One definition of a soul is our consciousness. May this lives on after we die, or not. This is the definition used frequently in SciFi, see for example Altered Carbon. @Patrick, do you not agree we have a consciousness?
And I agree, there is no science that supports it lives beyond our body. Even some Chrisitians believe that, thinking that human minds can’t exist independent of a body! I never said everyone believes in an immortal soul, just that everyone affirms a soul of some sort or another.
Sure, Daniel Dennett new book “From Bacteria to Bach and Back - The Evolution of Minds” is the latest in the scientific study of consciousness. If soul is equated to consciousness, no problem. When the brain no long functions, consciousness is lost forever. If soul is equated with something that survives beyond the active synapses in a living brain, well there is zero evidence of anything like that kind of soul.
This just collapses into the question of the existence of God.
If God existed, we can agree that he could recreate us after we die, with our consciousness intact. Imagine a StarTrek transporter with a memory of passenger, that can recreate that passenger at will. One does not even need to grant that there is some non-physical soul “stuff” (other than information that is), just that God has the power and knowledge to recreate us. Then we have an immortal soul.
Such a view is 100% consistent with the evidence of science. There is no evidence for it, but no evidence against it. It all comes down to whether we believe God exists or not, and if He would care enough to bring us back.
There are scenarios where that’s actually killing the person who steps into the transporter, being taken apart atom by atom, and creating a new individual elsewhere. While the new individual at the end of the process is left with a sense of continuity, the person who provided the template actually ended. And in the Altered Carbon story, the original person who provides the template dies. And what do we make of the situation in the story when a ‘template’ is used to create two copies at the same time?
Can we say that a copy of the original is really the same individual or a new, separate person?
Related: Our atoms gradually get swapped out over our lifetimes. Are we the same people from birth through death?
I suppose we could go with the practical: if you can’t tell the difference, it shouldn’t matter.
Integrated information theory of consciousness predicts that a sophisticated simulation of a human brain running on a digital computer cannot be conscious - even if it can speak in a manner indistinguishable from a human being. Consciousness cannot be computed: it must be built into the structure of a biological system.
Well, we are trafficking in science fiction here, or theological imagination. It is questions like this, however, that convince many philosophers to take a substance-dualism view of the soul. Though, if the only entity capable of doing this is God, substance dualism may not be necessary, because God might just only do this in a way that does not violate our sense of self.
Yep. To be honest, I tend to ignore the philosophy on the subject. I’m waiting for a better characterization of the biology and physical phenomena. Then we can pick out the more relevant philosophical possibilities. I expect to be surprised.
The subject of the soul is very important for me. For Christians who accept the declarations of the ecumenical councils, some of the debate over thr incarnation was over whether Christ had a human soul. I think Catholic and Orthodox Christians need to take this discussion very seriously. There is a lot that carries over into dogmatic theology. I’m not sure Nancey Murphy’s views are simpatico with traditional Christian views of the soul. But maybe they are. I need to look at this much more closely at some point. I tend toward some form of substance dualism, but I need to understand more the church fathers’ views as well.
Everything has some non zero level of consciousness in IIT, including your doorknob.
Also correlation is not identity. While we can (for the moment) grant brains exhibit IIT, it is not clear this is sufficient to determine they are conscious. We can construct and identify objects with high IIT that do not appear conscious.
For that reason IIT appears to be descriptive, but not salient.
I feel the way Aristotole and Thomas Aquinas did. All creatures have souls, because that is what makes one live. However, lets let that human souls are immortal. The question is: are other souls eternal.
I am a descendant of King Edward III of England and Llewlelyn of Gwynned. That made my ancestors English nobility. Charles Edward Miller de Wynns would be my name in Great Britain. In America, I am Charles Edward Miller. My family before the American Revolution used the French-Welsh de Wynns. My belief reflects my philosophy and is not empirical science. It was nice discussing this with you, Dr.Harshman.
I would say that the descendants of Adam and Eve were given an eternal. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinus believed that the soul is something that makes a being live; therefore, everything living has a soul. Thomas believed in the immortality of the human soul only; however, I believe that if we love a cat or dog to live that we had in this life, he could for our sake give that animal eternal life. A hominid could live for ever if God wished; however, I doubt that would happen.