Vociferous:
Correlation is not causation. Minds being correlated with bodies does not imply any causation between them.
That's all well and good, but you avoided addressing the Occam razor argument I put to you. Your soul idea requires not just a brain to produce consciousness, but a brain
and an immortal, immaterial soul. You're multiplying entities unnecessarily, unless and until you can show that the soul is a required element. We already know that a brain is required for consciousness.
Also, it's worth noting, once again, that we have established that bodies exist, whereas we can't detect souls by any objective method. Therefore, given the observed correlation between mind and body, it is much more plausible that the physical body causes the mind than this invisible, undetectable, supposedly immortal soul.
You assert that the brain is merely a switchboard through which the soul controls the body. But no communication method has been identified through which a soul could possibly contact a brain. Compare this to the brain controlling the body. That works through good old-fashioned chemistry and electromagnetism.
You may never personally find the Indian fellow who answers your customer service calls either, but that doesn't mean he only exists in your phone.
A series of physical connections can be traced from my phone to the guy in India. It's about a billion times more plausible that he exists than that an undetectable, untraceable soul exists in communication with each brain.
The null hypothesis is that no two things have any relationship but the evident.
The null hypothesis is that two specified things (typically measured characteristics of a group) have no relationship of a specified kind. It's most often used in statistics.
That the cessation of one cannot be assumed to cause the cessation of the other without actual evidence to that particular end.
Similarly, the operation of one cannot be put down to the operation of the other without actual evidence to that particular end. We have actual evidence that minds do not operate without brains. We have no actual evidence that minds do not operate without souls.
Your scientism assumptions are just that.
What assumptions?
Again, the null hypothesis is that minds are not caused by brains, unless you have conclusive evidence otherwise.
If your research question is "Are minds caused by brains?" then the null hypothesis is "Minds are not correlated with brains". The statistical analysis of the available data will show that, in fact, minds are correlated with brains, thus refuting the null hypothesis.
If, on the other hand, your research question is "Are minds caused by souls?" then before we start formulating a null hypothesis we have ask how we're going to collect data about souls, separate from minds. (We can certainly do that for brains.) Once we have the soul data, then we can formulate a suitable null hypothesis and test it. But where's the soul data?
You have zero basis to make any assertions about personal experience after the brain dies. If you did, you having such experience would contradict your claim. See how that works?
That's why scientific conclusions about correlations between mind and brain are not based on personal experiences!
You asked "why you believe in them, and to present your best evidence for their existence". I'm saying there is no material evidence and that belief requires none. You don't need to find the fellow in India to believe he exists.
I agree with you, of course. You're saying you have no material evidence for the existence of souls, but you believe in them anyway. That's all very clear. Thankyou for your honesty.
Too many think Occam's razor means that the simplest answer is usually correct, but that's a very naive understanding.
It's more a case of: if there are two
equally powerful explanations, we should prefer the simpler one. I know what the simpler explanation is out of "brain is needed for mind" and "brain and soul are both needed for mind". What extra does adding the soul have to offer?
The null hypothesis is that, if people have internal, subjective experiences not related to the body or its stimuli, perhaps there is some duality.
The theory in that case would be "internal, subjective experiences are caused by a soul". The related null hypothesis would be "souls and internal, subjective experiences are uncorrelated with one another". But where are you going to get unconnected souls to test?
Unjustified relationships are not parsimonious, otherwise we could just assume a theory of quantum gravity and call it a day.
Parsimony actually has nothing to do with justified relationships. It's all about not multiplying entities unnecessarily.
Preferring to assume an answer that satisfies your scientism is not parsimonious.
My scientism? What are you talking about, exactly? You keep bringing it up, so it must be important to you. Can you explain, please?
Here you are talking about null hypotheses and the like, and you want to leave science, statistics and the like out of the discussion? Do null hypotheses work differently in religious discussions?
Also, you imply that I "assume" an answer. I
infer an answer, based on the observations and explanatory power of the theories used to account for them, taking advantage of rules of thumb such as Occam's razor. That's quite a different process than making unwarranted assumptions.
Like I said, the brain is the switchboard. Like the wires, it carries the signal. You know, like the invisible electromagnetic waves. Certainly you don't doubt those simply because they are invisible.
What's the signal, in the case of the soul?
Those invisible electromagnetic waves are certainly detectable, in many different ways. Moreover, they can be isolated from individual devices such as television sets, radios, stars, light bulbs, etc. Where are the isolated souls? How do you detect them?
You didn't really answer the question I asked you: by what process does your soul connect to your body? Instead, you tried to give me an analogy about how the connection
might work, comparing it to radio or a telephone line. I asked you how it
does work. Give me the explanation, not the analogy. I already understand the analogy.
All subjective and anecdotal. Nothing that you would find compelling.
Again, thank you for being honest. I do appreciate it, since so many theists find that they can't be, for reasons known only to themselves.
Processing stimuli and controlling autonomous bodily functions is a far cry from explaining subjective experience.
I agree. But nowhere near as far as we are from detecting an immaterial, immortal soul.
Again, who said there was any positive evidence for the soul? You're the one making positive assertions here. So tell me, where does the onus lie? If you don't like that answer to that, simply quit making positive assertions.
I'm not sure which positive assertions of mine you're taking issue with. Please explain.
I'm not arguing with you here. I simply asked why you (theists) believe in souls, and I invited you all to present your best evidence for their existence. You've told me you have no objective evidence for their existence, which is fine. Now all you need to do is to tell me why you believe in souls and we'll be done here. So far, all you've said is that you have reasons that you don't think will convince me. That's just fine, too, but I'd still like to hear your reasons even if I'm not convinced by them.
Of course you don't understand the personal experiences that lead a vast majority of the world's population to believe in a soul, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that such experiences probably exist. Otherwise, you must have a rather sad outlook of most of the world being delusional for no apparent reason. Would likely make it a scary place for you.
Again, my experience would not be compelling.
Why "Of course..."? Do you think I'm in a special position where I'm unable to understand why millions of people believe in souls? I'm quite a smart guy, you know. Why don't you try me?
Look, you don't have to speak for the millions. You can just speak for you, and that will be fine. Have
you had personal experiences that make you believe in souls? Do you want to share? Is it too private and personal for you to say? No pressure, but I'm interested.
No, I just know the futility. It's not compelling and admittedly only my personal belief, which means that any appeals for evidence are lost on me. Not sure what anyone would have to gain from it, unless they have nagging doubts about their own disbelief and are desperately seeking something to cling to.
Are you ever interested in hearing opinions and points of view from people who think or believe differently to you? Ever been curious about how the other half lives? Do you really think there's nothing to be gained from listening to what people who believe or think differently have to say? Personally, I think that kind of attitude, which isn't that uncommon, is a problem in our modern world of ideological bubbles.
I also think that we don't have to hate each other if we disagree on certain matters.
Yeah, that's one to think about.