MoonCat,
Okay. Lesse. Do viruses have souls? I haven't really thought about it, but I suppose they might. They are alive, so I guess if a houseplant has one, the virus would also.
Uh-oh. But are viruses alive, truly? Until a virus finds its way, as a lifeless particle, into a living cell, it is just a dormant piece of DNA or RNA wrapped up in a sheath of proteins. In fact, if we strip the virus of its protein coat, it is still equally viable, although it will be vulnerable and might need our help penetrating a host cells' membrane. So are you now claiming that chemical molecules have souls?
"If you can't measure something, you cannot be aware of it" - now I have to disagree with that one. Cave man was surely aware of gravity, but I doubt he had any way of measuring it.
...
You just have to feel, see, taste, or any other way sense something to be aware of it.
You do not seem to understand that observation itself is measurement. In fact, in the lingo of quantum mechanics, observation is synonymous to measurement (which is where quantum indeterminacy comes from -- while observing something, you are interacting with it, and as a result it no longer has the same state following observation as it had prior to observation, and even having measured it you still don't know its current state.) The senses we possess are merely natural measuring devices. Our retinas measure impinging photons. Our ears measure changes in air pressure. When you say that something can be observed, it is synonymous to saying that something can be measured. In science, we merely extend our natural sensory apparatus with artificial senses, so as to be able to see beyond our natural limitations. To help us interpret the output of artificial sensors, we quantify the process of measurement -- but that does not detract from the fact that measurement remains merely an observation. The other distinction between sensory and instrumented perception that may be confusing you, is that the first is subjective while the second is objective -- scientific instruments merely report measurement; they do not have a capability of interpreting their result beyond what we've programmed into them. Thus, at the core, scientific instruments are unbiased, and any observer will agree on what the readings of an instrument are, none of which is true for measurements made through our senses. But again, despite all of these qualifications, measurement is still observation, any way you cut it.
Now, given that we currently have scientific instruments far outstripping every single human sensory faculty in all respects including range, accuracy, and sensitivity -- our instruments should be able to measure everything including what our senses can sense, and far beyond. Therefore, if a phenomenon had not yet been measured through instruments, you cannot claim that it has been around and can be measured through your senses -- because collectively, world-wide and over several centuries, there have probably been made more, and more accurate, empirical observations through scientific instruments than you will make in your entire lifetime.
Regarding the soul splitting - yup, I think it could be split even more, take schizophrenea for example.
Then you have problems with immortality, as outlined in a paragraph addressed to both you and Tony in a previous message.
My general feeling is that outside of a lifetime (lifetime meaining when the soul is attached to an individual body) the "souls" of all the currently non-living mix and mingle with eachother, and rarely remain 100% intact from incarnation to incarnation. Does that help any?
All right, so you don't subscribe to the classical doctrine -- this much seems certain. But, what you describe is not much of an afterlife, since identity is not preserved. Also, I'd love to hear your grounds for such a "general feeling".
What I meant by individuality is this: individual as in seperate from the others, as in a discrete entity, at least for the duration of life. Yes, those single cell gobs in my sink are individuals, you can take one and take a second one, and you can clearly see that they are seperate from eachother. They might behave identically, but that behavior what I meant when I said "personality".
I'm still confused. If bacteria and humans have the same souls, then what is left of a human after death is nothing more than what is left of a bacterium after death? Everything relating to our human behavior is lost? Gee, not very reassuring
(at least as far as afterlife is concerned)
Also, dead bacteria are just as individual as live ones. They don't seem to lose their individuality through death; conversely they don't gain their individuality when being constructed from individual atoms. So, again, what is it exactly that the soul captures of living matter, that dead matter does not possess?
Coming around to your android...well, as soon as you can ACTUALLY present me with an android that can argue the state of his soul, I'll take up that argument. My argument is that I don't think it will happen (building a sophisticated enough machine that it becomes "self-aware").
Clever evasion, but you and I both know that this is probably not going to happen within our lifetimes (though it might...) What I ask you to do is pretend as if you are already faced with such an android, whom I will represent, and consider what attributes he doesn't have that a soul would give him (that you have, for example).
I don't know, I'm thinking about this, and it seems to me that an android wouldn't have a soul, the way I believe a soul exists....
So, I'm the android. Convince me that my soul is different from yours. I don't see a problem with my body pumping electricity while yours pumps blood -- I can still think, feel, emote, believe, introspect, meditate, and perceive like you do. If you lost your body below the neck to an accident, and had an android body attached to your head as a prosthesis, would you have any less of a soul than you do now?
Have you ever heard the saying "only a being with a soul would wonder if they had one"? Of course that doesn't prove anything, but still, food for thought.
Well, you could say that only a being with superman's powers would wonder if they had them. Of course that doesn't prove anything either.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
