You can’t mention this idea and expect that we won’t. :mad:
I’m not sure why you think this is in any way relevant to an argument about souls.
The definition of life and death is pretty much utilitarian. We don’t care much about whether a fish is alive or dead, so we’re happy with a superficial examination “does it move? No? Must be dead”
On the other hand we’re very invested in the status of fellow human beings. What we really want to know is whether we can relive an individual as what we generally consider to be a human being. It’s purely a legal definition needed to answer some basic questions like “Is there really nothing we can do?” “Should we keep trying?” “Can we harvest his organs?” If we cared less, we could as well legally define death as “heart doesn’t beat anymore” as we do for most creatures. If we cared a lot more, we could consider brain dead individuals on life support as alive. Which they are, pretty much.
I guess it would be possible to define death in such a way that it could equally apply to all living creatures (complete interruption of all cellular process, or something like that). But what purpose would it serve? And besides why would it change re the issue currently discussed? If people have souls, they have one regardless of how we define death. If they don’t, they don’t, again regardless of whether a brain dead person is considered alive or dead. Same applies to sponges or viruses. They might have a soul or not. The way we classify them has no bearing on this.
Personnally, I find the alien hand syndrome less freaky than believing you’re not yourself. YMMV.
Anyway, I wanted to mention that following your link, I found another weird syndrome : the Zelig-like syndrome. The sufferer believes he’s a doctor when in presence of a doctor, a lawyer when in a lawyer office, an engineer when on a construction site, etc… He behaves (or at least tries to) like a doctor/lawyer/engineer, invents doctor/lawyer/engineer memories on the spot (he’s otherwise amnesiac), and so on…
So, who he is changes depending on his environment. As a result of brain damage.
I think that the idea of a soul was because people didn’t want to die so they thought maybe they lived on in another plain.
Bullshit. Of course sensations are data.
We are very trophic, (or else there wouldn’t be a widespread obesity epidemic.)
We are tropic internally as various chemical grades determine how things happen on a cellular level, but you’re right, I shouldn’t have used tropic there, when reflexive ismore accurate overall, I suppose - and of course we are born even more so.
ETA: And at some point are you going to answer the response to your allegations about Asian religions? Would you please list the ones that don’t have a “soul” concept?
Didn’t the Buddha also teach about reincarnation? How would that work, exactly, if he didn’t also believe in souls, or something very akin to them?
I’m genuinely not sure if that link shows that I’m right, or that I’m wrong.
You appear to be “wrong”, de facto. Buddhism seems to say that we cannot (speak)write Truth, you can only speak about Truth. The nice think about Buddhism is that it is so murky and elusive that you can just about knead it into whatever you want it to be/think it means. It appears that the way we (non-Buddhists) define “soul” is not coherent in their doctrine, but I am not clear on what they are trying to put forth. To me, it looks a bit like Huxley’s universal mind concept, where we emerge from and remerge with the universal consciousness, so the “soul” thing is only transiently discreet (a recombined composite of some sort), and may even be able to transcend its own momentary atomicity (meditation on unto Nirvana, come as you are, as you were, as I want you to be …)
Or not.
Are you sure it was brain damage, or did he stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Once you can accept that you can move on.