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

Sonship. I realize from some of your comments that you don't understand some of the basics of how the brain works. I think a short exercise would be very informative. I could point you to a YouTube, but you probably wouldn't watch it, so lets do it in the thread.

I want you to name the first 3 african countries that come to mind
I want you to then think about how you went about naming them. Note the following:
1. You did not name countries you know nothing about and don't know the name of.
2. You cannot give a detailed explanation for why you picked the ones you did, they simply 'popped into your mind' on request.

Originally posted by twhitehead

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it is necessary to give a total comprehensive writing on "information." It is sufficient to mention that information INCLUDES also the function I mentioned. Other functions are involved. And I don't want to write a book on the subject.
Information includes the function of supplying knowledge. I am not saying that is the total comprehensive characteristic of it. In speaking of human memories as stored information to be accessed as useful items. my comment is concerned with for the most part. But even gping beyond memories to other kinds of information, I think the issue of informing ( a process, an organ, whatever ) so that it uses the supplied information, my comment holds.

On my short list of books to read on a comprehensive discussion of Information is William Dembski's book "The Design Inference". This and some other writings of his seem to go into a much fuller discussion of the nature of information.


me: 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.

tw: Well it seem the contradiction applies to you and not me. I have not claimed that information is 'to inform' despite the word root. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That you don't see the problem but I do is apparent. And though I only include in its total comprehensive nature an important aspect to inform. It did sound like I was being comprehensive. But I was just focusing on this particular function of information.
This segment of the nature of what information is is relevant to my comment:

Information as in what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. IE "genetically transmitted information". What is represented is to be conveyed to something or someone - to inform some entity.

The human memories, which you and your article were discussing, are said to be subject to a storage methodology called SDM (Sparse Data Methodology) I believe. The bottom line here is that however that information is stored the retrieval of it is meant to provide some other entity with the significance of what is represented by the coding.

The problem you say I have but you don't is that you are postulating, I think, that the entire human soul is this information, not just the memories. The circularity of this is illogical. I think it sets up something like an infinite regress of information provided to information provided to information ... etc. etc. How can you say the totality of consciousness is information and not get into an infinite regress ?


Except that it doesn't support your case. -----------------------------------------------------------

Should I expect you to admit anything supports my case that the consciousness is not merely a material affair or an "information based" material entity only ? I expect you not to think that case could be made or supported.
me: I can claim it because it has not been accomplished yet.

tw: That doesn't make it true. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I think of it, I would point out that you saying my understanding is "religious" does not make my understanding not true. I think you entertain a bias that just because I say the soul is immaterial sounds "religious" it therefore cannot be true. "Oh that is a religious concept" is a dismissal assuming no truth can be "religious" .

Besides, I could say your hope that a conscious machine with a soul is your religious "faith" as well.
me: The claim is so far supported by non-existence of an invention of such a conscious machine. That's good enough support for now.

tw: No, that doesn't support your claim in any way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invent one and then come back and tell me the claim is not supported.

You have no other comment because doing so would be admitting that you were wrong --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. I admit that I need to read that stuff about SDM more. "If you fully understood it you would agree with me" is your hope. Probably when I fully get into it I'll notice more problems to invalidate your concepts.
The problems are aside from storage methodologies. Just mastering the methodology and thinking we know how the physical brain works doesn't solve the underlying philosophical problems.

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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you would like to see and what you end up seeing will not be the same. I would like to see you explain what comes into existence without a cause. I got nothing but acrobatic dodges and hand wavings to go back again and again over previous pages of discussion to parse out words.
The "blantantly false" law of causality I would have "liked" to see you demonstrate with many examples.
I have no other comment on the Sparse Storage Methodology right now. I am reviewing relevant matters to physicalism. And how SDM works or how it is believed to model the brain is just one of a number of issues. While it is relevant to recovery of portions of data loss it is not the most important thing to me in considering if the soul is reducible only to stored information in the physical brain.
me:
Besides, consciousness is more than just memories.

tw: I agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there is the problem of not seeing the forest because of the trees. The bottom line here is whether the soul and consciousness can exist as an immaterial entity. While we can dive down deep into the workings of SDM with an assumption that the brain works like our lattest database technology, I still want to keep my eyes on the big picture.

The way I see it even if we arrive at the point of believing we have absolutely mastered how the physical brain WORKS, we still have some very deep underlying metaphysical problems with a philosophy of physicalism.

I have, as I said, been giving some fair hearing to a couple of defenses of physicalism in reply to objections of substance dualism. I have heard enough to gather that the debate is still ongoing.

I have to stop here. As time allows I be looking at more on what we know about the workings of the physical brain. I also will be looking into the revelation of the Bible and considering the underlying philosophical issues relevant to interpreting any empirical data.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I want you to name the first 3 african countries that come to mind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well my mind works faster than my mouth. I found myself finally uttering Togo, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe.


I want you to then think about how you went about naming them. Note the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can think about that. Togo was mentioned because I was just talking to a neighbor of mine from Togo. I really don't know why I said Nigeria except that it is found to pronounce I suppose. Zimbabwe was mentioned because I have relatives there and they always invite me to visit.

Now you also should think on something.

I think you are saying the names are stored in my brain as information. Fine. No problem. But my choosing the names is ALSO stored as information in the physical brain. Not only so, but your asking me to think about the whole thing is ALSO now stored as information in the physical brain.

You think about the issues surrounding the assumption that every last detail about my total personality is in some location in my brain. My thinking is there, according to your view. My thinking ABOUT my thinking is also there. My WILL to choose this name over that name and my WILL to choose to think this or that are also themselves items stored for access in the neuro-chemistry of my brain.

Total reduction of my conscious mind to stored units of data I see as metaphysically problematic.

1. You did not name countries you know nothing about and don't know the name of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably that is true.

2. You cannot give a detailed explanation for why you picked the ones you did, they simply 'popped into your mind' on request.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave you some theories. But I don't claim to know exactly how. I know the three parts of my soul according to the Bible were involved as with every action. That is the Mind, the Emotion, and the Will.

I thought on some name or names - Mind
I liked or disliked a choice for the task - Emotion
I chose to voice my choice - Will .

I think where you are going is a total physicalism.

All of my mind is reducible to stored bits of information.
All of my emotion is reducible to stored bits of information.
All of my will is redicible to stored bits of information.
My thinking about the whole experiment is likewise coded and stored.

Physical processes of electrical charges and chemical processes are delivering all these things, yet somehow I have "free will" to do it.

Oh, the free will to choose to cooperate or not with the experiment is ALSO somewhere located as stored information.

What is the point you want to make ?

No, I cannot give a detailed explanation of what went on in the neuro-chemical processes. Are you sure you really want that? There is something to living spontaneously and naturally. Thank God that we don't have to know the millions of physical details with digestion or sexual reproduction.

Medical science is necessary. Do we really want to know everything about how we live ? Maybe some do. Maybe some want to be in the place of the omniscience of our Creator.

Are you sure such a system arose by unguided and goaless evolution ?

You can choose not to consider those questions and get right to your immediate point whatever it is.

Originally posted by sonship
In speaking of human memories as stored information to be accessed as useful items. my comment is concerned with for the most part.

No, that is not what your comment was concerned with. Since your memory is short, let me remind you what you actually said:

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?

Clearly you are referring to the soul, not memories, and clearly you are demanding that when someone says the 'soul is information based' it must fit your very narrow definition.
My response still stands. I do think the soul is information based but not by your narrow definition and thus your objection demonstrates nothing.

That you don't see the problem but I do is apparent.
Yes. It would help if you explained it more clearly and didn't try to redefine words in the process.

Information as in what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. IE "genetically transmitted information". What is represented is to be conveyed to something or someone - to inform some entity.
That is a very narrow definition and is fundamentally flawed. Would a book in a forest with nobody to read it have no information in it? In reality information does not require a purpose. Genetic information for example is typically not read by any entities.

The bottom line here is that however that information is stored the retrieval of it is meant to provide some other entity with the significance of what is represented by the coding.
Not necessarily an entity. Do you count my computer as an entity? It can read and process information.
Do you count my eye as an entity? It too can process information?
Is a river an entity? It too can process information.

The problem you say I have but you don't is that you are postulating, I think, that the entire human soul is this information, not just the memories. The circularity of this is illogical. I think it sets up something like an infinite regress of information provided to information provided to information ... etc. etc.
Next you will tell me that computer programs cant possible exist because of a similar regression? Or perhaps you will simply dodge the issue. Explain why your infinite regression doesn't apply to my computer.

How can you say the totality of consciousness is information and not get into an infinite regress ?
I fail to see where the so called infinite regress is coming from. Please explain further. It would help if you illustrate by explaining why it doesn't apply to a computer.

Should I expect you to admit anything supports my case that the consciousness is not merely a material affair or an "information based" material entity only ?
If you demonstrate your case (for even minor points) I have no problem admiring it

I expect you not to think that case could be made or supported.
Obviously not. But you may be able to make some valid points in its favor.
Similarly I have made some undeniably valid points in my favor and you should be willing to concede the points

While I think of it, I would point out that you saying my understanding is "religious" does not make my understanding not true.
Agreed. Just unsupported.

I think you entertain a bias that just because I say the soul is immaterial sounds "religious" it therefore cannot be true. "Oh that is a religious concept" is a dismissal assuming no truth can be "religious" .
Not at all. Unsupported facts may well be true, but they are not convincing. ie I will not think they are true simply because you say so without any supporting evidence or argument.

Besides, I could say your hope that a conscious machine with a soul is your religious "faith" as well.
You would be wrong. I can substantiate my belief with solid verifiable evidence that my reasoning is sound and fact based - or at least appears sound to me ie it is based on what I believe to be evidence and good reasoning and thus is not pure faith based on a religion or desire for the result to be true. I already pointed you in the direction but you were not interested in verifying it. That is entirely up to you.

Invent one and then come back and tell me the claim is not supported.
Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

Nope. I admit that I need to read that stuff about SDM more.
Why? You already admitted to being aware of redundant data storage mechanisms. Either you are now saying you don't believe they exist until you verify it by reading about SDM, or you are dodging the issue. It is not necessary for you to understand SDM at all for my point to be valid. All that is necessary is for you to accept that there exists data storage systems that can handle data loss. Another good example of such a system is the QR code:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code
On some settings it can handle a 30% loss too.

The problems are aside from storage methodologies. Just mastering the methodology and thinking we know how the physical brain works doesn't solve the underlying philosophical problems.
It does however demonstrate undeniably that the argument you made that I was responding to is fundamentally flawed. I think you should admit that before making new arguments.

I would like to see you explain what comes into existence without a cause.
Why would you like to see that? I have never claimed to know of any such thing - how can you expect me to explain it?

I got nothing but acrobatic dodges and hand wavings to go back again and again over previous pages of discussion to parse out words.
No, what you got was a repeated insistence that you were demanding something I never ever claimed to have nor was required for my original statement to stand.

The "blantantly false" law of causality I would have "liked" to see you demonstrate with many examples.
When did I ever say anything about a 'blatantly false law of causality'? If you are implying I did, then you are wrong. I did repeatedly suggested you go back and check what I actually did say, but it appears you never did.
What I did say is that it is blatantly false that a 'law of causality' is a scientific law or known to be a law. And I repeat, the statement remains true without examples being offered or required.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that is not what your comment was concerned with. Since your memory is short, let me remind you what you actually said:

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?

Clearly you are referr ...[text shortened]... o be a law. And I repeat, the statement remains true without examples being offered or required.

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?

If this was a copied quotation of what I wrote it contains a typo, which was my error.

It sounds like what I INTENDED to type was:

I dispute that the soul [CAN] [edited] 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 itself [edited] is just information?

That was my error. Thanks.

Originally posted by sonship
That was my error. Thanks.

Not a problem. It wasn't the typos I was referencing, it was the fact that you were specifically referring to the soul and then later stated that you were talking about memory. Clearly even your corrected statement references the soul.

Let me ask you this regarding information:
* Suppose I have stored on my hard disc an encrypted zip file. It consists of a string of binary bits.
* For me to read the information contained in the zip file, it is first converted to bytes by the computer and then run through a decryption process and if it was compressed, it must be decompressed.
* It then goes on the screen in the form of letters which get seen by my eyes and later interpreted by by my brain and put in to words and finally the meaning is deciphered.

1. Is the information stored on my hard disc 'information'?
2. If it is, is all of it information, or only the bits that finally get to my brain. Remember there may be some bytes whose function is to mark where the data is on the hard drive, or mark how to decrypt the file, or the date stamp etc.
3. Are the circuits inside my computer that process all the above 'information' or not?
4. If I destroy my had disk without ever looking at what was on it, did it ever contain information?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that is not what your comment was concerned with. Since your memory is short, let me remind you what you actually said:

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?

Clearly you are referr ...[text shortened]... o be a law. And I repeat, the statement remains true without examples being offered or required.

Going beyond my typo of "cannot" which was meant to be "can" ...

Clearly you are referring to the soul, not memories, and clearly you are demanding that when someone says the 'soul is information based' it must fit your very narrow definition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are not clear, I clearly mean all the mental and psychological abilities of the human SOUL, of which memory is but one.

My response still stands. I do think the soul is information based but not by your narrow definition and thus your objection demonstrates nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is my narrow definition ? I have said a number of times by SOUL I referred to the Bible's view of Mind, Emotion, and Will.

In another place I think I listed about five [edited] or so states of consciousness. These were not meant ot be formal definitions as if what the soul is could not be defined in other ways.

States of consciousness and the soul are closely related. And I mentioned, I think -
sensations (?) ... but perhaps not.
Desires,
Acts of Free Will
Thoughts ,
Beliefs .

I think I may have mentioned four of these and not five. And they map somewhat into Mind, Emotion, and Will. Though I have to give some more thought to Sensations.

Anyway, reducing all of these to stored information, I think, is an error. If you protest that only memories are stored information, then I assume I would like to hear where you think the other facilities reside and in what physical form if the immaterial SOUL does not exist for you.

me:
That you don't see the problem but I do is apparent.

tw: Yes. It would help if you explained it more clearly and didn't try to redefine words in the process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think communication is lacking even though 100% rigor in definitions is not being employed.

me: Information as in what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. IE "genetically transmitted information". What is represented is to be conveyed to something or someone - to inform some entity.

tw: That is a very narrow definition and is fundamentally flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not a narrow definition. It is focusing in on PART of the total characteristic or definition of information. That is why I wrote "information as in what is conveyed or represented ... etc."

In other words my immediate concern is with THIS particular aspect of the nature of information. This is the second time now I am letting you know that I was not attempting an exhaustive treatise on the complete definition of information.

So my points still stand as stated.

Would a book in a forest with nobody to read it have no information in it? In reality information does not require a purpose. Genetic information for example is typically not read by any entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first statement is arguable. Unused information I suppose is stored in a book in the forest that no one has picked up to read yet. But, that is like is there a sound of a tree falling in the forest where there is no ears to hear.

I'll think about it.

The second statement doesn't sound right. I think genetic information is probably used somewhere in the biological system it pertains to. We may be yet to identify where some of that information is supplied and used.

Lately, I think some biologists referring to "junk DNA" were educated to realize that that information was in fact not "junk". It did fulfill a purpose. Some atheist types were sure it was left over junk. Some ID proponents predicted that its purpose would be discovered.

This was an instance of Atheism actually holding back the progress of Science, ironically. Where as the predictiveness of Intelligent Designed furthered the advancement of Science.

me: The bottom line here is that however that information is stored the retrieval of it is meant to provide some other entity with the significance of what is represented by the coding.

tw: Not necessarily an entity. Do you count my computer as an entity?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Perhaps you misunderstand my use of "entity" to mean a personality.

It can read and process information.
------------------------------------------------------

Yes. By intelligent engineering and programming and operation it can be an entity that processes information.

Do you count my eye as an entity?
---------------------------------------------------

Yes. Your eyes I count as an entity. And your brain I count as an entity that uses the input and output of the entity of the eye.

It too can process information?
-------------------------------------------------

That is correct. By "entity" body organs were included.

Is a river an entity? It too can process information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to rivers. This is a bit more Zen like.
But I have no problem with saying a river is also an entity. Whether a river "processes" information is a bit more like a Zen Buddhist koan problem.

I'll think about it. I can think about whether Gravity is "processesing" information as a object falls to the earth. But I don't see how looking at it that way or not effects the belief of consciousness being not composed of solely physical things or "information based" brain matter.

me: The problem you say I have but you don't is that you are postulating, I think, that the entire human soul is this information, not just the memories. The circularity of this is illogical. I think it sets up something like an infinite regress of information provided to information provided to information ... etc. etc.

tw: Next you will tell me that computer programs cant possible exist because of a similar regression?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I do not tell you that. That is not a corner I paint myself into. Programs exist. In my case this afternoon, my mind is the end user in the operation of my computer.

That is not a circularity problem. It terminates with me being the end user. I think the circularity problem arises when everything pertaining to the SOUL in its widest definition is a matter of physically stored information.

Or perhaps you will simply dodge the issue. Explain why your infinite regression doesn't apply to my computer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just did. Your mind is the end user. Physically stored information being the end user of physically stored information is the circularity dilemma.

If you don't believe the SOUL is entirely a matter of physically stored information than besides memories you can explain where the rest of the SOUL resides. You might be tempted to join me to believe some things of it not stored are in another realm besides the physical. But I won't hold my breath waiting for you to say it.
me:
How can you say the totality of consciousness is information and not get into an infinite regress ?

tw: I fail to see where the so called infinite regress is coming from. Please explain further. It would help if you illustrate by explaining why it doesn't apply to a computer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to hear from others if they see the problem of it.
If there is a flaw in the logic I would like to see if anyone else sees it. You're the only one complaining about it not making sense.

I will keep my eye out to see if someone else has a problem in seeing an infinite regress there.

But your bafflement here reminds me of your bafflement in times past to understand that traversing infinity of past time to arrive at the present moment is not logical.

Not that I am trying to rehash that old argument. I am just saying I am [edited] puzzled by you appearing to be puzzled. [Edited]


If you demonstrate your case (for even minor points) I have no problem admiring it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's nice. But whether you do or not, reducing the SOUL and/or consciousness to physically stored information has problems in logic.


Similarly I have made some undeniably valid points in my favor and you should be willing to concede the points
-------------------------------------------------------------------

What is your TOP "undeniably valid" point so far ?

While I think of it, I would point out that you saying my understanding is "religious" does not make my understanding not true.
Agreed. Just unsupported.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you agree, I think you realize some support is there.
Inference to the best explanation can't be dismissed because it sound "religious".

That I am only stored information accessed in something like an SDM methodology is not the best explanation for my first person, self aware living conscious experience.

An eternal God who created man in His own image and likeness, though not easy to fully explain, is a better explanation. It also provides more dignity which I think is essential to our self assessment of humanity.

I don't dare reduce YOU to being just a machine of fizzing atoms, even if the most splendid storage technology is employed...

If you wish to reduce yourself to that, that is your business. I won't join you in that self deprivating worldview. I still believe you're made in the image of an uncreated and eternal Supreme God as Creator. Better yet He is our heavenly Father in His loving redemption and salvation.

I don't find that overtly sentimental. I find it realistic.

Originally posted by sonship
What is my narrow definition ? I have said a number of times by SOUL I referred to the Bible's view of Mind, Emotion, and Will.

I was clearly talking about your narrow definition of 'information' and not your definition of the 'soul'. I even asked you to give a definition for information to which you did respond (but didn't give a definition), so you can't really claim it wasn't clear. This now looks like dodging.
Anyway, your quoted statement clearly demands that information must inform and that it must inform someone. You later specify 'entity'.
It is my contention that information does not need to inform and does not require 'someone' or an entity to be informed by it.
Hence your objection is overruled as invalid.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Your objection seems a bit tortured and weak.

Let's say that ony HALF of the information is provided to other information in the existence of a conscious soul. You still have the same problem.

The problem I point out is with physicalism. Now if you don't intend to proclaim that the entire phenomenon of the human soul is a matter of stored information than say so now.

If it is not the entire soul which is stored information, what is that part which is NOT stored information ?

This is a way out of the impasse. Just explain BESIDES the physically stored information, SDM style in the grey matter of the brain, where ELSE is this human SOUL ?

This will clarify where I perceive you coming from if I am misunderstanding you.

Originally posted by sonship
In other words my immediate concern is with THIS particular aspect of the nature of information. This is the second time now I am letting you know that I was not attempting an exhaustive treatise on the complete definition of information.

So my points still stand as stated.

No, your point is invalid. Your point demands that information have certain properties which most information simply does not. You have already violated your own definition when it comes to DNA and admitted that it does not necessarily require an entity to interpret it.

Lately, I think some biologists referring to "junk DNA" were educated to realize that that information was in fact not "junk". It did fulfill a purpose. Some atheist types were sure it was left over junk. Some ID proponents predicted that its purpose would be discovered.

This was an instance of Atheism actually holding back the progress of Science, ironically. Where as the predictiveness of Intelligent Designed furthered the advancement of Science.
Far more likely it is a case of you passing on a made up story from some creationist website.

The reality of the situation is quite different, and junk DNA does actually exist. It is true that much of the non-coding DNA is now known to have a purpose, but totally false that atheist types were sure it was left over junk, or that Athiesm was holding back the progress of Science.
Even junk DNA serves a grander purpose in that it is used by evolution. But I am sure you don't want to hear that.

Yes. Perhaps you misunderstand my use of "entity" to mean a personality.
Apparently, yes. That is kind of what it means.

Yes. Your eyes I count as an entity. And your brain I count as an entity that uses the input and output of the entity of the eye.
Well then I fail to see where you were going with your original argument as it no longer makes sense.

No I do not tell you that. That is not a corner I paint myself into. Programs exist. In my case this afternoon, my mind is the end user in the operation of my computer.
But not the end user of all computers. There are computers that operate entirely separately from humans and never ever give any output to humans. I believe they still work with information. Why do they not have a circularity problem?

That is not a circularity problem. It terminates with me being the end user. I think the circularity problem arises when everything pertaining to the SOUL in its widest definition is a matter of physically stored information.
So explain what the problem is. Merely saying 'there is a problem' doesn't make a problem. In what way is a soul being information based make it circular and in what way is that a problem? I certainly fail to see any infinite regression that you talk of.

I just did. Your mind is the end user. Physically stored information being the end user of physically stored information is the circularity dilemma.
There is no dilemma. If you see one, then explain it clearly because right now I just don't see it.

I will keep my eye out to see if someone else has a problem in seeing an infinite regress there.
Let me know when they do. Maybe they can explain it to me in a way I can understand.

That's nice. But whether you do or not, reducing the SOUL and/or consciousness to physically stored information has problems in logic.
I would love to see those problems. So far you have made a claim about memory that proved to be unfounded, and now you are saying something about circularity, but I am not understanding the issue.

What is your TOP "undeniably valid" point so far ?
The fact that the brain undergoes change including atom replacement during its lifetime and that memories can last for a long time is not evidence that memories are not stored in the brain. This is undeniable on the realizations that:
1. The memory may have a very robust storage mechanism. (it is irrelevant what that mechanism is, the fact that such systems exist is all that matters).
2. the large scale structure of the brain can survive all its atoms being replaced - just as your whole body maintains its over all structure even though all the individual atoms are replaced during your life time. If memory is stored in large scale structure not individual atoms then memories can outlive atomic changes.

Inference to the best explanation can't be dismissed because it sound "religious".
Yes, but you have consistently rejected any evidence that didn't fit with your preconceived views suggesting that you are not using 'Inference to the best explanation'.

It also provides more dignity which I think is essential to our self assessment of humanity.
Ah. Now we get to the 'I believe it because I want it to be true' bit.

* Vedic definitions

Bhagavad-gita (BG) 7.4: "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind [manas],
intelligence [buddhi] and false ego [ahankara] - all together these eight
constitute My separated material energies [bhinna-prakrti]."

The first five elements - solid, liquid, radiating and gaseous substances
plus ether - are gross material and constitute the physical body. Three
other - mind, intelligence, false ego - are subtle material and constitute
the subtle (or astral) body. Witnesses of NDE/OBE describe this body as a
foggy cloud having a form of body. (Beings with only this body are called
ghosts). Subtle body is in a sense immortal because it stays with jiva
during her whole material existence.

Prana is a subtle material energy arising from rajo guna. It works as an
interface between gross and subtle body, enabling all the psychophysical
functions (i.e. animation - from Latin "anima"😉. Vedanta-sutra defines it
as a special type of air. Prana leaves the gross body together with the
jiva and subtle body at death and is reincarnated (Vedanta-sutra 2.4.13,
Bhagavata Purana 4.28.24). As such prana is also witnessed by the jiva
which is floating in prana in the heart cavity (Katha Upanisad 1.3.1).
Prana's movement leads to jiva's identification with the gross body (SB
4.29.71). Prana is one but acts in different ways. Lower pranas control
the senses and are under the control of main prana controlled by the
Paramatma according to desire and karma of the jiva. Vedanta-sutra 2.4,
Bhagavata Purana 4.25-28 (serpent analogy), Prasna Upanisad and other
scriptures contain elaborate descriptions of prana. Various Eastern
healing methods and martial arts work with prana.

BG 7.5: "Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior
[para] energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities [jiva-bhuta]
who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature."

Second chapter of Bhagavad-gita and other scriptures (like Padma Purana)
give detailed description of jiva. Ravindra Svarupa Dasa says:

"The jiva or atma is described as a separated, minute fragment of God, the
Paramatma. God is like a fire; the individual jivas, sparks of the fire.
As the analogy suggests, the self and the Superself are simultaneously one
with and different from each other. They are the same in quality, for both
they are brahman, immaterial substance. Yet they differ in quantity, since
the Superself (param brahman - supreme brahman - in Bhagavad-gita 10.12)
is infinitely great while the individual selves are infinitesimally
small."

Gross body undergoes six types of changes which are listed in the Niruktam
(1.1.2): jayate 'sti varddhate, viparinamate, apaksiyate nasyati ca - "The
body takes birth, exists, grows, reproduces, ages, and finally dies." The
jiva, however, does not undergo any of these changes. Krishna explains
this in the second chapter of Bhagavad-gita. In the thirteenth chapter the
body is described as the field of activities (ksetra), and the jiva as
ksetra-jna, the knower of that field.

The argument for the jiva not undergoing these changes is that she
observes all these changes and activities of the mind and intelligence as
well. Scriptures like Bhagavata Purana (SB) 4.28.40 confirm this: "King
Malayadhvaja attained perfect knowledge by being able to distinguish the
Paramatma from the individual jiva. The individual jiva is localized,
whereas the Paramatma is all-pervasive. He became perfect in knowledge
that the material body is not the jiva but that the jiva is the witness
[saksin] of the material body."

SB 7.7.23: "There are two kinds of bodies for every individual soul - a
gross body made of five gross elements and a subtle body made of three
subtle elements. Within these bodies, however, is the spirit soul
[purusa]. One must find the soul by analysis, saying, 'This is not it.
This is not it.' Thus one must separate spirit from matter."

The observer of a change is not affected by the change or he ceases to be
an observer. A passenger sitting in an airplane and unable to look out the
window cannot fathom its speed, but a man on the ground is able to observe
and measure it easily. Similarly, everyone has the experience of the six
types of changes occurring in one's own body, but the observer of these
changes is not the body - she is the jiva. Hence the very experience "I am
sick" proves that I (the jiva) am not sick, because if I was sick I would
be unable to perceive that sickness.

The "body-mind-jiva" system can be compared to a computer. The gross
material body can be compared to a hardware, the subtle body and the prana
to a software, and the jiva to their user. While living in the material
world, she has to communicate through them like a paralyzed person using a
computer substituting voice etc. If she becomes cured by a proper practice
she will not need this "bodily computer" - she can live in a immaterial
world in her own immaterial form (svarupa). This is the natural, original
position of each of us.


* Conclusion: jiva versus prana

Terms "soul" and "spirit" in Judeo-Christian tradition often describe
prana which is different from the jiva. Everyone speaks about "my soul"
which means that soul is outside of us. Nature of the jiva is
sac-cid-ananda vigraha (eternal, cognizant, blissful form). While in the
material world (whose nature is exactly the opposite) she is inactive and
subtle material body and prana serve her as a tool for manipulating gross
matter. Using the word "soul" for the jiva should be therefore considered
a makeshift choice due to lack of proper term in Western and other
languages. This should be remembered while translating Vedic texts and
reading their translations as well.

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]

I remember some years ago, 20+, a scientific study was done. It was found, at death, the human body looses weight. They took into fact that oxygen left the body, but there was 2-3 ounces that was lost that could not be accounted for.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I remember some years ago, 20+, a scientific study was done. It was found, at death, the human body looses weight. They took into fact that oxygen left the body, but there was 2-3 ounces that was lost that could not be accounted for.

I am willing to bet that that study was not very scientific - or never took place at all.
What did they do, line up 100 people on scales and wait for them to die?

Edit:
It could be this you were thinking of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am willing to bet that that study was not very scientific - or never took place at all.
What did they do, line up 100 people on scales and wait for them to die?

Edit:
It could be this you were thinking of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

It did take place. Just not well publisized