[jrm4]

Op said "accepting," not proving.

And the older I get, this does make sense to me. Belief in a soul doesn't really require proof for me. I understand that this may not be satisfying in an academic way for some, but "humans have souls and machines probably don't" strikes me as the wisest default position until we have some other very strong proof otherwise.

[elch]

If humans have souls, do other organisms have them too? Is this a trait unique to Homo sapiens? Did Neanderthals, for example, have souls?

And if the theory of evolution is true, at what point did “humans” begin to possess souls?

[Ekaros]

Does zygote have a soul? At what point does soul form or start exist? Or is it there in two parts or something from start?

So many questions when you put tiniest bit of thought in whole concept...

[xvxvx]

Yes, a zygote has a soul. The oldest spiritual knowledge mankind has describes life beginning at conception.

[xvxvx]

The soul is what makes a being alive. Every living being has a soul.

[novemp]

Bacteria have souls?

[HDBaseT]

What exactly proves this claim?

Can we measure souls?

[willmarch]

What evidence is there for humans having souls to support your "wisest default"? What would constitute "strong proof otherwise" in the case of machines?

Wouldn't the wise position be that since there is no evidence of souls at all that the default should be that both humans and machines do not contain a soul until proven otherwise?

[jrm4]

Not to me. The wise position starts from "Humans are mysterious, but I am one and I see that others are like me, so I think we have souls." along with "I get what a machine is from first principles and based on all I know, they don't feel."

I get that this isn't as rigorous as one might like, but I think in the real world it's wise.