No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point.
— John Harris

and I'm sorry my 'oh, my' made you feel defensive. next time I will remember that shock and surprise doesn't bode well with you.

Oh boy, and here comes the adolescent gas-lighting. This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:)

So Logical positivism is not "real Positivism" now? :-}

You're starting to look like a bad joke, man.

↪John Harris

So Logical positivism is not "real Positivism" now? :-}

You're starting to look like a bad joke, man.

I never said that at all. So, you're straight up looking like a bad joke, man...:)

I know you're not very good at it, but try making arguments more, and try trolling less.

This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:) — John Harris

I'm here to learn about philosophy, not to try hard to show I know it. The only one getting in the way of that, is you.

i realize you'd like to believe you always point out really good and meaningful things but we're squabbling over what you think is hollow and pretentious right now. and again, all you pointed out is that we have differing opinions, just in a really acerbic manner.

so, if you could move on, please do. otherwise i've nothing more to say to you.

No, I've pointed out much more than we have differing opinions. Since you've had astounding difficulty figuring that out, I suggest you move on.

This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:)
— John Harris

I'm here to learn about philosophy, not to try hard to show I know it. The only one getting in the way of that, is you.

No, all those "oh mys" and gaslighting show you care more about cheap pretension than making arguments. Considering the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised. So, you probably should be moving on.

And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods.
— John Harris

So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???

No, I didn't say that there at all. But thanks for proving you can't show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. I wasn't expecting you could.

I don't have to show how something natural that might not be capable of being found could avoid being found, because I haven't claimed any such thing exists, merely that it might exist

And if you're asserting that something that can't be found might exist, you need to show how. The fact you have failed to do so undermines your claim. I'm not surprised.

So, don't ask for the impossible, and pretend that my inability to do so in any way supports your contentions. I am now not even sure what your position is, since you seem now to be inconsistently claiming that you allow for the same possibility that I do (which if it were true would make your initial disagreement with me totally senseless).

So, you admit such a thing--like the soul--is impossible to be found. Good; I'm so proud of your growth. I allow for the possibility we might not have found something yet; I don't, and never have, allowed for the fact it cant' be found.

I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar.
— John Harris

What are those if not mechanical extensions of the senses?

They're not extensions since they don't connect to the actual organ. They are heighteners and expanders of the senses that allow us to detect which the senses alone cannot detect. Key element at the end.

So, you're not equating Comte with "real Positivism", as you appeared to be? You're a slippery prick!

If you want to make pathetic allegations, you need to actually quote me. What a shock, you're afraid to do so.

No, all those "oh mys" and gaslighting show you care more about cheap pretension than making arguments. Considering the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised. So, you probably should be moving on. — John Harris

Don't you dare make assumptions about what I care about. you couldn't possibly know that. I joined this forum for a reason and it was not to deal with arrogant people like you who are so stifling that anything other than ridiculous arguments ensue because you don't know how to have a civilized discussion. you are the one that defaults to attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, you are the one who jumps to conclusions and likes to upset people not out of an avidness to learn about philosophy, just out of a need to prop yourself up on personal attacks. If you really cared about the quality of discussion here, you would leave your arrogant, nasty remarks out of it.

So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???

No, I didn't say that there at all. But thanks for proving you can't show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. — John Harris

the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found — John Harris

There is no consistency in what you have been arguing, so it seems pointless to respond further.

There's absolute consistency in what I said and you didn't show otherwise. You're either deluded or just lost. Either way, you and I are done. I won't read anymore of your posts.

Don't you dare Don't you dare make assumptions about what I care about. you couldn't possibly know that. I joined this forum for a reason and it was not to deal with arrogant people like you who are so stifling that anything other than ridiculous arguments ensue because you don't know how to have a civilized discussion. you are the one that defaults to attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, you are the one who jumps to conclusions and likes to upset people not out of an avidness to learn about philosophy, just out of a need to prop yourself up on personal attacks. If you really cared about the quality of discussion here, you would leave your arrogant, nasty remarks out of it.

I stopped reading this at "don't you dare" which confirmed everything I said about you and your pretentious theatrics. So, you and I are done too. I won't read anymore of your posts on this thread.

That light glowing thing that makes us tick.. oh, I don't know. Perhaps an entity or matter separate from body but obviously in control of it, something that gives us life. — Locks

There's your problem. You don't even know what it is you're inquiring about the existence of. Set that straight first.

Anyone wish to discuss their notion of a soul? Mine, simply put, is persistent memory, analogous too a hologram where the hologram represents the basic fabric of the universe.

No, deep like your nether regions...:) — John Harris

Making fun of him with a reference to nether regions, which are dark? What a wacist comment.

Apparently pronouns aren't your forte. Go look up "your;" it will blow your mind.

Is that the only thing it will blow?

You better be careful. Buxtebuddha is going to get jealous of your new pronoun friend.

Are you a physical being? Are you an emotional being? How do you exist? What is your true potential? I will only be touching on the simple physical and emotional portion of this, however.
The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind when I hear about your physical being, however, in this case, I will delve into a more general description as to stimulate discussion. Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds, and feelings of food and sex (intimacy). (The only important things in life). Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life, building relationships/destroying them and all that entails. Whether it be God, hope, or faith, your spiritual being is where your intangible thoughts lie, those underlining understandings that don't fit in this world. Then on top of your ability to live a physical life, socioemotional life, and a spiritual life, you also have the ability of logic. I can label another operation of the brain: understanding or the wisdom of experience and knowing what to do with it. Learning: the ability to capture knowledge and experiences. And Reason: the ability to critically think, as well as communicate your knowledge and wisdom. These three tools are leading to a single meaningful ability: perspective, and or the ability to create an opinion. This is an intrinsic theory, but it is what makes us, humans, who we are: The ability to experience life physically, to live life socially, to seek God, and to have an opinion about it. It is the basis of who we are as a species. Directed and organized by some pounds of gray matter and electricity. (No wonder Frankenstein and his monster were “tangible”)

Undercover as what? — Locks

Try this:

you show you're an angry, hostile person... — John Harris

Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly. — John Harris

They are demonstrations that the logic of calculations are useful, therefore they are logical demonstrations. Making cars fly is a logical demonstration, just like drawing geometrical figures on a piece of paper, or laying out the foundation of a building using the Pythagorean theorem, these are demonstrations of the validity of logic.

No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory. — John Harris

That's a strange thing for you to say, because I came into contact with the soul through reading Plato's demonstrations, so clearly you're wrong when you claim nobody did. I found the soul. And if I did, then quite likely many others did too. There was a whole school of people called Neo-Platonists, and they believed in the soul. I really don't think you ever read any Plato, or else you probably would have come into contact with the soul too. Or are you just lying when you claim that you never detected the soul in any way? I know it's untrue when you say that no one ever detected the soul in any way, so it's probably equally untrue when you say that you never detected the soul in any way.

I have a deep soul. — John Harris

Evidence that you are lying.

I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question. — John Harris

I just answered that, I've known my parents since birth, and I recognize them. You however have not answered my question. When you come across a body of water which you do not recognize, how would you know that it is the Mississippi river without either referring to some theory, or an appeal to authority?

So when you come across a soul, how would you know it is a soul without referring to some theory of what a soul is. How would you expect that a soul would ever show itself to you as a soul, unless you referred to a theory of what a soul is, to be able to designate the thing before you as a soul?

What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated. — John Harris

You really should reconsider what you're saying here. Scientific experimentation is used to verify and falsify theories. It does not demonstrate whether or not things exist. That is a matter of metaphysics, ontology.

Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly.
— John Harris

They are demonstrations that the logic of calculations are useful, therefore they are logical demonstrations. Making cars fly is a logical demonstration, just like drawing geometrical figures on a piece of paper, or laying out the foundation of a building using the Pythagorean theorem, these are demonstrations of the validity of logic.

You really hate science, which is pretty sad since it allows you to drive a car and could one day save your life. Those aren't just demonstrations of logic. They are scientific demonstrations of specific physics and engineering formulas, chemical designs for gasoline, and engineering designs. Try that.

No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory.
— John Harris

That's a strange thing for you to say, because I came into contact with the soul through reading Plato's demonstrations, so clearly you're wrong when you claim nobody did. I found the soul. And if I did, then quite likely many others did too.

No, what I said was perfectly lucid. What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it. I would have loved to have seen you read The Lord of The Rings. You must have yelled "I encountered Gollum and some Orcs!" And the Neo-Platonists belief in the soul doesn't make it real. You must also believe Christians's belief in Christ and Satan make them real. Interesting.

I have a deep soul.
— John Harris

Evidence that you are lying.

No, evidence you're just trolling, which shows you have no soul.

I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question.
— John Harris

I just answered that, I've known my parents since birth, and I recognize them. You however have not answered my question.

No, you didn't answer that. Many adopted kids know their parents since birth, then find out when they're 40 they were adopted. That could be you. So, you don't know they're your parents, and recognizing them is far from enough. And I've answered all your questions...and debunked all your arguments.

So when you come across a soul, how would you know it is a soul without referring to some theory of what a soul is. How would you expect that a soul would ever show itself to you as a soul, unless you referred to a theory of what a soul is, to be able to designate the thing before you as a soul?

And you still neglect the fact there may be no soul and nobody has shown there is. You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical.

[What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated.
— John Harris

You really should reconsider what you're saying here. Scientific experimentation is used to verify and falsify theories. It does not demonstrate whether or not things exist. That is a matter of metaphysics, ontology.

No, you should really reconsider what you are saying. Without science, we'd never have discovered many species. You clearly haven't heard of Darwin. Considering your disdain for science, I'm not surprised. Anyway, say hi to your parents...even if they're not your real ones.

p.s. Disregard John Harris and Thanatos Sand. Evidently they're clones, or else one of them is a sockpuppet. Though I'm not really authorized to, I apologize for them on behalf of this forum's membership.

You wrote:

I am having a hard time understanding how our experience of consciousness as an animal removes the possibility of a soul

.
It doesn’t remove the possibility of a soul. It merely removes the need to assume one.
.
The fewer assumptions, the more believable.
.
The explanation that doesn’t need unsupported, complicated or elaborate assumptions is more appealing.
.
William of Ockham was an English philosopher who lived from late 1200s to around mid 1300s. He’s credited with Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony.
.
Here’s how Merriam-Webster describes that principle:
.
“A philosophic and scientific rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, which is interpreted as preference for the simplest of competing theories, over more complex ones. …or a preference that explanations for unknown phenomena be first sought in terms of known quantities.”
.
I prefer an explanation that doesn’t need to assume or posit something more than what’s obvious.
.
Because our experience can be explained by our animal-ness, then why assume another entity?
.
Why assume an artificial dissection of the animal into a body and a soul? We know there’s the body, the animal, and that’s enough to explain our experiences. No need to assume anything else.
.
We humans, as animals, could be regarded as more elaborate relatives of the Roomba.
.
There are two obvious differences:
.
1. We’re much more complex and elaborate.
.
2. Completely different origin and purpose. Roomba was designed by humans, for the purpose of floor-vacuuming. We were evolved by natural-selection, selected for survival and reproduction (which of course includes support and protection of offspring).
.
But we have something basic in common with Roomba: We’re purposefully-responsive physical devices.
.
An animal has been selected by natural-selection, to respond to its surroundings in a way that furthers its natural-selection-caused purposes mentioned above. To do that, of course it must assess its surroundings, and judge what actions would help its purposes. How would that look to the animal? Exactly like our own experiences and efforts look to us
.

or how 'if then' factors interacting with each other disqualify the possibility.

.
It doesn’t really disqualify the possibility of another metaphysics being true. No metaphysics can be proved.
.
But the metaphysics that I propose, the metaphysics based on those “if-then”s, doesn’t need or make any assumptions, or posit any brute-facts.
.
Therefore, among metaphysicses, it’s the hands-down winner, by the Principle of Parsimony.
.

if you'd like to expand on them, go for it.

.
Well I’m having a go at it in this post.
.

If we were born to experience the same world without a soul like influence yet individualized

.
Our evaluation of our surroundings and efforts toward our goal, were built into us by natural-selection.
.
Individual feeling is natural for us, because our naturally-selected task is to further the survival and reproduction of the individual that we are.
.

, then how did humanity become individuals to begin with?

.
Nearly all animals are, for the reasons described above. There are a few kinds of animals, such as ants and bees, in which the individual is completely subordinated to its community. But that’s relatively unusual. I’ve personally experienced that a fire-ant cares nothing for itself. If you’re near its nest, it’ll get onto you and sting you, with the understanding that it will of course get squashed as a result. It doesn’t care. It only cares about making it unpleasant for you to be near its colony’s nest.
.
But nearly all kinds of animals instead act as individuals, to further the naturally-selected-for goals for the individual that they are.
.
Humans, of course, are social animals, and so our species is strongly influenced by social considerations and interactions among humans. …often or usually to our detriment, of course (…though it must have been adaptive at some time in our prehistory).
.
Wolves have a lot of that social-ness too, which is why it so readily happened that some wolves and humans began to work together. (…the wolves being eventually bred into dogs).
.

how did culture and artificiality arise

.
Yes, some people object that our complex and varied culture, our technology, the ability of some individuals to lie so well, and the ability of other individuals to believe lies so well…Some people object that those things make us too different from the other animals to be called animals.
.
But I disagree. We’re just animals with special abilities. And I feel that animalness-deniers overestimate human rationality, as exemplified in societal matters in any particular day’s newscast. Societal affairs routinely exhibit an unmistakable and strong herd-instinct.
.
About my name: The direct Latin transcription of its Cyrillic spelling would be Osipov. It probably became Ossipoff when my Russian grandfather pronounced it during his immigration, and, with it written only in an unfamiliar alphabet, the immigration-clerk wrote it down, from its sound, in a customary English-like spelling for how it sounded.
.
Two of my grandparents came from Russia right after the Russian-Revolution. My grandfather had been an officer in the Tsar’s army, and had to immediately leave the country when they lost.
.
I’d guess that Osipov might roughly approximate the meaning of Josephson, but that’s only a guess. I’ve heard that it isn’t a really unusual name in Russia.
.
Michael Ossipoff

What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it. — John Harris

No, that's not the case. As I tried to explain, Plato's writing explained how I would recognize the soul, such that I could identify it as "the soul". This is just like a description might explain to you how you would recognize the Mississippi River so you could identify it as such. I have always been in contact with my soul, all my life, except I didn't recognize it as my soul until I read Plato. Likewise, there was a time when I was very young when I didn't recognize my parents as "my parents", but I was still in contact with them at that very young age. And prior to Europeans coming to North America there were many people living near the Mississippi River, who did not recognize it as the Mississippi River.

You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical. — John Harris

Why do you find this to be nonsense? How would you know that it is Christ, if you came across Christ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it.
— John Harris

No, that's not the case. As I tried to explain, Plato's writing explained how I would recognize the soul, such that I could identify it as "the soul". This is just like a description might explain to you how you would recognize the Mississippi River so you could identify it as such.

Yes it is the case. And It is absolute nonsensical and hilarious that you compare the directions for finding something that someone theorized to directions to an already-physically discovered river. Using your outlandishly faulty logic, if Tolkien told you how to find the Gollum, you'd go...and the sad thing is you would.

Likewise, there was a time when I was very young when I didn't recognize my parents as "my parents", but I was still in contact with them at that very young age.

And now you're saying your parents are no more real than a non-proven soul..

You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical.
— John Harris

Why do you find this to be nonsense? How would you know that it is Christ, if you came across Christ?

[Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that I'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts.

John Harris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Sorry, Noble. I have no time to read the story of how your mind works. It's late.