Where's the argument. You define a soul then assume it's existence from it's definition. Is it an ontological argument?

Consciousness means mind

Where's the argument. You define a soul then assume it's existence from it's definition. Is it an ontological argument? — Gregory

I don't think you know what an argument is.

Consciousness means mind — Gregory

Have you published on the nature of the mind?

I deny the first premise which is that souls are simple which we were trying to prove.

Indivisible means simple

And what is your argument? Or do I once again have to remind you that you're not God and you don't get to determine what's what?

Construct an argument in which 'minds are complex' is the conclusion and then we can see what premises you needed to generate it. If those premises are not self-evident truths of reason - or themselves derivable from some - your argument fails.

We don't know what the physical or mental are, so saying we're "physical" is a moot point. You can't possibly know what you mean by that, as you lack global perspective. — theRiddler

I'm pretty sure I do, but more importantly, what do you think they are?

There are a myriad of ways of survival of consciousness after death, but not if you're so myopic you can only see the small picture. — theRiddler

Feel free to list some. We're here to discuss and hear other's view points. If you can ease my ignorance, I'll have not issue with that.

There is no denying that you are your body. This is my premise because it's actually self evident unlike yours. Something simple means it's nothing because without parts is nothing. All self evident

Have you published anything on the philosophy of mind? It's just you're bizarrely confident for someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

How many meditations did Descartes publish again? 5 or 6?

I don't publish is journals, no. But this is a forum for everyone

So instead of talking about simplicity, you should have said you had direct access to the spiritual. And you do! This is because everything is spiritual.

However, a soul implies the person is divided between two principles as it's essential components. That is not something, though, that is experienced in life. Identity is unity

I don't publish is journals, no. But this is a forum for everyone — Gregory

I know you don't. I do though. And you don't know what you're talking about. 'Consciousness' is a 'state'. It's not a 'thing'. Not an 'object'. It's a 'state'. And what it is a state of.....is called 'a mind'.

There's a big debate about what kind of a thing 'a mind' is - is it a material thing or an immaterial thing. But it is a thing, not a state.

Minds 'have' consciousness. They aren't themselves the consciousness. That's as confused as thinking that as water is wet, water is the wetness.

But anyway, this is pointless as, like I say, you're far, far too confidently wrong to be able to be aware of it.

A soul cannot exist without a state. It's state is itself

Buddhist.

Perhaps Buddha would say you divide in yourself because you are divided. Idn

A good test for BS is whether you can say the opposite and it sound just as profound to a Buddhist. Apply it to everything you have ever said. So,

A soul cannot exist without a state. It's state is itself — Gregory

Hmm, "A soul can exist without a state: it is itself, not a state". Yep. I think we can safely say that your average Buddhist would go 'ooo' to that one just as readily as to the reverse.

a soul implies the person is divided between two principles as it's essential components. That is not something, though, that is experienced in life. Identity is unity — Gregory

"A soul implies a person who is not divided between two principles as its essential components. That is something, though, that is experienced in life. Identity is not unity". Yep. You could just as easily have said that, right?

Anyway, do try and focus on the issue at hand. There is an afterlife. All the evidence implies there is one. Minds are indestructible, bodies not. So when our body is destroyed, we continue living. And it harms us to lose these bodies. So there's an afterlife, and it's hell.

Then dying itself is experienced in body and soul

Time

matter <> experience
matter <> experience
matter <> experience
matter <> experience
No matter <> experience

So we pass thru time experiencing matter. But is conscious experience always based on the matter staying biological? I say the experience can live on in the body, go into quantum realms, be everywhere, and feel anything. Just because the body changes state this doesn't mean experience can't continue. The experience at the end of death is eternal as the consciousness experiences a new way of feeling. You can't stop consciousness from experiencing even though experience springs from the body. As long as there is a universe the experience, the consciousness, can continue