I completely agree with this Lawrence, but you could switch "conscience",
"morality", "ethics", "memory" for "soul" here too. You can't see them, but
we know it's there. I sometimes wonder if people who think they have souls
actually experience them in the same way I have a conscience. Or if they are
just lying. Some might complicate things by saying they have no experience
at all but "believe" in their soul. The question is what does it matter if
you've got one or not. Or perhaps some of us have evolved to not have one.
Best
C
> | That the soul exists is obvious: there is a difference between a
> | person alive and that same person's dead body, and that difference is
> | the soul.
>
> To me that the soul does not exist is obvious. At least, without any weazel
> thoughts, it is obvious that there is no sign of a soul. I await *any
> demonstration that there is a soul. If there were such a thing, then it
> remains to be seen what it does. Perhaps it is like the appendix. But the
> appendix demonstrably exists.
>
> The difference between a person alive and that same person's dead body is
> that the body *was working and now isn't.
>
> If you want to call that ended process a soul, ok. I'd rather call it
> living. But if you do call it a soul; and if we acknowledge that it ends,
> then the question of its mortality / immortality would seem to be "obvious"
>
>
> L
|