dont do evidence very well i spent too much of my youth trying to conceal it. i do have picture of me that clearly shows my soul but i dont think you would recognize it as such without your spiritual vision goggles on, and these can only be aquired with lifetime subscription to the happy clappy sunday club.


If you agree that the soul is immaterial then Boris' arguments apply. i agree that boris holds this percpetion of the soul, and i understand how he could come to this perception but i dont think boris has given the soul much thought.


Or do you think the soul is material?
i think it is a word that people use to describe a certain experience of themselves, some people are clear about what they are describing with that word and you can discuss things with them using that word, and we will understand each other. then there are people who use that word in different context all together and they can be quite confusing to talk to about such things. it is just a word it is not a physical item that i can love or loathe, it is an imatterial word describing immaterial expriences or it is not. it is a measurable and calculable vehicle of information of a measurable and calculable item, or it is not.

Why not just refute boris' post instead of worrying about my perception of you?
what is it about boris's post that you want me to refute? again i think this is your expectation that i will see a particular weakness with boris' post or your certainty that i wont see something wrong? what is wrong with fundamental flaws in his basis for an argument as a starting point for refutation?

Forget it.

Boris' presentation is fine in regards to his argument. For the time being, let's work with it as if it were hypothetical, can you manage that?if it is as boris states immaterial and it is as boris states presumed to interact with the brain, then the first place we should start is what the fuck is it if not material? why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state?



If it is not supernatural, then it must be natural and confined to the laws of the physical world. That is very much the crux of the argument.this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though.

Like all theists, they have their own interpretation of god, so it would stand to reason they have their own interpretation of the soul, as you do. who are "they"?
anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such.


But like I said, lets work with what is there. You can always start a thread defining your interpretation of the soul and work with that. Fair enough?i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete.

I don't know where god lives and I don't know why you pray, I'm just using that as an example.i dont pray Q. why do you think i pray?


I interact with the physical world with my physical body, just like everyone else. Can you show that your world includes the supernatural and how you interact with it? why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural.



I'm going by the evidence presented here. Do you see any theists attempting refutation of boris' post?okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented.

If there is no "immaterial" soul/life then there can be no choice, and every thought and action and
emotion is a product of the first milliseconds of the big bang and the beginning of our universe.

Why theists believe in a soul or being alive or the self -is that God has given us the ability to be
greater than the mere sum of the atoms of our body - with out an "immaterial" component, then
there is no possibility that anything as any effect to change what is - every thing is as it can only
be.

So no use spending time worry about- its just your predetermined fate to argue and worry about
the soul. I pity you then, marked from the begging of time without hope or ability to effect any
thing.

why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state?

Boris' post indicates that the soul cannot be material, in other words, not of nature, immaterial, nonexistent. He argues based on that. If one feels the soul is material and exists in nature, one can refute his post.

this does not mean they have to conform our interpretation though.

Your interpretation or theists in general? It is the theists version he argues, the supernatural. Why not argue your version?

who are "they"?

Theists, I already said that.

anyway i can work with personal interpretations but it is important they are recognised as such.

Excellent, argue your personal interpretation. That would be fine.

i can work with what is there so long as there is a recognition that what is there is incomplete.

Fill in what you feel is incomplete and argue that.

why do you consider my world to be of a supernatural nature? my world is alive, that is all? i do not consider it is supernatural.

The soul is considered the supernatural, in other words, not existing in nature, that is, unless one can show it does.

okay, fair enough. it is a pretty tight argument if you overlook the fact that soul is misrepresented.

It's a rock solid argument. But please, stand your interpretation of the soul up against his argument and see if it is valid. Represent yourself so that there is not misrepresentation in your mind. That is only fair and that is all anyone can ask.

I will sit pleasantly by and say nothing unless you want me to - is it a deal?

If there is no "immaterial" soul/life then there can be no choice, and every thought and action and emotion is a product of the first milliseconds of the big bang and the beginning of our universe.Non-existence of a soul does not itself imply a deterministic universe. And, in fact, quantum indeterminacy provides for a non-deterministic universe all by itself.

Why theists believe in a soul or being alive or the self -is that God has given us the ability to be greater than the mere sum of the atoms of our body - with out an "immaterial" component, then there is no possibility that anything as any effect to change what is - every thing is as it can only be.This is simply an argument from consequence and a logical fallacy. Whether you are displeased with the implications of an assertion or not has no bearing on its validity.

~Raithere

So, an indeterministic collection of atoms in the brain generates deterministic thought?

if it is as boris states immaterial and it is as boris states presumed to interact with the brain, then the first place we should start is what the fuck is it if not material? why not know what it is we are talking about? how it exists and in what state?This is exactly what Boris was discussing. Try reading it again:

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter.

Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible.

~Raithere

Originally Posted by Boris
Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Hmm.. Really- we know that thoughts do not start in one place in the brain but start in multiple
places at the same time.

So, an indeterministic collection of atoms in the brain generates deterministic thought?It's uncertain at this point. We'd need to know more about how thought is generated. If a quantum event can signal your choice then thought could be indeterministic and we would still have free will after a sense.

~Raithere

Originally Posted by Boris

Clearly, for a soul to have a meaningful connection to the body, it must be capable of interacting with matter. Yet, souls are defined as immaterial and not subject to the laws that govern matter.

Boris is just stating the obvious in the first sentence, and being short on infromation in the second.


Originally Posted by Boris

Thus, were the soul to feed information back to the body, scientists ought to be able to find the spot where information from the soul enters the body for the first time. (Of course, despite centuries of searching no such spot has been found.) But this again contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable through material means (of course, this contradiction arises out of the already contradictory notion that the soul interacts with the body.)

Boris acknowledges that;

1) the soul is immaterial
2) it is not subject to the laws that govern matter
3) it is capable of interacting with matter

Then he goes on to say;

4) that there is a (material) spot where the soul enters the body
5) that because the immaterial soul (whatever he defines the soul as) has not been detected by material mean, it contradicts the notion that the soul is not detectable by material means.
6) he believes that the notion of a soul interacting with the body is a contradiction

Boris is all over the place here. He needs to define what a soul is in order to refute its existence. He needs to give some kind of referreference for the source of his information.

Originally Posted by Boris

Then there is the question of the very mechanisms through which the exchange between the soul and the body takes place. By definition, a soul is 100% immaterial. On the other hand, the body is 100% material. How do we build a bridge between the two? Does there exist a "something" that is both partly material, and partly immaterial? But anything like that would not make sense, since the idealist concepts of matter vs. essence are incompatible.

Again here, he assumes how the soul is supposed to work without giving any references, so far the only reference he gives which is agreed by scriptures is that the soul is not material. We need more than that to refute his points. He asks how we can build a bridge between the soul and the body.
What makes him think the bridge has to be built?
What does he think the soul is?
Who are the idealists?
And what does he mean by “matter vs. essence are incompatible?”

These are just two or so paragraphs out of his long-ass post, and he has only offered one point which concurs with scriptural definitions of the soul.

Can anybody describe what the soul is, according to Boris?

Jan Ardena.

Can anybody describe what the soul is, according to Boris?
More to the point, can anyone define what a soul is in such a way that it refers to something specific and is not just some nebulous reference to consciousness?

Boris is simply working from a generalized theistic description. So why don't we put the question to the theists since they seem to be so hung up on his working definition:

Q: What is a soul?

Q: Is a soul material, immaterial, or something else?

Q: What is it made of? (Note that "spirit", God's essence, or some other nonsense term will not suffice unless you proceed to define that term as well)?

Q: Do souls interact with living, biological, organisms?

Q: If so, how do souls interact with these beings? Please reference its point(s) of "contact" with a living, biological, organism.

Q: Do souls interact with material things besides biological organisms?

Q: If so, how do souls interact with material things?

Q: Is there any evidence of souls?

Q: Is there any evidence that souls persist beyond the life of the organism they are 'attached' to?

~Raithere

Can anybody describe what the soul is, according to Boris?


Yes! The soul is what Boris and his cronies deny to have!


*I want a medal for this. Golden.*

More to the point, can anyone define what a soul is in such a way that it refers to something specific and is not just some nebulous reference to consciousness?

Can anyone define anything, in such a way that it refers to something specific?

c
i
r
c
u
l
a
r
i
t
y
!

Raithere,

More to the point, can anyone define what a soul is in such a way that it refers to something specific and is not just some nebulous reference to consciousness?

That is not the point, and I'm pretty certain you know it. Boris is presenting arguments for the non-existence of the soul. He has not defined what the soul is, but has given his arguments against it. That is a nonsense.

Boris is simply working from a generalized theistic description. So why don't we put the question to the theists since they seem to be so hung up on his working definition:

The only theistic points he has made, is that the soul is immaterial, and interacts with the body. He doesn't giv