[altruios]

What do even mean by 'soul'?

What do you mean by 'supernatural' - and (assuming your definition is the standard one of 'not detectable by any measurement') by what mechanism that could possibly affect physical matter? (the onus is on you to prove the positive claim that there exists the supernatural or soul to begin with, which there is currently no evidence for).

The concept is self defeating by its own definition, either it is physical in some capacity (and therefore can be measured and replicated through yet unknown means) or it is not (and therefore indistinguishable from not being there at all).

Feeling that there 'must be' a soul is not enough to prove that it exists.

The feeling of experience is not enough to prove that experience is in anyway supernatural.

> What is impossible is to replicate a soul with purely physical matter.

What? Why? Where is the proof of this?

First and foremost, I'll give you an in. There is a difference between material, and processes like waves, waves I would argue are non-physical things manifested in physical material: you might want to start there.

But all roads lead to Rome from that line of thinking too, so you might need to come up with something far more clever.

[slopinthebag]

Not OP but I'll take a shot since I have somewhat similar sounding views. (I assume OP is talking about consciousness and it's origins when they use the term "soul").

> What do you mean by 'supernatural'

I would just say something outside our current capacity for understanding. How does that quote go...something like "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". "Not detectable by any measurement" isn't right because we clearly detect it in some way since we are discussing it now.

> Feeling that there 'must be' a soul is not enough to prove that it exists.

We don't have any proof that consciousness is part of the brain and is produced by it either. We also can't even prove other people are conscious besides ourselves. In this domain the idea of "proof" becomes less relevant.

In a simulation of a storm, does anything get wet? In a simulation of a mind, is there a real conscious? A real soul? Or just a simulation of one?

My guess is our brains act as a receiver for some "field" of consciousness. Of course it's just a guess, same as yours or anybody else's conceptions of consciousness and the spiritual world.

[altruios]

> I would just say something outside our current capacity for understanding. How does that quote go...something like "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

So your definition is merely that the supernatural is the natural we have not been able to measure yet? That's just the 'god of the gaps' by a different name.

> isn't right because we clearly detect it in some way since we are discussing it now.

We could be discussing invisible pink unicorns. so those must be real since we are able to discuss them, right? (obviously not: the same reasoning holds true for why the soul {probably} doesn't exist).

> In this domain the idea of "proof" becomes less relevant.

This is counter to your earlier stance that the supernatural is the natural we haven't yet been able to measure. either proof exists or you have to accept things on faith: you can't have it both ways. this is poor reasoning.

> My guess is our brains act as a receiver for some "field" of consciousness

Not impossible, and could in theory be testable and falsifiable.

There is a lot of conflicting thinking here. Very muddy.

[soledades]

"Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.

Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

There is some dogmatic insistence in GP, but equally dogmatic throwdowns on the other side of the argument are often passed over as trivially obvious.

I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight.

Onuses are on whomever says they exist ;)

[Timwi]

> "Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.

> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

Did you mean to say “matter” where you said “mind” and vice versa? It’s obviously the reverse of what you said; everything consists of matter, but what specific arrangements of matter you want to call a “mind” is obviously the abstraction.

Ockam’s razor is not really applicable here. Unless, that is, you want to ascribe something mythical to the mind that exists beyond matter — then it’ll trigger.

[altruios]

> "Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.

...wat?

> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.

No: you have that reversed. Matter can be reasoned about, matter is a useful abstraction, e=mc^2. energy = matter*speed of light^2. No such formula exists for the mind.

> I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight.

Why is insistence a useful counter weight to factual arguments?