I hear what Kllrnohj is saying, but I don't think it all makes sense. I believe that logically, there must be a soul that is independent of our bodies. All our actions can be explained by neurons firing in a big chain reaction that was caused by The Big Bang oh so long ago. However, we have consciousness. We see things through our eyes, and recognize our thoughts. I don't believe this is possible if our consciousness is not due to an external presence - a soul. Were it not for a soul, we would act exactly the way we do, but there would be no "I," no consciousness, to be aware of internal thought and reflection. It would simply go unnoticed as one of many neuron firings.

Self awareness is overrated. I can write a simple AI program that knows it exists, that is simple...

I assume you won't agree with my above paragraph, so how do you define self aware? What is the criteria to becoming "self aware"?

I can write a simple AI program that knows it exists, that is simple.

But why can't consciousness be a function of firing neurons? Our brain processes sight, this we know (we even know where in the brain it happens), our brain processes our thoughts, and our brain processes our feelings (easily seen and interpreted by EKGs).

In fact, everything you do, say, think, and feel can all be directly observed with various scans. If the "soul" were external to the physical body, there would be some missing information. A lack of processing in various areas. But this doesn't happen. Indeed, alterations to the brain can result in drastically different behavior, speech, and feelings. Brain damage can cause peaceful people to become violent, and violent people to become peaceful. If such behaviors were indeed external, this wouldn't happen. You can even teach your brain to talk directly to computers and control things on a screen, and your brain tricks yourself into believing it is an extension of yourself (as in, moving a box on a screen becomes as natural as moving your own fingers - you don't have to "think" about the action, you simply "do" the action). All of that is obviously physical, as it is done by inserting wires in special locations. Remove or move the wires, and you have to re-train the brain (or it might not work at all depending on where the wires are placed)

But where does the decision to move the box on the computer come from?

if I have a soul, then every living thing must also have a soul.

As far as I am concerned, the brain is quite like a computer... given the same conditions/inputs(including past experiences), it will always produce the same reaction.

Conciousness is merely a by-product; "I" is simply a conglomerate of a.) long-term memory, b.) short term memory, and c.) current memory, as to say what one is planning to do at this very moment.

If the "soul" is not a material object, then what exactly is it? Sure, you can define it as the entirety of one's experiences in order to describe it as one's "being", but a spiritual definition is just a bunch of pointless crap.

Or what if you're part of the illusion itself? YOUR EXISTENCE IS A LIE!!!

Engrave this Quote It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, but that not every one is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite nuber of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so if every planet in the Universe has a populations of zero then the entire population of the Universe must also be zero, and any people you may actually meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

It's tricky for me to describe this phenomena, because it's something that an individual can only experience for him- or herself. It's similar to Decarte's concept of "Je pense, donc je suis." (I think, therefore I am.) As I experience the world, and my thoughts, I feel as though I am some entity that is viewing the world through the lens of this body. If my body existed but my soul did not, why would I feel that I am looking through a lens, rather than just being this body. I would go through the same actions, but I would not have a sense that there is some fundamental I observing it all.

As I said, it's very hard to put this sensation into words, and of course you cannot trust anything I say. But you can try to sense if you yourself feel anything like what I'm trying to describe, and if so, maybe you can trust that. After all, all we can be certain of in this world, is that we exist. We think, therefore we are.

Is it really aware that it exists? Or does it just perform its function without any consciousness. In order to say that something is aware of its existence, I think it would have to realize that it exists by itself. If you just program it to know that it exists, then its function is just to tell you that it exists.

That's hard to put into words. Maybe you could show us such a program?

You're taking a correlation between related events, and drawing cause and effect from that based on the assumption we live in a purely physical universe, and then using the assumed cause and effect as an argument for a purely physical universe. How do you know that our brain is causing emotion rather than responding to emotion?

Which is sadly an untestable hypothesis, and thus equally as unscientific as a claim that we have souls. You will never find two brains with identical DNA and identical past experience.

Code:

Thats like tatooing "I think therefore I am" on a dead guy and claiming he has consciousness.

Code:

Thats like tatooing "I think therefore I am" on a dead guy and claiming he has consciousness.

It doesn't know that it exists, it just knows the words "I exists"

Would you rather I have this instead?


Code: