I know, I was merely stating that it is quite possible that there could exist an objective morality which we humans find repugnant, in which case, in my opinion, we would have good grounds to reject it. Furthermore, I would like to think that humans can figure out morality for themselves without it having to be there as a pre-determined system.

Why would anybody even want a system of "objective morality?" I much prefer a moality which changes and adapts to the times as it learns new information and gains new responsibilities as a result.

And fire and lightning were always defined as involving at least some supernatural element, until our ability to observe and measure them improved and gave us a better explanation. "Soul" only refers to something "inherently supernatural" due to our current inability to fully explain it. The concept of a soul does not require a supernatural element, it is merely explained (poorly) by a supernatural element. If the term soul was completely discarded, we would still be left with consciousness, emotions (or at least strong illusions thereof) and all of the other components that are typically amalgamated by the word soul. Even without a word, the concept remains, and the supernatural elements are, once again, merely representative of our species habit of turning to the supernatural when rational explanation fails.

I totally agree with you that the concepts that are typically placed under the rubric of "soul" would continue to exist even if we lost the word. My issue isn't with the concepts, it's with the semantics. By using the word "soul", you necessarily define these concepts as having a supernatural or preternatural element. As I said before, if the word "soul" switched to having a completely secular and naturalistic meaning, I would have no objection to your claims. But, as it is, the word "soul" is so wrapped up in spiritual baggage that describing the aggregate of mental functions you described as a "soul" seems to heavily imply a supernatural element. And, again, I have to disagree with your "fire" analogy. Fire, being a naturalistic process, can be defined without reference to a supernatural entity of any sort. The idea of a "soul", however, was and still is defined from the very start to refer to nothing else but a supernatural entity.

Modern neuroscience hasn't disproved an older concept of the mind- rather, it has offered explanations for parts that previously were unexplained. I'm not sure where you were going with that.

And once again, you assert that you can't talk about it in the absence of a brain. It is more correct to say that we have yet to observe any form of communication that did not involve a physical brain at some stage, but to state that it is impossible is again to make the assumptions that we are able to observe everything involved, and that accurately, and further that the conclusions drawn from it are accurate- an assumption I strongly dispute at all three stages.

There are plenty of older concepts of mind which modern neuroscience has rendered obsolete. Take, for example, the doctrine of "occasionalism", which stated that created objects could not be caused by effects, God instead intervened to make it appear as if there was cause and effect. Since such theories couldn't possibly be proved by observation (you can't put God in a test tube, after all) explanations which rely on the existence of the supernatural. will naturally fall by the wayside when we use a process-- science-- which sees the question of the supernatural as an irrelevance at best and an unwanted intrusion at worst.

And you seem to take a view on our knowledge of the human brain that is, in my opinion, unwarrantedly pessimistic. We don't know everything, but we do know something. Indeed, neuroscience is proving increasingly successful as isolating specific parts of the brain as being essential for specific functions, and specific interactions of neurons as being necessary for specific activities. Neuroscience has proven that there are, at least, some brain functions which can't exist independently of certain patterns of neurons.

About removing my brain- you most likely would not be able to observe consciousness after that- but this isn't necessarily due to a lack of consciousness on my part, as it could well be a lack of observational ability on your part. I am not suggesting that something supernatural is going on- I'm not discounting the possibility that there are currently limitations on what we are able to observe. Specifically with neurons, there appears to be some interesting things going on at the quantum/particle level, that we are not yet able to explain. It is an effect that we have no way (yet) to measure the cause of.

As I noted before I reject the notion of substance dualism as well- though as I've noted, shades of it make sense because an emergent property of an aggregated process is by no means the same things as the actual equipment used to generate the process and property. It's wrong, but while being wrong inadvertently makes a good point that I feel too often goes overlooked.

If I were to remove your brain, you'd have an empty head. If thoughts were still able to form in such a situation, then they would be non-physical, or at least highly atypical, in form and therefore, by definition, impossible to observe. Even if they weren't supernatural, they would be at the very least preternatural. If there is some way to observe such hypothetical thoughts, then it must be out of the reach of science as we know it, and thus would be impossible to verify. Even if such non-physical thoughts existed, the burden on proof would be on you to find a way by which they could be observed. Otherwise, any statements you make about them will be, by definition, meaningless. I agree with your other paragraph, though.

You certainly have knowledge, but you lack understanding and you overrate what you think you know. Who's to say they aren't rooted in anything physical, simply due to not having a brain? They may well have physical origins that we are as yet unable to detect, observe, and measure. You speak as though there are "real physical things we can measure" and "the supernatural." This is incorrect- there are real physical things we can measure now, real physical things we cannot yet measure, and there is the possibility for real physical things we can never measure, though I hate to admit that possibility. Your line of thinking, not too long ago, would dismiss the concept of bacteria out of hand simply because they couldnt' be observed or measured until relatively recently in our history.

Remember, I'm not arguing in favor of substance dualism- I am arguing in opposition to your de facto claim that the information we have available now is exhaustive, perfectly precise, and perfectly accurate. You have a pretty strong burden of proof for that, one that I would almost suggest to be impossible.

If you want to come across as being scientific minded, you need to severely limit your usage of terms like 'cannot' and 'impossible,' and recognize that there is a difference between flatout rejecting something and being unable to consider it from a scientific perspective; untestability should be met with the latter, rather than the former, until such time as it becomes testable- as most things, historically, have eventually become.

I must disagree. There are things that humans will, unfortunately, never be able to observe and measure, simple because of our physiology and psychology. In short, there are definite limits to our knowledge-- limits that are not just cultural but biological. It's hard to admit, and it's not something I like to admit, but it is sadly a fact. I count the supernatural-- that which transcends our natural world-- as being amongst those things that can never be empirically verified. Science, after all, is merely a streamlined version of what we do every day-- observing the world and taking conclusions from it. There is a very real difference between what we cannot yet observe and what is beyond our understanding.

And your second paragraph here misunderstands my main thesis. I never claimed that we know everything with absolute certainty. My argument is not about what we know, but rather about what we cannot know. All I'm saying is that all the non-physical explanations for thought that the substance dualism present, and indeed all non-physical explanations for thought, are either contradictory or so far beyond the scope of what it is possible for humans to observe that any conclusion drawn from said explanations would be meaningless.

Considering it supernatural vs. considering it to have physical causes is largely immaterial- it's just a matter of changing our understanding of what causes the phenomenon. There is also a very real difference between talking about "a supernatural elemental force" and "a visual phenomenon resulting from electrons emitting excess energy as light as they re-stabilize, after absorbing energy from a combustion reaction-" but they're both still fire.

Similarly, I don't believe that the supernatural aspects of the soul are innate to the term, but were similarly a hypothetical cause for the phenomenon itself, which is somewhat (though not exactly) synonymous with consciousness or sapience. We don't need to invent a new $5 SAT term for the 'soul,' because definitions and understanding can and do change with time.

What about the term 'soul' makes you feel that the supernatural aspects are innate to it in a way that the supernatural aspects of fire were innate to that?

It's simply that the term "soul" has always been defined as involving at least some supernatural or preternatural element-- i.e, it exists independently of the physical body and brain. And I still can't agree with your idea that the concepts of "soul" and "consciousness" are exchangeable, simply because of the fact that 99.99% of the definitions of "soul" involve an element which cannot be investigated. Hence why I would make a distinction between "soul" and "fire"-- the whole concept of a soul requires a supernatural element, whereas the concept of "fire" does not. If people were to stop using the word "soul" to refer to something which was inherently supernatural, then I would be happy which what you're saying, but since they haven't, I'm not.

Furthermore, if this "soul" requires a supernatural element, then this element must be proved with its own evidence, independent of the whole issue of substance dualism.

I understand your point- I think you're simply not grasping mine. You're dead wrong, as well. Even if there wasn't a term for it, the concept of the mind existed well before there was any meaningful knowledge about the function of organs, particularly the brain. What we refer to as the 'mind' is something that can be observed and tested without any understanding whatsoever of the brain itself. The simple existence of a brain is insufficient for human consciousness, as can be seen in the dead and brain dead- our understanding of it is that what we refer to as the 'mind' is the result of complex processes going on within the brain. The mind is not the brain, but is rather an emergent phenomenon due to the brains activity. Hence my comparison with automobiles and merging.

I see what you mean, but what I was saying is that the techniques of modern neuroscience has either disproved these old theories you mention, or rendered them as yet untestable. What I meant to say was that the modern understanding of the functions of the brain-- which is what you yourself defined as "mind" cannot be described without reference to a physical brain. Sure, you can talk about the mind without knowing about the brain-- but you can't talk about it in the absence of a brain. That is why I reject the main thesis of substance dualism-- the idea that the mind can be talked about in the absence of the brain.

This claim is false- Firstly, the claim that the existence of a physical brain is necessary for human consciousness is untestable; it would be more accurate to say that the existence of a physical brain has been necessary for human consciousness to be observed. Secondly, our understanding of the physical brain is currently insufficient to fully explain human consciousness, though I have little doubt we'll get there eventually. You've essentially offered a statement that is half untestable, and half false- doesn't this represent shades of the very issue you have with the term 'soul' in the first place?

Again, I agree with you that our understanding of the human brain right now doesn't allow us to describe human consciousness. What I was saying is that it's impossible to refer to consciousness without the presence of physical brain matter, and that substance dualism is therefore false. And as for "untestable"? Maybe I should remove your brain and see just how conscious you are after that.

And as for the rest of your post... even if these thoughts and experiences were to occur in the absence of brain matter, there wouldn't be a way of measuring them because they wouldn't be rooted in anything physical. Substance dualism fails the two tests of verification -- it is neither true by definition nor empirically provable-- and therefore couldn't possibly be confirmed by any experiment and therefore couldn't be part of any coherent description of the brain. Even if there was a non-physical element to the brain, how could it ever be measured? What use would it ever have to us in our quest to define what exactly our brains do? I totally agree with your comments about the scientific worldview and method, but substance dualism has absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to it.

Does it mean chucking the concept of a soul out entirely? Or does it simply mean that the phenomenon that the term 'soul' describes was simply misunderstood? It seems to me that whether we're talking about 1) a supernatural essence that gives rise to thought, emotions, consciousness et al vs 2) an aggregate of neurological processes that give rise to thought, emotions, consciousness et al, we're still talking about the same thing.

I was referring specifically to removing the religious or spiritual aspect of what is commonly known as a "soul". And I disagree with your last point. There is a very real difference with talking about "a supernatural essence that gives rise to thought, emotions, consciousness et al" and "an aggregate of neurological processes that give rise to thought, emotions, consciousness et al". The difference is the supernatural element which is necessarily a part of the former definition, and which renders it untestable. One of my main objections with substance dualism is the way in which it relies on a concept which is, by its very definition, resistant to any form of investigation.

The fact that we understand lightning to be an electrical phenomenon rather than a spear cast by an angry, capricious god doesn't change the fact that it's lightning.

The fact that we understand fire to be a visual phenomenon due to the heat of a combustion reaction exciting particles in the air causing them to release light, rather than an elemental force unto itself, doesn't change the fact that it's fire.

And there IS something to the idea of the mind and body being separate. The term mind doesn't describe the brain specifically, but rather the experiences and thoughts we have as a result of the brain. When an individual dies (well, at least barring a major head trauma), all of the matter that made up his or her brain remains intact- it is the activity, the process that is lost.

Stating that mind and brain are the same is like stating that, say, merging and automobiles are the same.

You don't seem to understand my point. What my point was was that what is commonly referred to as "mind" can only be understood as part of brain-- that the existence of a physical brain is both necessary and sufficient to explain human consciousness. Therefore, the "experiences and thoughts" you speak of cannot happen in the absence of physical brain matter. For example, if I were to go to your house and destroy the parts of your brain which control sight and hearing, there wouldn't be some non-physical backup system. You'd just be deafblind. Likewise for your brain example-- the thoughts in question are a result of brain activity and thus have no independent existence apart from said activity. The thoughts are entirely the production of the brain. I'm not saying that the brain and its functions are the same. I'm saying that the mind's functions have no independent reality outside of the brain, and therefore attributing the concept of separate existence to it is false.

Oops, wrong side. Sorry. It won't happen again. But seriously, we can see the upvotes.

There is no reason for you to have to announce an upvote.

I see. But the point is that substance dualism relies on something which is by its very definition impossible to test or examine. My point was that once physical explanations become both necessary and sufficient to explain the workings of the human mind, there will be no point in retaining outdated dualist explanations. Perhaps it would be better to explain my viewpoint via the use of necessity: physical actions in the brain are both necessary and sufficient to create a given effect, so no dualism is needed.

So long as it is accompanied by a strong safety net to protect the weak and the poor, then yes, it's the best system we have right now (although not necessarily the best system possible).

I'm not the one claiming the existence of this non-physical component to consciousness. You are, so show some proof. Except, of course, that you can't, because substance dualism relies from the onset on an idea which defies all investigation.