Our knowledge of a particular word has to be stored somewhere in the brain. The point is that we are unable to detect exactly where, which means that science isn't currently capable of detecting everything that exists.

No, you're missing the point Meta. A rock is still a physical object that was discovered and named, a soul isn't. — John Harris

Of course a soul isn't a physical object. But on what principle do you say that it wasn't discovered and named. The number two isn't a physical object but it was discovered and named, "two".

According to your flawed logic, someone coming up with the concept of Santa Claus and naming it would be the same as discovering the Mississippi river and naming it. I hope you see the problem in that. — John Harris

You're changing the subject now. We were talking about whether theory is required in order that the thing encountered is known by it's named. And clearly this is the case with the named river. Santa Clause doesn't fit the example because we do not ever encounter Santa Clause. We do encounter a soul though every time we meet a living thing. The problem is that you do not understand the theory, by which the thing encountered is called a soul, so when you encounter a soul, you do not recognize it as a soul. Likewise, if you encountered the Mississippi River and you did not understand that this thing is called the Mississippi River, you would not recognize it as the Mississippi River. So you might insistently argue that there is no such thing as the Mississippi River, and no one has ever encountered the Mississippi River, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that the thing you are looking at is the thing which many people call the Mississippi River.

Our knowledge of a particular word has to be stored somewhere in the brain.

No, it doesn't. We know where memory and mnemotic activity occurs but we have no idea where one word is located as opposed to another and in which particular site of that area. Go look it up.

And just because we don't know exactly where the word is stored, we know it is stored in some manner and somewhere in the memory site of the brain. We have no idea a soul even exists. Using your fallacious logic, we should be able to find God because we can't find exactly where "dog" is stored. Good luck with that one.

Seems like the cantankerous soul of Thanatos Sand has been reincarnated in this John Harris guy... :D

No, you're missing the point Meta. A rock is still a physical object that was discovered and named, a soul isn't.
— John Harris

Of course a soul isn't a physical object. But on what principle do you say that it wasn't discovered and named. The number two isn't a physical object but it was discovered and named, "two".

The real question is on what principle do you say the soul was discovered and named. Using your logic, God, the angels, and the demons were discovered because someone conceptualized and named them, like Aristotle conceptualized and named "soul. You must be quite the believer in God and the angels then.

According to your flawed logic, someone coming up with the concept of Santa Claus and naming it would be the same as discovering the Mississippi river and naming it. I hope you see the problem in that.
— John Harris

You're changing the subject now. We were talking about whether theory is required in order that the thing encountered is known by it's named. And clearly this is the case with the named river. Santa Clause doesn't fit the example because we do not ever encounter Santa Clause. We do encounter a soul though every time we meet a living thing.

I changed no subject, and you have no more idea you encounter a soul every time you meet a living thing than you know Santa Claus or God exists. And if you believe someone could have encountered a soul with no scientific evidence of it, you must believe the people who claimed to meet Santa Clause or God are being truthful too.

Likewise, if you encountered the Mississippi River and you did not understand that this thing is called the Mississippi River, you would not recognize it as the Mississippi River. So you might insistently argue that there is no such thing as the Mississippi River, and no one has ever encountered the Mississippi River, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that the thing you are looking at is the thing which many people call the Mississippi River.

No, not likewise, as when one encounters the Mississippi River they encounter a body of water science and other people can second as being true. Nobody has encountered a soul or given any evidence of it. Again, it's no different then saying one encountered God. And stop trying to do the Saussurean linguistic thing; you've got it all wrong.

Seems like the cantankerous soul of Thanatos Sand has been reincarnated in this John Harris guy... :D

Keep showing off that lack of a college degree, Caskev; it's truly endearing...:)

Keep showing off your lack of personality and soul! >:O

Oh, I've shown more than enough of that. I've had to deal with tag-teams of you soft-minds...:)

I argue that animated means ensouled. The ancient Greeks used the word alive to mean ensouled, and inanimate is dead...so while you say

the a material soul has never been discovered or recorded.

I see life, and hence the manifestation of souls all around.

There is no way around the supposition that life evolved from matter therefore life must be a potential property of matter. That is more than an assertion, it is the only possible way, unless you think Martians, or a Sky God came down and did it.

I argue that animated means ensouled. The ancient Greeks used the word alive to mean ensouled, and inanimate is dead...so while you say
the a material soul has never been discovered or recorded.
I see life, and hence the manifestation of souls all around.

And you argue incorrectly since all living things are animated and it is not the soul that causes it. So, your term fails. If you want to call life "souls" that's fine; it doesnt' make it so. Using your logic, you can call life "God's work" and that would make it so. It doesn't.

There is no way around the supposition that life evolved from matter therefore life must be a potential property of matter. That is more than an assertion, it is the only possible way, unless you think Martians, or a Sky God came down and did it.

I never denied any of this about matter, and none of it shows that souls exist. Sorry.

Nobody has encountered a soul or given any evidence of it. — John Harris

Of course we all have. It is the life force within us all. What Bergson called the Elan vital. Without it, there is only a cadaver.

The only question is whether the soul persists. Evidence of this is in the traits and skills we are all born with but are different because of different soulful history (memory).

@John Harris it would just be nice to see you disagree with someone without being insulting or condescending. (Y)

The real question is on what principle do you say the soul was discovered and named. Using your logic, God, the angels, and the demons were discovered because someone conceptualized and named them, like Aristotle conceptualized and named "soul. You must be quite the believer in God and the angels then. — John Harris

If it is demonstrated what type of existence these things have, how they exist, and how they are encountered, such that I can actually encounter them, then I am not accepting their existence simply because someone conceptualized and named them. I accept their existence because there is evidence that they are real, just like there is evidence that the number two is real.

I changed no subject, and you have no more idea you encounter a soul every time you meet a living thing than you know Santa Claus or God exists. And if you believe someone could have encountered a soul with no scientific evidence of it, you must believe the people who claimed to meet Santa Clause or God are being truthful too. — John Harris

So how do you know that the river you encounter is the Mississippi River?

No, not likewise, as when one encounters the Mississippi River they encounter a body of water science and other people can second as being true. — John Harris

Because some scientist says "that is the Mississippi river", you know it's true? That's a known fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's not an acceptable argument. How do you really know that it's the Mississippi River? You don't believe everything other people tell you do you?

Nobody has encountered a soul or given any evidence of it.
— John Harris

Of course we all have. It is the life force within us all. What Bergson called the Elan vital. Without it, there is only a cadaver.

Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life.

The only question is whether the soul persists. Evidence of this is in the traits and skills we are all born with but are different because of different soulful history (memory).

No, the only question is when people who believe in a soul are going to be able to even show its existence, much less prove it. Until then, those people are religious like those who say God made everything and Christ will save us. And no, our traits and skills are evidence of genetics, not a soul. Your poor science teachers.

John Harris it would just be nice to see you disagree with someone without being insulting or condescending. (Y) — CasKev

Sorry, as shown below, the only one who has been insulting has been you.

Keep showing off your lack of personality and soul! >:O

Just giving the bully some of his own medicine...

As I define "soul" it makes sense, it is what causes life, the vital principal....but I can't force feed that notion to you, either it makes sense to you or not.

Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life. — John Harris

Some religious people say God gave us life and other religious people say that the Big Bang/Laws of Nature have us life. My own preference is not too appeal to supernatural forces. Life is what we all experience and what we are. No need to bring in other mysterious forces. Life is Life. You wanted existence of a soul, well there it is. It is we are and drives us - the impetus to create, learn, and evolve. If you prefer some supernatural forces and you have lots of company.

The real question is on what principle do you say the soul was discovered and named. Using your logic, God, the angels, and the demons were discovered because someone conceptualized and named them, like Aristotle conceptualized and named "soul. You must be quite the believer in God and the angels then.
— John Harris

If it is demonstrated what type of existence these things have, how they exist, and how they are encountered, such that I can actually encounter them, then I am not accepting their existence simply because someone conceptualized and named them. I accept their existence because there is evidence that they are real, just like there is evidence that the number two is real.

None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any.

I changed no subject, and you have no more idea you encounter a soul every time you meet a living thing than you know Santa Claus or God exists. And if you believe someone could have encountered a soul with no scientific evidence of it, you must believe the people who claimed to meet Santa Clause or God are being truthful too.
— John Harris

So how do you know that the river you encounter is the Mississippi River?

I've never encountered it and never have to because others physically have. How do you know your parents are your parents or the White House is in Washington D.c.?

No, not likewise, as when one encounters the Mississippi River they encounter a body of water science and other people can second as being true.
— John Harris

Because some scientist says "that is the Mississippi river", you know it's true? That's a known fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's not an acceptable argument. How do you really know that it's the Mississippi River? You don't believe everything other people tell you do you?

Of course it's an acceptable argument, and it's not an appeal to authority. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Millions have been at the Mississippi river. They arent' authorities. Get your fallacies straight before you make yourself silly again. And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents? You don't believe everything others tell you do you? I sure don't.

Just giving the bully some of his own medicine...

Nope, since I showed you started the bullying, I was giving the bully (you) a giant dose of his own medicine.

Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life.
— John Harris

Some religious people say God gave us life and other religious people say that the Big Bang/Laws of Nature have us life. My own preference is not too appeal to supernatural forces. Life is what we all experience and what we are. No need to bring in other mysterious forces. Life is Life. You wanted existence of a soul, well there it is. It is we are and drives us - the impetus to create, learn, and evolve. If you prefer some supernatural forces and you have lots of company.

Sorry, you appealed to supernatural forces since you appeal to the soul which has never been shown or revealed in nature. So, you're right there with the Christians and the Satanist; I'm sure they'll love you.

And , lol, life is life is not life is the soul, and neither you nor anybody has shown it is. So, if you prefer your supernatural force, the soul, that's fine. I'll stay with the natural world.

John Harris

As I define "soul" it makes sense, it is what causes life, the vital principal....but I can't force feed that notion to you, either it makes sense to you or not.

No, it doesn't make any sense, since there's no evidence it exists or causes life. I clearly can't force feed that reality to you.

You are a hoot. Life is supernatural. OK.

None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any. — John Harris

Just because it hasn't been demonstrated to you doesn't mean that it hasn't been demonstrated. Do I need to mention that word, "prejudice" again?

And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents? — John Harris

I trust my parents, I've known them all my life. I admit that it could be a big hoax, but I don't think so. How do you know that there is no such thing as the soul? Did your parents tell you that?

science isn't currently capable of detecting everything that exists — CasKev

I return to my previous point above. Perhaps we don't yet have the means of locating and measuring the soul.

Science is unable to detect or measure any qualia - the inner experience of life. Should we deny that we can experience all of qualia and our whole inner, subjective experience of life? I guess some might, banishing all that is interesting about life into the corn fields of illusion.

John Harris You are a hoot. Life is supernatural. OK.

No, you're the hoot. I correctly said the soul is supernatural....poor kid.

No, you denied life. Life is the soul. You asked evidence, you got it. What the heck do b you think life is? Some illusion?

None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any.
— John Harris

Just because it hasn't been demonstrated to you doesn't mean that it hasn't been demonstrated. Do I need to mention that word, "prejudice" again?

I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't. So, I'm going to have to mention the words "prejudice," "straw-man" and "terrible reader."

And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents?
— John Harris

I trust my parents, I've known them all my life. I admit that it could be a big hoax, but I don't think so. How do you know that there is no such thing as the soul? Did your parents tell you that?

Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents. Do you believe everything everyone tells you. I suggest you get that DNA test.

↪John Harris No, you denied life. Life is the soul. You asked evidence, you got it. What the heck do b you think life is? Some illusion?

No, you denied life by calling it the soul and you gave no evidence. You don't even know what that word means. That's not surprising, you don't know what "life" means, either.