NationStates Jolt Archive

How much control does a soul have over its body (does it control reflexive actions, only "conscious" actions, etc.)
Can this control be interrupted (such as under the effects of drugs, stress, etc.)
If the soul controls the body, does it make it do anything a soulless body would not do?
If so, is the soul then subject to scientific scrutiny?

How much control does a soul have over its body (does it control reflexive actions, only "conscious" actions, etc.)

I believe the soul is who you are - your personality, memories, etc. It therefore would have, I suppose, conscious actions.

Can this control be interrupted (such as under the effects of drugs, stress, etc.)

It might be, although there is the idea that you wouldnt do anything under the effects of drugs that you wouldn't do sober if there were no consequences....

If the soul controls the body, does it make it do anything a soulless body would not do?

Empathize, feel emotion, consider morals, etc. All of the things that make up a personality.

If so, is the soul then subject to scientific scrutiny?

Good question. That all depends on whether it is supernatural or not. I don't really know the question to that. If the soul does not exist after death, it could simply be contained within the connections of the brain - which would explain why so much personality change can be seen in certain types of brain injury. If it does exist after death, it must exist apart from these connections, although it might use them. Is this existence a physical existence that can be studied? I don't know. We certainly haven't found it yet if it is.

Slightly OT: Vegas-Rex, you're really into the mind/body problem, it seems? What with your recent posts on it?
I've been becoming interested in it recently too.

Your soul has compete control over voluntary actions. Anything without a soul is basicly lifeless.

Slightly OT: Vegas-Rex, you're really into the mind/body problem, it seems? What with your recent posts on it?
I've been becoming interested in it recently too.

Mostly its just the most effective way I have to show that every claim can be tested by science. I'm trying to do that with morality too, but that's too complex and inconclusive for this forum.

Your soul doesn't control your body, your mind does. The soul is what animates it, makes it more than just living cells or a brain in a jar, gives it individuality. The soul is shared by all living things everywhere.

Your soul has compete control over voluntary actions. Anything without a soul is basicly lifeless.

So if we were theoretically able to engineer a souless body (one that operates physically exactly as we do, but has no soul) it would just sit there? So if science can prove that such a body would walk, talk, etc., it has disproved the existence of souls?

Also, by this definition would animals have souls? Plants?

Your soul doesn't control your body, your mind does. The soul is what animates it, makes it more than just living cells or a brain in a jar, gives it individuality. The soul is shared by all living things everywhere.

What do you mean by individuality? Is it just a moral/supernatural thing, or is it behavioral? If its behavioral, how does something that has individuality act differently than something that doesn't?

So if we were theoretically able to engineer a souless body (one that operates physically exactly as we do, but has no soul) it would just sit there? So if science can prove that such a body would walk, talk, etc., it has disproved the existence of souls?

Also, by this definition would animals have souls? Plants?

No, an artificial soulless body would only prove that science can do amazing things.

To prove the connection between soul and body, one would have to re-animate a corpse, preferably with well-preserved brain tissue, to assure that any changes are not just from brain-rot, and see what happens. Does the walking corpse try to go home, seek out its old life? Or is is just a mindless husk of flesh?

That would go more to showing whether a soul is necessary for a body to be a person or not...

It's alive! It's alive! Heh, heh, heh! :eek:

Soulless body?

There was a movie made that showed what I think would happen,
Chiller (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088912/)

A body without a soul would be like an empty house with a "move in-free!" sign out front, and what would move in would be those who have no bodies, spirit beings aka demons, IMHO.

Have fun finding out! :eek:

No, an artificial soulless body would only prove that science can do amazing things.

To prove the connection between soul and body, one would have to re-animate a corpse, preferably with well-preserved brain tissue, to assure that any changes are not just from brain-rot, and see what happens. Does the walking corpse try to go home, seek out its old life? Or is is just a mindless husk of flesh?

That would go more to showing whether a soul is necessary for a body to be a person or not...

It's alive! It's alive! Heh, heh, heh! :eek:

The problem is: corpses are corpses because they don't work anymore. This would be like saying the soul of a computer makes it work and when the computer breaks the soul leaves, so it doesn't work anymore.

The question still remains: If there is a soul, would a body that is alive, functional, and whole in any physical way we can distinguish, but that doesn't have a soul, act any differently than a body with a soul? According to Avika a body without a soul would be lifeless. If such a body existed, and it lived, walked, talked, etc., that would disprove Avika's concept of the soul, correct?

Soulless body?

There was a movie made that showed what I think would happen,
Chiller (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088912/)

A body without a soul would be like an empty house with a "move in-free!" sign out front, and what would move in would be those who have no bodies, spirit beings aka demons, IMHO.

Have fun finding out! :eek:

If you can't have a physical body without a soul, how about theoretical simulation? We put all the ways we know physical bodies work into a program, and see if the result acts like a real person.

bump

So if we were theoretically able to engineer a souless body (one that operates physically exactly as we do, but has no soul) it would just sit there? So if science can prove that such a body would walk, talk, etc., it has disproved the existence of souls?

One problem. We would have to have a way to measure the presence of a soul, so that we could be absolutely certain that one wasn't there. Of course, if we could measure a soul, then we would know that it was there and the whole experiment would be moot, except perhaps to demonstrate what exactly the soul did.

One problem. We would have to have a way to measure the presence of a soul, so that we could be absolutely certain that one wasn't there. Of course, if we could measure a soul, then we would know that it was there and the whole experiment would be moot, except perhaps to demonstrate what exactly the soul did.

That's the problem with doing it by creating an actual, physical body. However, this problem could be avoided by doing it theoretically, as you would simply operate with a theory that doesn't account for the prescence of the soul. If this theory was shown to not correspond with how real people behave, it would be evidence that a soul exists. If it accurately describes people, it would be evidence that a soul doesn't exist.

So if we were theoretically able to engineer a souless body (one that operates physically exactly as we do, but has no soul) it would just sit there? So if science can prove that such a body would walk, talk, etc., it has disproved the existence of souls?


The thing is, that's possible only in theory. How can we verify whether the soul is there or not? Measuring a soul is like trying to quantify the emotions invoked by a piece of music: it's outside the purview of science.

I'm not sure whether animals or plants have souls, but I do believe that sentient beings do. Whether it can be proved to the satisfaction of sceptical and scientific minds, I'm not at all sure. (But inclined to say no.)

The thing is, that's possible only in theory. How can we verify whether the soul is there or not? Measuring a soul is like trying to quantify the emotions invoked by a piece of music: it's outside the purview of science.

I'm not sure whether animals or plants have souls, but I do believe that sentient beings do. Whether it can be proved to the satisfaction of sceptical and scientific minds, I'm not at all sure. (But inclined to say no.)

Check out the theory/simulation idea on the preceding page. Pretty much answers it.

most of those things in definitions are functions of the frontal cortex of the brain. something that is rather modern in humans and lacking or very small in most animals.

"Ghost in the machine"

Re: Descartes

That's the problem with doing it by creating an actual, physical body. However, this problem could be avoided by doing it theoretically, as you would simply operate with a theory that doesn't account for the prescence of the soul. If this theory was shown to not correspond with how real people behave, it would be evidence that a soul exists. If it accurately describes people, it would be evidence that a soul doesn't exist.

That's even worse. It would necessitate knowing everything about the way the body works with absolute certainty - something that would be even harder (if possible) to acheive than building a working body.

Of course, we can never use simulations as absolute proof anyways. We have to have a real experiment to consider it empirical.

That's even worse. It would necessitate knowing everything about the way the body works with absolute certainty - something that would be even harder (if possible) to acheive than building a working body.

Of course, we can never use simulations as absolute proof anyways. We have to have a real experiment to consider it empirical.

True. All I'm saying is that if the theory can accurately explain how the brain works when it doesn't involve a soul, that seems to indicate that the theory doesn't need a soul in order to function, especially if the soul is given specific properties (emotion, personality, etc.) that the theory can explain as being physically based. If a soul is just whatever we can't explain then it becomes harder to disprove, however it turns into just another "God of the gaps" argument.

"Ghost in the machine"

Re: Descartes

That's what I'm investigating, basically: Cartesian Dualism.

Do you know anything about what Descartes said in regard to what said Ghost actually does?

What do you mean by individuality? Is it just a moral/supernatural thing, or is it behavioral? If its behavioral, how does something that has individuality act differently than something that doesn't?

Hmm, I need to use more specific terms. I shouldn't say the soul animates, since "animate" comes from "anima" meaning soul. And I also say the soul imparts individuality while at the same time saying we all share one big soul.

How do I explain this...we are triune beings, a combination of body, mind and spirit. The body is the physical matter with discrete boundaries. The mind is the conscious operating system that decides how to go about doing things. The spirit is a field of life energy that extends throughout the universe, call it "God" in its entirety. The spirit coalesces around and within living things, uses them as lenses to view the universe, as agents to experience the universe and to experience itself by being separate from itself. It is my belief that the spirit just acts as an observer for the most part, and makes its presence known through emotions. Whatever the mind decides the body will do, the spirit goes along for the ride and produces an emotional response. Ultimately the soul seeks joy and love and reinforces behaviours which lead to that goal.

However, love and joy would be meaningless without something to compare them to, therefore we create experiences of fear and despair and sadness and hate, so that we will know joy and love when we experience them.

*Gotta go back to work, will check back later*

That's what I'm investigating, basically: Cartesian Dualism.

Do you know anything about what Descartes said in regard to what said Ghost actually does?

A British empiricist (?)pointed this incoherency out to Descartes, who was stupified. His answer (a great BS philosophy answer) was:

The soul resides in a small are within the mind (somewhere near the hypothalamus)
The laws of science did not apply to this region of the brain.
:rolleyes:

Hmm, I need to use more specific terms. I shouldn't say the soul animates, since "animate" comes from "anima" meaning soul. And I also say the soul imparts individuality while at the same time saying we all share one big soul.

How do I explain this...we are triune beings, a combination of body, mind and spirit. The body is the physical matter with discrete boundaries. The mind is the conscious operating system that decides how to go about doing things. The spirit is a field of life energy that extends throughout the universe, call it "God" in its entirety. The spirit coalesces around and within living things, uses them as lenses to view the universe, as agents to experience the universe and to experience itself by being separate from itself. It is my belief that the spirit just acts as an observer for the most part, and makes its presence known through emotions. Whatever the mind decides the body will do, the spirit goes along for the ride and produces an emotional response. Ultimately the soul seeks joy and love and reinforces behaviours which lead to that goal.

However, love and joy would be meaningless without something to compare them to, therefore we create experiences of fear and despair and sadness and hate, so that we will know joy and love when we experience them.

*Gotta go back to work, will check back later*

So if I can prove that emotions are produced by, lets say, glands, then I disprove your concept of the soul, correct?

So if I can prove that emotions are produced by, lets say, glands, then I disprove your concept of the soul, correct?

Nope. You would be proving that there is a mechanism in place to achieve the desired goal of translating a spiritual response into concrete physical results, but not proving what the emotions are actually for.

It would be like saying that the action of walking across a room or lifting your toddler over your head can be explained by electrical impulses, therefore consciousness does not exist. Just because we can isolate the mechanism does not remove the necessity of something to utilise it. This is a fun conversation by the way. :)

Nope. You would be proving that there is a mechanism in place to achieve the desired goal of translating a spiritual response into concrete physical results, but not proving what the emotions are actually for.

It would be like saying that the action of walking across a room or lifting your toddler over your head can be explained by electrical impulses, therefore consciousness does not exist. Just because we can isolate the mechanism does not remove the necessity of something to utilise it. This is a fun conversation by the way. :)

I agree. Philosophy usually is.

So are you saying that souls guided/supplanted evolution?

What if someone shows (as they probably have) that evolution without guidance explains the existence of emotion?

In any case, this means the soul isn't exactly the cause of emotions except in the case that it (in a purposeful/designed world) is the purpose they exist for (Which according to Heidegger is a cause, but that's irrelevant). With either explanation, however, the soul still does not actively do anything.

Phasa, is your soul mechanistic:
If not, how could it possibly interact and influence a world dominated by mechanistic actions and reactions.
If the soul is only a passive observer, I can't (for the moment) prove that illogical. The soul in that picture seems "trapped," a bit to pessimistic for my taste.

With either explanation, however, the soul still does not actively do anything.
Phasa, is your soul mechanistic:
If not, how could it possibly interact and influence a world dominated by mechanistic actions and reactions.
If the soul is only a passive observer, I can't (for the moment) prove that illogical. The soul in that picture seems "trapped," a bit to pessimistic for my taste.

Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that there is ample opportunity for mechanical actions and reactions to be affected by "forces not understood". Randomness alone could be the window.

As for souls being "trapped", I would say that sometimes the soul really doesn't want to be in the situation it is in, and finds many ways to escape. It may suicide, it may give up and stop playing along and the mind will then find alternate ways to get "good" feelings happening again (drugs, etc). For the most part though the spirit's whole purpose is to experience all that there is to experience, so it is a willing passenger most of the time. But it could just vacate the premises at any time if it saw any reason for doing so. Astral projection is an example of that.

I don't know that evolution needed to be guided, the biological processes take care of themselves and the spirit takes up residence in whatever results, sometimes with better results than others. Or who knows, perhaps there is a whole range of plant experience that we are completely unaware of. Maybe an oak tree takes meditation to levels unimagined by the twittering scampering things at its base.

At least that's what I believe, anyway.

Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that there is ample opportunity for mechanical actions and reactions to be affected by "forces not understood". Randomness alone could be the window.

As for souls being "trapped", I would say that sometimes the soul really doesn't want to be in the situation it is in, and finds many ways to escape. It may suicide, it may give up and stop playing along and the mind will then find alternate ways to get "good" feelings happening again (drugs, etc). For the most part though the spirit's whole purpose is to experience all that there is to experience, so it is a willing passenger most of the time. But it could just vacate the premises at any time if it saw any reason for doing so. Astral projection is an example of that.

At least that's what I believe, anyway.

Not angry at you, but need to clear this up:

QUANTUM PHYSICS DOES NOT MEAN SUPERNATURAL FORCES!

Many people think that because Quantum Physics says that things are not predictable it means that things have some hidden cause. This is exactly against the point. The point of Quantum Physics is not just that things happen randomly but that things happen with very, very precise randomness. It's not that anything can happen, its that each thing has a very specific probability of happening. Stuff that precise doesn't sound like souls to me.

As for Astral Projection, now that's a provable claim! People leaving their body, possibly seeing things they couldn't have otherwise....you could test that. Too bad almost everyone who does frauds it up. Skeptical Inquirer probably has debunked some "studies" done on it before, I'll check for specific ones later.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443453

I'v had this discussion before, too tired to re-write everything, check that.

Random acts, by definition, are not under our control.

Done.

im pretty sure that ur soul dosent affect your physical actions, unless it changes what you do through morals

Not angry at you, but need to clear this up:

[
Many people think that because Quantum Physics says that things are not predictable it means that things have some hidden cause. This is exactly against the point. .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your definition of Quantum Physics is taking into account Einsteins Local Hidden Variable Theory, which produced the EPR paradox, a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as "locality", "realism", and "completeness"), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor does it contradict relativity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your definition of Quantum Physics is taking into account Einsteins Local Hidden Variable Theory, which produced the EPR paradox, a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as "locality", "realism", and "completeness"), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor does it contradict relativity.

I think what I said still works without that, though as I'm not very familiar with Quantum Physics I don't really know. My point was that in quantum physics, while you cannot predict what an individual particle will do, you can say that it has very specific probabilities of doing very specific things. Thus the system is not "random" in that its results could be affected by an outside source, it is random in that it always does specific options a specific percentage of the time. Thus, it is still mechanistic. The soul is not a quark.

im pretty sure that ur soul dosent affect your physical actions, unless it changes what you do through morals

So in your view, is the soul sort of like a conscience? Or do you mean that if you think others have souls you will treat them differently?

Not angry at you, but need to clear this up:
QUANTUM PHYSICS DOES NOT MEAN SUPERNATURAL FORCES!

Please find where anyone said quantum physics means supernatural forces. What I said was that there is an element of indeterminacy to quantum interactions, and therefore one cannot pin everything down to a nice determinististic chain of events. If I were going to try to affect the mechanical world as an "ethereal" being, that's probably where I would concentrate my efforts.

The soul is not a quark.
How do you know this?

So in your view, is the soul sort of like a conscience? Or do you mean that if you think others have souls you will treat them differently?
When you realise that we all share the same soul and are really just different aspects of one being, then yes, if you are at all enlightened you will begin to treat each other differently.

Please find where anyone said quantum physics means supernatural forces. What I said was that there is an element of indeterminacy to quantum interactions, and therefore one cannot pin everything down to a nice determinististic chain of events. If I were going to try to affect the mechanical world as an "ethereal" being, that's probably where I would concentrate my efforts.

That's exactly what I said: Quantum Mechanics does not mean there is a missing link in causality that can be occupied by an "ethereal" being. Just because instead of an event causing one event it causes a 50% chance of one and a 50% chance of the other doesn't make it any less mechanistic, because those percentages cannot be changed. It's not a matter of "this might happen or this might happen, but either is possible, so if something alters it here no one will know" its a matter of "this has a #% chance of happening and this has a #% chance of happening and they will always happen in these proportions no matter what. An electron does not decide to be in a certain part of an atom, it is a certain percent of the time in one place, and a certain percent in another. Ergo, the soul is not a subatomic particle.

When you realise that we all share the same soul and are really just different aspects of one being, then yes, if you are at all enlightened you will begin to treat each other differently.

Wrong person. In your view, as far as I know, the soul works like that, but I was asking clarification on someone else's view. I think debating two souls at the same time will be fun. :D

Wrong person. In your view, as far as I know, the soul works like that, but I was asking clarification on someone else's view. I think debating two souls at the same time will be fun. :D
Yeah I just chime in when I see a question I can answer. =)

So in this view, there really is nothing in all Creation that is not what I call God. Everything is a manifestation of that energy. So spiritual energy is of the same stuff as your quarks and your tachyons (!!) just of a different order of "fineness". Slow energy down enough and it converts to matter, speed it up and it converts back to higher and higher forms of energy, each lighter and more subtle than the last. So while a soul might not be a quark right now, it certainly could form one or have been formed from one, or two, or however many it takes. I don't have any estimate on that for you. :D

Yeah I just chime in when I see a question I can answer. =)

Speaking of that, can you answer part two of the Quantum post (A la Astral Projection)? :rolleyes:

Speaking of that, can you answer part two of the Quantum post (A la Astral Projection)? :rolleyes:
You didn't ask anything, did you?

You didn't ask anything, did you?

Ok, I'll ask stuff: what did you mean by Astral Projection? Do you actually think souls regularly walk around outside bodies? In such a state, could a soul learn something the body otherwise could not? Do you know anyone who claims they can do this? If so, have they contacted these (http://www.randi.org) people?

Ok, I'll ask stuff: what did you mean by Astral Projection? Do you actually think souls regularly walk around outside bodies? In such a state, could a soul learn something the body otherwise could not? Do you know anyone who claims they can do this? If so, have they contacted these (http://www.randi.org) people?
Of course I don't think souls "regularly" walk around outside of bodies. They tend to stay put, they're there for a reason. I would expect that a soul free of the constrictions of a physical body would probably remember a lot of things about itself that it quickly forgets once it is back "inside the machine" as it were. Anyway your soul already knows everything there is to know, it's just here to actually experience it. I have known a few people who claimed they had experienced astral projection, whether they really did or not I have no idea. But certainly there have been reports of the phenomenon for as long as there have been people to pass the stories along. It would be arrogant of me to dismiss thousands of years of such reports out of hand simply because I don't understand how it works or don't remember how to do it myself. I should research it a bit and try to learn how to do it. Shame I have a career and a boyfriend or perhaps I would have time. Still, I enjoy having two people in my body probably as much or more than none. ;)

How much control does a soul have over its body (does it control reflexive actions, only "conscious" actions, etc.)
Can this control be interrupted (such as under the effects of drugs, stress, etc.)
If the soul controls the body, does it make it do anything a soulless body would not do?
If so, is the soul then subject to scientific scrutiny?

According to the Hebrew scripture, a body without a soul is dead meat. I don't know where, when or why our modern religions took to claiming the 'soul' was some kind of immortal ghost passenger, but the Hebrew scripture was very clear that the 'soul' is just the animation in the flesh - and ALL living creatures have it.

The way I saw it described best is that a body requires 'soul' and 'spirit'. The 'spirit' is the breath that animates us (the property of the air we breathe), and the 'soul' is the 'hunger in the flesh' (what makes us eat, and move).

Our modern (mis)understandings of both 'soul' and 'spirit' are derived from those old Hebrew scriptures - but with some new twist on them, that was not in the original texts.

Everyone become scientists and skeptics. Just qustion things, learn, investigate. There is far to much acceptance of proposterious claims made in religious writings and buy absolute morons.

According to the Hebrew scripture, a body without a soul is dead meat. I don't know where, when or why our modern religions took to claiming the 'soul' was some kind of immortal ghost passenger, but the Hebrew scripture was very clear that the 'soul' is just the animation in the flesh - and ALL living creatures have it.

The way I saw it described best is that a body requires 'soul' and 'spirit'. The 'spirit' is the breath that animates us (the property of the air we breathe), and the 'soul' is the 'hunger in the flesh' (what makes us eat, and move).

Our modern (mis)understandings of both 'soul' and 'spirit' are derived from those old Hebrew scriptures - but with some new twist on them, that was not in the original texts.

So in your view, the soul is merely a metaphor for life, rather than a separate entity?

How much control does a soul have over its body (does it control reflexive actions, only "conscious" actions, etc.)
None. The soul, like the mind, is not a thing separate from the body, although it is a different thing than the body. The bodies control of itself is also the mind/heart/soul's control of it, from a different perspective.

Can this control be interrupted (such as under the effects of drugs, stress, etc.)
Drugs have an effect on the body's control of itself.


If the soul controls the body, does it make it do anything a soulless body would not do?
There are no soulless people.


If so, is the soul then subject to scientific scrutiny?
I don't think it is subject to such scrutiny, simply because science for the most part measures, prods and pokes the physical and doesn't concern itself with things that are strictly conceptual, except in fields purely mathematical.

I have an idea that the reason the soul or spiritual energy or whatever has thus far eluded scientific study is that it is a form of energy that is too fine or too high frequency for current low-frequency mechanical or electronic detection.

People thought molecules were a lot of hokum until the advent of the electron microscope proved their existence because until that time we were trying to use a large-scale device to view small-scale entities.

We cannot quantify "thought" either, we can see electrical impulses in the brain but the actual nuances and subtleties of complex thought cannot be scientifically detected, analysed and reproduced in the lab. Perhaps someday we will have the technology to do so, or perhaps it is inherently beyond the possibilities of science to ever bridge that gap.

Hmm, I need to use more specific terms. I shouldn't say the soul animates, since "animate" comes from "anima" meaning soul. And I also say the soul imparts individuality while at the same time saying we all share one big soul.
That is precisely the right word; there is a reason that animation has anima as its root word!

The soul is the bodies animation. It's not a cause-effect relationship.

That is precisely the right word; there is a reason that animation has anima as its root word!
Aye but you can't use the word you are trying to define in the definition of the word, otherwise you have not defined anything. Like saying "the definition of 'to run' is 'that which you are doing when you are running'", that's all I was getting at. Basically I had said "the anima animates" which is not very enlightening.

Aye but you can't use the word you are trying to define in the definition of the word, otherwise you have not defined anything. Like saying "the definition of 'to run' is 'that which you are doing when you are running'", that's all I was getting at. Basically I had said "the anima animates" which is not very enlightening.
Still, some words you cannot avoid using the root to explain, like "runner" is the one who runs. "To run" on the other hand has no root. You see?

EDIT: Don't mind me, I'm pedantic tonight.

That is precisely the right word; there is a reason that animation has anima as its root word!

The soul is the bodies animation. It's not a cause-effect relationship.

So the soul is basically just a metaphor for human metabolism? If not, what do you mean by animate?

There are no soulless people.


I meant in a theoretical sense. Would a physical body without a soul act differently from one with one?

From your other responses it seems like you classify the soul as an analogy for how life works, thus, life cannot exist without a soul by definition.

Who knows? I could guess that either the soulless yet biologically living body would just sit there and vegetate, or possibly it would move only to feed itself and then sit idle again. Possibly it would defend itself against attack. Or not. Maybe that's what is happening in brain-death situations.

Who knows? I could guess that either the soulless yet biologically living body would just sit there and vegetate, or possibly it would move only to feed itself and then sit idle again. Possibly it would defend itself against attack. Or not. Maybe that's what is happening in brain-death situations.

And we have a prediction! Oh goody!

Especially since you, unlike some of the other repliers, think a soul is something other than a metaphor for how the body works.

So if scientists showed that a being could move, talk, live a productive, social life, pass the Turing test, etc., without the support of a mysterious supernatural forces, then that would disprove your concept of the soul? Cuz I think they've done that.

And we have a prediction! Oh goody!

Especially since you, unlike some of the other repliers, think a soul is something other than a metaphor for how the body works.

So if scientists showed that a being could move, talk, live a productive, social life, pass the Turing test, etc., without the support of a mysterious supernatural forces, then that would disprove your concept of the soul? Cuz I think they've done that.
How would they know that the Spirit had not entered such a being if they cannot detect the Spirit in the rest of us? But the assumption that they were able to prove this would necessarily entail that they had developed a way to test for the presence or absence of spiritual energy, i.e. spirit would have been proven.

But again, as I said in my last post, I am totally guessing.

How would they know that the Spirit had not entered such a being if they cannot detect the Spirit in the rest of us? But the assumption that they were able to prove this would necessarily entail that they had developed a way to test for the presence or absence of spiritual energy, i.e. spirit would have been proven.

But again, as I said in my last post, I am totally guessing.

I'm not referring to an actual souless body so much as a theory of the body that doesn't account for the soul. They would figure out how a being would act according to their own, souless theory, and if it turns out that such a being would act in ways you say it wouldn't, then your concept of a soul is disproved.

Here's an analogy: someone thinks a car is pushed along the ground by an invisible spirit that enters any car when it is made. If a car could somehow not have this spirit, it would stay put. Scientists test how a car works and figure out that a car moves along the ground by combustion reactions in the engine. Their theoretical car can do all the things real cars do and has all the same attributes but because the scientists do not account for magic in their theory the fictional car has no magic spirit, and thus according to the "Carstians" cannot move. They find that according to the laws of physics such a car would move. Thus they disprove the Carstian concept of the magic car spirit.

Here's an analogy: someone thinks a car is pushed along the ground by an invisible spirit that enters any car when it is made. If a car could somehow not have this spirit, it would stay put. Scientists test how a car works and figure out that a car moves along the ground by combustion reactions in the engine. Their theoretical car can do all the things real cars do and has all the same attributes but because the scientists do not account for magic in their theory the fictional car has no magic spirit, and thus according to the "Carstians" cannot move. They find that according to the laws of physics such a car would move. Thus they disprove the Carstian concept of the magic car spirit.
But how would they be able to rule out the possibility of another force at work if they were hitherto unable to come up with a way to detect it even where it is purported to exist?

In your analogy, however, the "Carstians" do not deny that the internal combustion engine exists, nor do they claim it is the magical spirit which physically propels the car. Rather, the Carstians would probably claim that the spirit is the driver. You could start the car and put it in gear though, and without a driver it would trundle off aimlessly until it hit something and stopped. The same prediction might turn out to be true of a spiritless living body. Ya think?

But how would they be able to rule out the possibility of another force at work if they were hitherto unable to come up with a way to detect it even where it is purported to exist?

In your analogy, however, the "Carstians" do not deny that the internal combustion engine exists, nor do they claim it is the magical spirit which physically propels the car. Rather, the Carstians would probably claim that the spirit is the driver. You could start the car and put it in gear though, and without a driver it would trundle off aimlessly until it hit something and stopped. The same prediction might turn out to be true of a spiritless living body. Ya think?

As to the first part: BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PHYSICAL CAR!!!
We're not talking about them building a car without a spirit, we're talking about them making an equation without a spirit. If I write the equation x=y, I can be sure that the only influence on y is x. They develop a theory without a soul but with the physical attributes of the car accounted for, and see what that theory predicts.

As for the Carstians claiming the spirit is the driver....in some ways that seems to be what Willamena's arguing, that the soul is just a metaphor for the frontal cortex, rather than something science has not explained. I thought your view was more on the order of an extrabiological force?