"Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!" (2015)

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[

Checkbaiter ?

When a person dies, he is dead, that is, totally without life. A Christian has body, soul, and holy spirit, so we will look at what happens to each of these components if he dies. The body cannot live without the animating life force of the soul, so when the soul is gone, the body is dead. We have all seen lifeless bodies—the body is there but the soul, the life force, is gone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give me your understanding of Revelation 6:9-11

"And when He opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and because of the testimony which they had. " (v.9)

These "souls" of people who had DIED. They had been slain to death. Am I right ?
Continuing:

"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Master, holu and true, will You not judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on earth ? " (v.10)

If they did not cry out to God, being dead, isn't the Bible wrong to give us the impression that that is what these slain saints of God did ?

Do you suggest that in this particular passage the truth of reality is being misrepresented to us by the Word of God ?

Continuing:

"And to each of them was given a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet a little while, until also the number of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed, even as they were, is completed." (v.11)

They are expecting in their "rest" to be joined by other servants of God who are about to be killed.

So you don't believe any of this ?

Tell me, when the Bible says that Sheol is enlarged, if it contains nothing and no one then why does it need to be enlarged ?

Isaiah 5:14

English Standard Version
Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure, and the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude will go down, her revelers and he who exults in her.

New American Standard Bible
Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth without measure; And Jerusalem's splendor, her multitude, her din of revelry and the jubilant within her, descend into it.

Is it possible that God has realms or a realm of which we experience as living souls nothing, but nonetheless has its own peculiar characteristics set by God's almighty power and authority ?

Don't think I have not contemplated what on earth it would mean for the disembodied souls to receive robes? Of course I have thought about this.

But I think God could communicate to us in terms we could understand about realms which He has beyond our typical experience in this world.

Here are some reasons to believe the mind (and thereby the soul) is an immaterial entity.

Though your brain changes in material makeup, your thoughts and you can remain the same.

The molecules that compose your body and brain are in constant flux. By the time you finish reading this post you physically are a different collection of atoms. Your body and brain will undergo a complete molecular upgrade about every 15 years.

If the mind and the brain are the same, how could you remember anything? Since your molecular brain can completely overhaul in time but your mind maintains the persistent and same identity, that argues that your mind is immaterial. So it is reasonable to think you have an immaterial soul.

Originally posted by sonship
Here are some reasons to believe the mind (and thereby the soul) is an immaterial entity.

Though your brain changes in material makeup, your thoughts and you can remain the same.

The molecules that compose your body and brain are in constant flux. By the time you finish reading this post you physically are a different collection of atoms. Your body a ...[text shortened]... argues that your mind is immaterial. So it is reasonable to think you have an immaterial soul.

If you had watched the videos I referenced earlier in the thread, you would already know the answers.

1. The brain uses a logical storage mechanism called Sparse Distributed Memory. It is very robust and depending on the design can handle up to 30% loss without affecting the data stored. You could remove one in three brain cells at random without erasing most memories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_distributed_memory
2. When a large section of the brain is totally destroyed rather than random cells being lost, memories are lost and / or personality may be affected. This fits well with scientific models of the brain but does not fit well with and is in contradiction with a non-physical storage system.
3. The brain storage system consists of whole cells - which are not replaced every 15 years. The cells maintain their connections (and thus your memories) even if the molecules that make them up are replaced.
4. Diseases that affect certain connections in the brain result in memory loss. It is fairly well known exactly what they affect and why this affects memory loss. If memory is not stored in the brain, this would not occur.
5. The mind is immaterial in as much as it is information based. However that information is stored physical in the brain. To deny that this is the case shows nothing more than your ignorance of the science of the brain.
6. If you can prove via logical deduction or scientific evidence that memories are in any way shape or form not stored in the physical brain then you will get a Nobel Prize. There is however have a mountain of scientific evidence that says otherwise, so your chances are really slim.

If you really value truth as you have claimed in the past, then you will change your views on the brain because the evidence is against you. The only possible way you can continue to believe what you do about the brain is to intentionally ignore the evidence. And you don't have to take my word for it, feel free to verify any of my claims in the scientific literature or other sources.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is scientific fact. (not speculation and not personal opinion.) If you don't believe me, feel free to go and check the scientific literature for yourself and confirm it.

One example?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 9)
"Everything which begins to exist must have a cause. You [your body and soul] had a beginning [the day you were born] as did your parents [the day they were born]. Your site membership had a beginning [the date you chose to join]; as did this online spirituality forum; as did ...[text shortened]... different meanings are "asah" [Genesis 1:26a]; "yatsar" [Isaiah 45:18]; and "banah" [Genesis 2:22].

Reset for googlefudge (Page 10)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
One example?

Example of what? Sonship also insisted on trying that strawman and monumentally failed. Read the thread. And reread my claim until it sinks in. My claim says nothing whatsoever about examples, nor does it need examples of anything for it to stand. My claim is factual, unlike your original claim which not known to be true.

Originally posted by twhitehead

There is a lot of reading I would like to do. And the comments below are part miscellaneous.

1. The brain uses a logical storage mechanism called Sparse Distributed Memory. It is very robust and depending on the design can handle up to 30% loss without affecting the data stored. You could remove one in three brain cells at random without erasing most memories.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be happy to learn about new information storage methods as I would to read about parallel processors. But first person consciousness cannot be reduced to data processing characteristics even if we could learn something about possible similarities of our inventions to brain networks.

John Depoe writes in defense of substance dualism:

Immaterial properties would include mental phenomena such as first-person experiences. These experiences are not spatially located, do not have physical properties (electrical charge, mass, volume, etc.), they are self-presenting, and they are accessible only from the first-person point of view. On the other hand, the physical properties that characterize the brain are spatially located, possess physical properties, are not self-presenting, and are not characterized by a first-person point of view. Since no physical property could be identical with the properties of what-it-is-like-to-be conscious, it is necessary to postulate immaterial properties to account for these mental phenomena. 5

I don't believe any SDM methodology gives each of us the self awareness . A third party may examine much data stored in any number of fancy ways. But only the first person awaremess has the experience individuality of by which no one else can experience being "ME". The elements of subjective first person consciousness are beyond what any information storage and retrieval methodology can explain.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_distributed_memory
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting reading.

2. When a large section of the brain is totally destroyed rather than random cells being lost, memories are lost and / or personality may be affected. This fits well with scientific models of the brain but does not fit well with and is in contradiction with a non-physical storage system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phrase "non-physical storage system" is new to this discussion. I never used it.

I believe consciousness is part of the immaterial soul and we cannot reduce it to the activity of a data storage method regardless how inventive.

"The ultimate absurdity is to try to treat consciousness itself independently of consciousness, that is, to treat it solely from a third-person point of view, and that leads to the view that consciousness as such, as "inner,' "private' phenomenal events, does not really exist."

While a person can undergo reduced mental ability for sure, the self is not something that comes in portions. A "me" with reduced physical or mental capacity is still "me". I am not divisible. There cannot be 75% of me.

"I' as a conscious entity is an all or nothing kind of a thing. Now I may have a disability or even a mental malfunction. But I am still a non-divisible self aware entity that is either an all of nothing affair.

But a person that doesn't work as well as he should because of brain damage ? Of course that it possible. But unlike a physical object persons do not come in percentages.

I can have enhanced mental ability. Or I can have reduced mental ability by some brain damage. I am still at the core a self aware first person indivisible "seat of consciousness".

Split personality is a mental illness. But I don't think the two personalities are "split" in the sense that each feels he is one half of a person.

Though I am not a psychiatrist I think we all consider ourselves as thinking beings unitary and entire. The self may suffer from a neurological or psychological malfunction. But I think our sense is that the unitary and entire "self" is not reduced.

This "seat of consciousness" is not a material thing, nor is it divided up as a series of disconnected mental events. In other words, it is necessary to postulate that there is a subsisting immaterial "seat of consciousness" to account for this immediately and directly known awareness about oneself. Rene Descartes understood this when he wrote, "For in reality, when I consider the mind—that is, when I consider myself in so far as I am only a thinking being—I cannot distinguish any parts, but I recognize and conceive very clearly that I am a thing which is absolutely unitary and entire."8 Likewise, Immanuel Kant argued for a unitary and subsisting immaterial self:

Every composite substance is an aggregate of several substances, and the action of a composite, or whatever inheres in it as thus composite, is an aggregate of several actions or accidents, distributed among the plurality of substances. Now an effect which arises from the concurrence of many acting substances is indeed possible, namely, when this effect is external only (as, for instance, the motion of a body is the combined motion of all its parts). But with thoughts, as internal accidents belonging to a thinking being, it is different. For suppose it be the composite that thinks: then every part of it would be a part of the thought, and only all of them taken together would be the whole thoughts. But this cannot consistently be maintained. For representations (for instance, the single words of a verse), distributed among different beings, never make up a whole thought (a verse), and it is therefore impossible that a thought should inhere in what is essentially composite. It is therefore possible only a single substance, which, not being an aggregate of many, is absolutely simple.9

[my bolding]

Copied from http://www.newdualism.org/papers/J.DePoe/dualism.htm

A Defense of Dualism John M. Depoe - Western Michigan University

I ask readers to consider well the question of which do they think came first.

1. Material matter preceded the existence of any immaterial minds.

2.) Immaterial minds or a Supreme Mind preceded the existence of matter.

The second choice is more logical to me.

The exciting field of SDM is as exciting as earlier storage methods like VASM, Network database, Random Access. Information Processing researchers continue to invent new ways of storing large amounts of data for search and retrieval. I expect some methods may reveal some similarities in the structure of the brain. But we've yet to met a database or data bank that was self aware as a conscious ego.

And I don't mean mimicry as a parrot talking.

Originally posted by sonship
John Depoe writes in defense of substance dualism:

He basically says the mind is information based, nothing more. And that is not under dispute in any way. If you are going to continue repeating that point throughout the thread, at least explain why you keep repeating it.

The elements of subjective first person consciousness are beyond what any information storage and retrieval methodology can explain.
So you claim, but it doesn't follow from what you have said. It is just an unsupported claim.

It is interesting reading.
Do you know accept that there exist storage systems that can withstand significant physical damage?

The phrase "non-physical storage system" is new to this discussion. I never used it.
Memories must be stored somewhere. You claim they are not stored in the physical brain. Therefore they must be stored in a non-physical storage system. You use the word 'immaterial', which basically means the same thing as 'non-physical'.

I believe consciousness is part of the immaterial soul and we cannot reduce it to the activity of a data storage method regardless how inventive.
Surely your memories must be stored somewhere? Are you claiming that they are timeless and unchangeable? You do know that people not only loose memories but memories can be changed?

While a person can undergo reduced mental ability for sure, the self is not something that comes in portions. A "me" with reduced physical or mental capacity is still "me". I am not divisible. There cannot be 75% of me.
Yes, we have discussed this problem earlier in the thread. Your label 'me' refers to a gray edged concept.
Nevertheless, my point still stands, if you suffer significant brain damage, your 'me' will experience significant personality change and memory strongly suggesting that both memory and personality are stored in the brain. You have no argument to suggest otherwise.

But this cannot consistently be maintained. For representations (for instance, the single words of a verse), distributed among different beings, never make up a whole thought (a verse), and it is therefore impossible that a thought should inhere in what is essentially composite. It is therefore possible only a single substance, which, not being an aggregate of many, is absolutely simple.

Sorry, but your quote totally fails in logic. The conclusions simply do not follow from the premises. You disagree? Then explain why the exact same argument does not apply to a computer program. The individual 'words' of a computer program when randomly spread amongst computers never results in a single computer program running.

The second choice is more logical to me.
Then provide the logic. Or admit that it is really just a religious belief.


So, did you understand what I wrote in my post? Do you now agree that the question I was responding to is fully answered and does not have a leg to stand on? Do you agree that when it comes to memory, the scientific findings strongly favour the idea that memory is in fact stored in the brain? If not, then explain why not. It seems that you have not addressed any of my points at all but rather tried to go off on a tangent in the hope that it will be forgotten. Why is it that you never ever seem to concede ground even when it is shown conclusively that you are wrong?

For example, you stated that atoms in the brain are replaced every 15 years which supposedly demonstrates that memories are either not stored in the brain or should not last longer than 15 years. Do you concede that in fact brain structure does last longer than 15 years and thus it is entirely plausible that memories stored in the brain could last longer than 15 years even if all the atoms were replaced?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Original post by phillip beer (on 01 Jun '04 16:34) Thread 11214 (7 Pages)
[b]Do we have a soul or not? Prove it!

"It is the oldest of questions. Do we have an eternal soul or do we die and that is it. What is the nature of our consciousness?"

Note: Recently found this eleven year old thread while searching for something else. ...[text shortened]... te awhile yet is still relevant to many other threads on this spirituality forum. Your insights?[/b]

We don't have a soul.......................but instead we have a body.

The soul is the living principle and the true person........... and the temporary material body is only atoms and the stuff of matter.

We are not matter.

All matter deteriorates and returns to dust in the end.

You do not deteriorate because you are the eternal soul.

Your question should be..................Why am I in this rotting material body?

Originally posted by Dasa
We don't have a soul.......................but instead we have a body.

The soul is the living principle and the true person........... and the temporary material body is only atoms and the stuff of matter.

We are not matter.

All matter deteriorates and returns to dust in the end.

You do not deteriorate because you are the eternal soul.

Your question should be..................Why am I in this rotting material body?

At what point is it a rotting body? During conception? At the age of 1? 3? 30? When is it rotting?

So far NONE of the above posts have come even CLOSE to proving we have souls.

No souls, 1, Souls, 0.

At BEST, all we can do is live our lives believing we have souls, which makes people feel more important and part of a godhead. 10 billion people believing they have souls will not by force of will call a single soul into existence.

Originally posted by Dasa
We don't have a soul.......................but instead we have a body.

The soul is the living principle and the true person........... and the temporary material body is only atoms and the stuff of matter.

We are not matter.

All matter deteriorates and returns to dust in the end.

You do not deteriorate because you are the eternal soul.

Your question should be..................Why am I in this rotting material body?

Good point Dasa.

Originally posted by sonhouse
At what point is it a rotting body? During conception? At the age of 1? 3? 30? When is it rotting?

So far NONE of the above posts have come even CLOSE to proving we have souls.

No souls, 1, Souls, 0.

At BEST, all we can do is live our lives believing we have souls, which makes people feel more important and part of a godhead. 10 billion people believing they have souls will not by force of will call a single soul into existence.

You foolish man.

The proof is in your face.

If the material body is the living force, science should be able to create life by back engineering it..

Science cannot make 1 little ant.

Yet trillions of life forms are being born every day in this world, and they are having their little ant families and little bird babies, but science with all its Nobel Prize winners and Phd,s scientists and all the money they want, cannot do a damn thing.

You speak nonsense and garbage with your foolish challenge( SHOW ME the SOUL)

If you open your eyes and clean out your ears and humble yourself, and go to where you can find true knowledge (i have told you many times) you might learn a thing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
At what point is it a rotting body? During conception? At the age of 1? 3? 30? When is it rotting?

So far NONE of the above posts have come even CLOSE to proving we have souls.

No souls, 1, Souls, 0.

At BEST, all we can do is live our lives believing we have souls, which makes people feel more important and part of a godhead. 10 billion people believing they have souls will not by force of will call a single soul into existence.

Its rotting all the time.......................but the body replaces the cells all the time.

If the skin did not replace itself we would have no skin on our feet and hands etc.

Science tells us that all the cells in the body are completely replaced every 7 years.

The cells are replaced because the body is slowly rotting.

Originally posted by twhitehead

He basically says the mind is information based, nothing more. And that is not under dispute in any way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dispute that the soul cannot be reduced to just information stored in the brain. The reason is rather simple. Information is to inform. Who is to be informed if the soul is just information?

To say information is to inform information is circular and makes no sense. So if the soul (information) is informing only itself (the soul which = information) you have a hopeless circular contradiction.

If you are going to continue repeating that point throughout the thread, at least explain why you keep repeating it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be about the third time I tell you that I do not look to you to coach me on how I present my case. There is no reason why not to repeat something which has not been refuted.


me: The elements of subjective first person consciousness are beyond what any information storage and retrieval methodology can explain.

tw: So you claim, but it doesn't follow from what you have said. It is just an unsupported claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can claim it because it has not been accomplished yet.
Neither your parallel processors nor your SDM storage has accomplished a self aware mind.

The claim is so far supported by non-existence of an invention of such a conscious machine. That's good enough support for now.

me: It is interesting reading.

tw: Do you know accept that there exist storage systems that can withstand significant physical damage? [/b]
--------------------------------------------------------
I am not finish digesting SDM yet. Storage technologues have developed and evolved over the decades. I see no reason to think we have finally arrived at one that perfectly reflects the workings of the human brain.

Understanding that some recovery mechanism or error recovery can be built into a data storage program is not new to me. I have no other comment at the moment.

me: The phrase "non-physical storage system" is new to this discussion. I never used it.

tw: Memories must be stored somewhere.
----------------------------------------------------

"Somewhere" is probably a "place" not accessible to any microscope or material instrument. I accept that there are realms not subject to our material mechanics.

Besides, consciousness is more than just memories.

You claim they are not stored in the physical brain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I claim that even if they were, consciousness consists of more than just our memories.

Self reflection of first person consciousness being reduced to stored physical representation of information about itself doesn't make sense. The circularity of matter does not prompt me to believe our soul can be reduced to just trillions of data bits.

And to think such a thing evolved unguided from matter to emerge as a self conscious rational entity is more absurd.

I'm pretty sure you're espousing a philosophy of physicalism, though I expect you to probably either challenge me that you never said you were.

I think J P Moreland is correct in this comment on physicalism.

In sum, it is self refuting to argue that one ought to choose physicalism because he should see that the evidence is good for physicalism. Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality. Physicalism usually denies intentionality by reducing it to a physical relation of input/output, thereby denying that the mind is genuinely capable of having thoughts about the world. Physicalism denies the existence of propositions and nonphysical laws of logic and evidence which can be in minds and influence thinking. Physicalism denies the existence of a faculty capable of rational insight into these nonphysical laws and propositions, and it denies the existence of an enduring "I" which is present through the process of reflection. Finally; it denies the existence of a genuine agent who deliberates and chooses positions because they are rational, an act possible only if physical factors are not sufficient to determine future behavior.

[ Scaling the Secular City, J P Moreland, Berker Academic, pg. 96]

I my thoughts are what they are merely because of neural chemistry regardless of how ingeniously stored, it is hard for me to see why a certain thought I ought to have or not ought to have.

Rational insight is a capacity of the mind. You're on the verge of suggesting it can be duplicated in a test tube. Or to be fair you're saying it can be duplicated in SDM data processing operations.

This is particularly more baffling in the area of morality. Physical states either cause or do not cause other physical states to occur. If my moral thinking can be reduced to a series of physical states or data storage retrieval, I don't see why one physical state OUGHT to be followed morally by another. By "physical states" understand that instance of a retrieval of a certain unit of stored information.

If we are just stored information OUGHTS are not real moral obligations telling us what one must do to be in harmony with universal moral imperatives.



Therefore they must be stored in a non-physical storage system. You use the word 'immaterial', which basically means the same thing as 'non-physical'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did use "immaterial". You supplied "storage system". You may ask "What else could it be?" It could be something created in the image and likeness of God as Genesis 1:26,27 reveals.

me: I believe consciousness is part of the immaterial soul and we cannot reduce it to the activity of a data storage method regardless how inventive.

tw: Surely your memories must be stored somewhere?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The soul is spoken of in the Bible as the mind, the emotion, and the will. However memories are stored we are not just memories. Your Sparse Data Methodology has to account for acts of will, rationale thought and moral choices as well as emotional feelings.

If it is all a matter of information retrieval who is doing the retrieval of information operating the will to decide to do retrieval of this or that memory to have ? The one making the decision also has to be a matter of information.

Its too circular to make sense.

Nevertheless, my point still stands, if you suffer significant brain damage, your 'me' will experience significant personality change and memory strongly suggesting that both memory and personality are stored in the brain. You have no argument to suggest otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't argue at all that damage to the brain can effect thinking or personality. To assume the whole human psyche is just stored information leaves too much unexplained.

There is something in the physical brain causing the heart to beat. I do not feel obligated to keep it beating. It does so automatically without my choosing. Though I can choose to terminate it through suicide.

That may be some automatic retrieval of stored information to fire off that physical operation. Such a physicalism is hard to extend over for rationale thought processes or moral decisions.

Any computer in the world is being operated by a person.
The corresponding situation of the computer like brain would be that an immaterial soul does do some operating of the neuro-chemical circuitry of the physical brain.

Aside from some automatic functions the parallel of a user and a device with us is that the immaterial "me" indeed uses the physical brain in all its awesome and marvelous design.

So I see substance dualism as the way to go. But I have been watching quite a bit of contrary opinions. And I am not going to claim that all of the philosophical debates on this are completely followed at this time.

I'm stopping here.

Originally posted by sonship
I dispute that the soul cannot be reduced to just information stored in the brain. The reason is rather simple. Information is to [b]inform. Who is to be informed if the soul is just information? [/b]

Please give a comprehensive definition of 'information' as you clearly have a non-standard definition. Certainly when I use the word, that is not what it means and the quote I was refering to does not demonstrate that the brain is the kind of information in your definition.

To say information is to inform information is circular and makes no sense. So if the soul (information) is informing only itself (the soul which = information) you have a hopeless circular contradiction.
Well it seem the contradiction applies to you and not me. I have not claimed that information is 'to inform' despite the word root.

This will be about the third time I tell you that I do not look to you to coach me on how I present my case. There is no reason why not to repeat something which has not been refuted.
Except that it doesn't support your case.

I can claim it because it has not been accomplished yet.
That doesn't make it true.

The claim is so far supported by non-existence of an invention of such a conscious machine. That's good enough support for now.
No, that doesn't support your claim in any way.

I am not finish digesting SDM yet. Storage technologues have developed and evolved over the decades. I see no reason to think we have finally arrived at one that perfectly reflects the workings of the human brain.

Understanding that some recovery mechanism or error recovery can be built into a data storage program is not new to me. I have no other comment at the moment.
You have no other comment because doing so would be admitting that you were wrong - something you never seem to do even when it is conclusively demonstrated that you are as in this case.
1. It is not necessary for my argument that SDM perfectly reflect the working of the human brain, or even be remotely similar.
2. You are aware of mechanisms for error recovery, so you are basically saying you admit it is possible.
3. Therefore your claim that minor damage or changes to the brain does not result in memory loss is a reason to think memory is not stored in the brain is invalid.
I would like to see an admission from you that you have understood my counter argument and agree that your argument is invalid - or an explanation as to why it remains valid despite my clearly stated counter argument.

"Somewhere" is probably a "place" not accessible to any microscope or material instrument. I accept that there are realms not subject to our material mechanics.
Still, they must be stored somewhere.

Besides, consciousness is more than just memories.
I agree.

I claim that even if they were, consciousness consists of more than just our memories.
Fine. But you did claim that they were not stored in the brain and that that was evidence that the soul wasn't either. Are you now conceding that:
1. Memories may be stored in the brain.
2. The scientific evidence points strongly towards that conclusion.

Self reflection of first person consciousness being reduced to stored physical representation of information about itself doesn't make sense. The circularity of matter does not prompt me to believe our soul can be reduced to just trillions of data bits.

And to think such a thing evolved unguided from matter to emerge as a self conscious rational entity is more absurd.
Thats fine, but it can be put down as religious belief combined with ignorance of the subject matter. Certainly there is no actual logical argument in what you have said.

I my thoughts are what they are merely because of neural chemistry regardless of how ingeniously stored, it is hard for me to see why a certain thought I ought to have or not ought to have.
Your problems do not go away by making the brain non-physical and working by some supernatural mechanism. Every problem you can mention that you don't like applies equally well to a supernatural mechanism. The only difference is that you choose not to think about it so you can pretend the problem has gone away. It hasn't.

Rational insight is a capacity of the mind. You're on the verge of suggesting it can be duplicated in a test tube. Or to be fair you're saying it can be duplicated in SDM data processing operations.

This is particularly more baffling in the area of morality. Physical states either cause or do not cause other physical states to occur. If my moral thinking can be reduced to a series of physical states or data storage retrieval, I don't see why one physical state OUGHT to be followed morally by another. By "physical states" understand that instance of a retrieval of a certain unit of stored information.
I agree. And for this reason the first AIs will almost certainly be devoid of morality.

If we are just stored information OUGHTS are not real moral obligations telling us what one must do to be in harmony with universal moral imperatives.
I agree. But then I am less inclined to believe in 'universal moral imperatives' than you are. Its a complicated topic worthy of its own thread, but whenever such threads are started the theist make a beeline for the door.

I did use "immaterial". You supplied "storage system". You may ask "What else could it be?" It could be something created in the image and likeness of God as Genesis 1:26,27 reveals.
Still, a storage system.

The soul is spoken of in the Bible as the mind, the emotion, and the will. However memories are stored we are not just memories. Your Sparse Data Methodology has to account for acts of will, rationale thought and moral choices as well as emotional feelings.
The post I was responding to was specifically memories. You claimed that memories should not last as long as they do and therefore this indicates a non-physical storage system for memories.
If you have a similar argument with regards to the will, then make it.
But for now, concede that I have conclusively shown beyond all doubt that your 'memories' argument is a bust.