How to understand and explain the soul?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Asking why the other one is self-evidently wrong (which literally means that it requires no explanation) is not going to get him far.

Why not? If I claimed that it is self-evident that I exist, I could provide grounds for that assertion. It’s just as fair to ask for the grounds for his assertion!

You don’t need to provide proof for self-evident claims unless you realise that it is not self-evident to the other person. Saying that you consider it to be so won’t get you far. As I said, there are two sides to the argument and one need to understand both sides.

Showing that the other guy doesn’t have an argument doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. You need to find out what it should be so you can refute it and to find out what yours should be to promote it.

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t need to provide proof for self-evident claims unless you realise that it is not self-evident to the other person. Saying that you consider it to be so won’t get you far.

Yes, but you certainly can ask for an explanation. “Self-evident” doesn’t mean “by virtue of being born a human, I know it’s true.” We discuss. We learn.

 

[o_mlly]

In his first email he linked an article from Psychology Today discussing how the idea of dualism can’t be true because our understanding of how the mind and body work do not allow for a soul to exist.

I suppose you might suggest he cite from a magazine other than one presumptively all about the science of the soul (psychology (n.) “study of the soul,”) to support the claim that the soul does not exist.

Is there any difference in kind to the material composition of the brain of an animal to that of a human being? No.

Is there any operation of the brain of an animal not explainable by the matter of its composition? No.

Are human beings capable of thinking in ways not possible for animals? Yes.
Intellection, the abstraction of concepts from particulars, allows humans to advance from knowing to understanding. (If not so then what else explains the progress of mankind in interacting with the world as opposed to the lack of progress in animals?)

If the animal and human brain are materially the same then what causes the human intellection faculty effect? A non-material cause, i.e., soul.

If human beings have faculties from non-material causes then what is the source of these unique effects? Anther non-material being(s) i.e. spiritual being(s).

If the external non-material cause of this human faculty does not die then why is it necessary that its effect die? It is not necessary.

 

[rom]

How can I make solid arguments for the existence of an immaterial soul?

One way is to show that we are capable of operations or actions that are immaterial or free of the conditions of materiality. Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which the soul is.

1. Our soul can produce abstract concepts which are immaterial. You can draw five different circles on the blackboard, with different sizes, different colors, and different locations on the blackboard. Each circle drawn is limited by material conditions. For example, this circle may have a 3-inch radius, is yellow, and is located at the upper left hand corner of the blackboard. That circle has a 10-inch radius, is red, and is located at the center of the blackboard. Every existing circle on the board is limited by what I have called “the conditions of matter,” or “the conditions of materiality.” However, my concept of “circle” is not limited to being this size or that size. It is not limited to being this color or that color. It is not limited to being in this or that location of the blackboard. Yet my concept “circle” applies to all of these existing circles. Therefore, my concept is, in that sense, immaterial, since it is free of all the conditions of materiality. Now, if we can produce concepts that are immaterial, such as our concept of “circle,” “truth,” “honesty,” etc., then these concepts must be proceeding from an interior source or principle that has an immaterial nature, which our soul is. Our concepts are coming from our soul, not from the brain. Of course, the soul uses the brain to gather sense-data. But it is the soul, not the brain, that produces abstract concepts and thoughts by which we know things. The brain is a material organ and is not capable of performing immaterial operations. It is not capable of producing concepts that are free of matter or material conditions.
2. Our soul has consciousness. It has the capability of reflecting back upon itself, and be aware of its self-identity. When you look at yourself in the mirror everyday, you can see your body changing. You don’t look the same ten years ago as you do today. But you are aware that it is the same you, the same person, who looked at that mirror ten years ago. Now, that thing you call “self,” which was unaffected by the changes in your body, is your soul. Now, if the soul is a material entity, then it should change when the body changes. But that is not case. The soul is unchanged and is aware of its unchanging self-identity. Yes, the soul may have increased in wisdom and knowledge. But these are spiritual changes that did not result from changes in your bodily appearance. Your bodily changes had no effect in your soul.

To be continued below …

 

[rom]

1. The soul has an understanding of what the future means. No material object has a knowledge of what the future is, as future. This is because the future is not material until it becomes present. Only an immaterial principle, like an immaterial soul, can possibly have a knowledge of futurity. Yes, computers are used to make forecasts. But it is not the computer itself that makes the forecast. It is the man behind the computer that does that. The computer itself does not know what forecast means. In fact, it does not know what anything means. That is why our spelling checkers cannot catch some of our big and embarrassing spelling mistakes. If you type, “I’m nut an idiot,” the spelling checker will not detect the mistake, because “nut” is a valid English word in its dictionary. It doesn’t know that it was a spelling mistake because it does not know what the word means. The computer is nothing but a high-speed idiot. It is the soul that knows and understand, not the machine, and not the brain.

Now, back to the main argument. If the soul is capable of understanding and other immaterial operations (such as producing abstract concepts), then it itself must have an immaterial nature. Now, the soul is capable of understanding and other immaterial operations, as shown above. Therefore, the soul must have an immaterial nature.

You don’t need to provide proof for self-evident claims unless you realise that it is not self-evident to the other person.

A self-evident proposition is a proposition whose truth becomes immediately known as soon as the terms of the proposition are understood. Hence, a self-evident proposition requires no proof, and it would be the height of folly to spend time proving what is already evident. However, a proposition may appear self-evident to one person, but not to another. If a self-evident proposition is not evident to someone, it is likely because the terms are not understood. In that case, all that needs to be done is to explain or clarify the meaning of the terms of the proposition. If the proposition is really self-evident, the truth will manifest itself and no further proof or demonstration is required.

 

[Freddy]

The brain is a material organ and is not capable of performing immaterial operations. It is not capable of producing concepts that are free of matter or material conditions.

OK. Let’s take something immaterial - like memories. If what you say is correct, that the brain ‘is not capable of performing immaterial operations’, then it’s not the brain that is producing these memories.

So what happens when the part of the brain associated with memories is removed?

 

[rom]

OK. Let’s take something immaterial - like memories. If what you say is correct, that the brain ‘is not capable of performing immaterial operations’, then it’s not the brain that is producing these memories.

There are two kinds of memories: sensitive memory and intellective memory. Sensitive memory is not immaterial; intellective memory is. Let me discuss each separately.

1. Sensitive memory is a power by which we remember sensible percepts of things we previously perceived. This power is something we share with brute animals, for even dogs remember their master whom they had not seen for a while. Unlike concepts, which are abstract and universal, percepts are concrete and particular. Thus, you may have a percept of your mother, which includes how she looks like, what her voice sounds like, etc. Your sensitive memory can remember this.
2. Intellective memory is a power by which we remember abstract concepts of things we previously understood. My concept “mother” relates to my understanding of what a mother is. It is universal, and is not tied to the image of a particular woman who is a mother. Unlike percepts, which are material and particular, concepts are abstract and immaterial, and they reside in an immaterial power, which we here call the intellective memory. The intellective memory is actually not distinct from the intellect itself, which is a power of the soul.

The brain is the seat of our sensitive memory, but not of our intellective memory. Our concepts do not reside in the brain. They reside in our soul. The sensible images that we sensed and perceived from the outside world are in our brain. But our concepts and understanding of what things are, are in our soul. The auditory images of words we use in speech are in our sensitive memory and, therefore, in the brain. But the meaning or significance of those auditory images are in our intellective memory, not in the brain.

So what happens when the part of the brain associated with memories is removed?

Then you will not be able to recall the sensible images and percepts of things you perceived before. It does not mean that you will lose your understanding of the concepts you had before. The problem is that a person with brain injury or sickness might not be able to communicate either, because communication requires the use of words, which require the sensitive memory or remembrance of auditory images. However, it would be a serious mistake to think that the person who could not communicate properly is completely devoid of understanding. I know this for a fact because my mother had that problem when she was still alive. She suffered a stroke that affected her brain and her ability to speak. It is not that she could not speak, but the right sounds and words would not come out from her mouth. She knew what she wanted to say, but couldn’t say it right. For her it was very frustrating. Yet her mind was clear, and could understand us perfectly. She also was actually able to watch and enjoy TV.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

OK. Let’s take something immaterial - like memories. If what you say is correct, that the brain ‘is not capable of performing immaterial operations’, then it’s not the brain that is producing these memories.

There are two kinds of memories: sensitive memory and intellective memory. Sensitive memory is not immaterial; intellective memory is. Let me discuss each separately.

All you are doing here is differentiating memories of material things from memories of immaterial things. But I don’t have a memory of concepts as such. I understand them. Nobody would ask you if you remembered the concept of motherhood. They would ask you if you understood the concept. You are conflating two entirely different processes.

Notwithstanding that we know which areas of the brain are used for the two processes. One for memories and one for conceptual thinking. That is, there is a material part of the brain that manages memory and a material part of the brain that deals with concepts. Apart from the fact that this shows they are obviously different, it shows that there are material processes responsible for both.

“Thanks to Carnegie Mellon University advances in brain imaging technology, we now know how specific concrete objects are coded in the brain, to the point where we can identify which object, such as a house or a banana, someone is thinking about from its brain activation signature. Now, CMU scientists are applying this knowledge about the neural representations of familiar concepts by teaching people new concepts and watching the new neural representations develop. Published in Human Brain Mapping, the scientists have – for the first time – documented the formation of a newly learned concept inside the brain and show that it occurs in the same brain areas for everyone”. https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroimaging-concepts-brain-2113/

 

[rom]

All you are doing here is differentiating memories of material things from memories of immaterial things. But I don’t have a memory of concepts as such. I understand them. Nobody would ask you if you remembered the concept of motherhood. They would ask you if you understood the concept. You are conflating two entirely different processes.

Yes, you DO have a memory of concepts that you understood previously, because you are not always thinking of them. If you lose them when you are not thinking of them, then it means that you have to go through the process of concept formation again just to put them back in your mind. But you know that is not what happens. If you know what the word “honesty” means because somebody previously explained to you what it means (let’s say, by giving you different examples of honest acts), then the word does not have to be explained to you again just to bring it back to your mind. All he has to do is say the word “honesty” and the concept comes back to your mind. And this happens because you have a memory of that concept.

That is, there is a material part of the brain that manages memory and a material part of the brain that deals with concepts. Apart from the fact that this shows they are obviously different, it shows that there are material processes responsible for both.

I will answer this, but I need to explain something first. So bear with me. Concepts are immaterial. But they can be represented by something material. For example, the sound of the word “mother” is a material representation of the concept “mother.” The spoken (or written) word is only a material representation of the concept that we have in our mind, and we should not confuse the word with the concept it represents. The words can change, but the concept may stay the same. For example, the English word “mother” would be rendered “madre” in Spanish, “mutter” in German, or “ina” in Filipino. All different sounds, but representing the same concept in the mind. The same thing is true of visual images. These are material things that can represent something immaterial. The symbol “∞” is a material representation of the mathematical concept, “infinity.” Like words, we can employ different symbols and visual images to represent the same concept. As a matter of fact, in our brains we also employ some form of “visual images” to represent our concepts. These visual images take the form of an arrangement of neurons. You can have different neural arrangements to represent different concepts, in the same way that you can have different sounds and symbols to represent the same concepts. Visual images and neural arrangements are material, and they can be detected in the laboratory. But it is an unpardonable mistake to think that these are our concepts. They are the material representations of our concepts, but our concepts remain undetected in the soul. The truth is, our concepts are impossible to detect. Concepts are abstract and universal, whereas every neural arrangement is concrete and particular.

 

[Freddy]

Visual images and neural arrangements are material, and they can be detected in the laboratory. But it is an unpardonable mistake to think that these are our concepts. They are the material representations of our concepts, but our concepts remain undetected in the soul. The truth is, our concepts are impossible to detect. Concepts are abstract and universal, whereas every neural arrangement is concrete and particular.

C’mon, Rom. How far do you have to stretch this argument until it snaps. It’s paper thin as it is. All you have done is explain that concepts are immaterial and actual objects aren’t. And that a mental image of a mother is material and is found within the brain and a concept of a mother is not and it’s dealt with by the soul.

I’ll grant that there are universals. If you have one rock and there’s another over there then there are two rocks. If everything ceased to exist then that principle would still stand. The ratio of a circle’s diameter to it’s circumference would remain true even if there were no material circles. These are our universals. Concepts on tbe other hand are different.

A concept is immaterial in the sense that it doesn’t necessarily relate to material objects but the very meaning of the word requires someone (or some intelligent thing) to mentally formulate that idea. A concept doesn’t exist without someone holding that idea in their head. Using their brain. Using the material of their brain. That’s what it actually means: An abstract idea.

You can have pi without anyone existing to think about it. But the fact that it is immaterial has no (name removed by moderator)ut on the brain (or soul). But a concept is an idea and even if that idea is immaterial the idea can’t exist unless it’s perceived by someone. And that perception, just like any other thoughts about mothers or hopes or cats and dogs or unicorns takes place in the material brain.

We know that memories are found in certain parts of the material brain. We know that about concepts as well. All the evidence points to everything connected to human thought being produced by physical and chemical and electrical changes in all that wet meat between your ears. And there is literally nothing to indicate otherwise.

 

[rom]

All you have done is explain that concepts are immaterial and actual objects aren’t. And that a mental image of a mother is material and is found within the brain and a concept of a mother is not and it’s dealt with by the soul.

Exactly. And the argument is solid, which is why it will not snap.

The ratio of a circle’s diameter to it’s circumference would remain true even if there were no material circles. These are our universals. Concepts on tbe other hand are different.

No, sir. Unlike percepts, which are particular, concepts are universal. My concept of “circle” applies to any circle, not just this circle or that circle.

A concept doesn’t exist without someone holding that idea in their head. Using their brain.

A concept doesn’t exist without someone holding that idea in his head. But NOT just using his brain, but using his intellect, which is an immaterial power. If all that we have is a brain and no intellect, then we will not be different from brute animals. What makes us different from brute animals is not because we have brains and they don’t have any. In fact, some animals have bigger brains than we have. What makes us different is our possession of an intellect, which gives us the power of conceiving abstract and universal concepts.

But a concept is an idea and even if that idea is immaterial the idea can’t exist unless it’s perceived by someone.

Concepts are not perceived, but conceived by the intellect. However, it is true that a concept does not exist unless it is conceived by someone that has an intellect.

And that perception, just like any other thoughts about mothers or hopes or cats and dogs or unicorns takes place in the material brain.

Our conceptions (not perceptions), just like any other thoughts about mothers, etc., take place in the intellect, which is a power of the soul. The brain, being a material organ, is incapable of performing immaterial operations, such as understanding universals, distinguishing truth from error, and deductive reasoning. These are all functions of the intellect, not of the brain.

All the evidence points to everything connected to human thought being produced by physical and chemical and electrical changes in all that wet meat between your ears.

What is being produced by physical, chemical and electrical changes in the brain, is not our thought or universal concept itself, but the material “images” (in the form of neural networks) that represent the concepts in the intellect. Just as words and vocal sounds can represent a meaning, neural networks can represent concepts. However, just as the sound of a word is NOT the meaning of the word, so the neural network is not the concept it represents. Being material, our brains cannot produce concepts that are universally free of matter. They can only produce the particular neural networks that represent the concepts.

 

[rom]

Can you provide any evidence for any of those assertions?

Sure. The following are the sentences included in the paragraph you quoted. (I broke down the compound sentences into simple sentences as well.)

1. The brain is the seat of our sensitive memory.
2. The brain is not the seat of our intellective memory.
3. Our concepts do not reside in the brain.
4. Our concepts reside in our soul.
5. The sensible images that we sensed and perceived from the outside world are in our brain.
6. Our concepts and understanding of what things are, are in our soul.
7. The auditory images of words we use in speech are in our sensitive memory.
8. As a consequence of #7, the auditory images of words we use in speech are in the brain.

Now, let’s see. #1, #5, #7 and #8 are accepted psychological facts and do not need to be proved. #2 and #3 are not assertions but denials. Therefore, I don’t have to prove them. I will only prove my assertions. Also, #6 is practically identical to #4, and will not be proved again. Therefore, I only need to prove #4.

4. Our concepts reside in our soul.
Proof:
Part I
Anything that exists in matter will have the limitations and conditions of materiality.
But concepts are free of, or do not have, the limitations and conditions of materiality (See Post #24 above)
Therefore, concepts do not exist in matter or, equivalently, in anything material.

Part II
Concepts do not exist in matter or, equivalently, in anything material. (from Part I)
Now, the brain is a material entity.
Therefore, concepts do not reside in the brain.

Part III
Concepts reside either in our brain or in our soul.
But concepts do not reside in the brain (from Part II)
Therefore, concepts reside in our soul.

Note: It may be necessary for you to read what I wrote in Post #24 and #25 above to fully understand the argument.

 

[Freddy]

Our conceptions (not perceptions), just like any other thoughts about mothers, etc., take place in the intellect, which is a power of the soul. The brain, being a material organ, is incapable of performing immaterial operations, such as understanding universals, distinguishing truth from error, and deductive reasoning. These are all functions of the intellect, not of the brain.

These are just claims. There is zero evidence to back this up.

What has happened is that philosophers, way before there was any idea that man is actually an animal and way before there was any way to delve into the neurological processes of the brain, made assumptions about the world, wondered what separated us from the beasts of the field (lucky happenstance is all), looked at what we could do versus assumptions about what other animals appeared not to be able to do and declared that it was our intellect that differentiated us. Not realising it was simply a matter of degree.

So no argument would be proposed that we were in any way animal-like (even though we are animals recently out of the trees) because there was nothing on which to base an alternative view. And none is accepted now apparently even though we know better. What led from the original assumptions is now part and parcel of some rather ingrained beliefs and lead some to the ultimate belief.

If the arguments were being made today they wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow because nobody would be listening to them. You are trying to base a belief system on dated arguments. They might have worked when they were initially proposed because there weren’t many other options. But once locked into the final conclusion they cannot be abandoned. Because any argument against them now is taken to be an argument against that conclusion.

 

[Freddy]

MasterHaster:

Can you provide any evidence for any of those assertions?

Sure. The following are the sentences included in the paragraph you quoted. (I broke down the compound sentences into simple sentences as well.)

1. The brain is the seat of our sensitive memory.
2. The brain is not the seat of our intellective memory.
3. Our concepts do not reside in the brain.
4. Our concepts reside in our soul.
5. The sensible images that we sensed and perceived from the outside world are in our brain.
6. Our concepts and understanding of what things are, are in our soul.
7. The auditory images of words we use in speech are in our sensitive memory.
8. As a consequence of #7, the auditory images of words we use in speech are in the brain.

Now, let’s see. #1, #5, #7 and #8 are accepted psychological facts and do not need to be proved. #2 and #3 are not assertions but denials. Therefore, I don’t have to prove them.

Whaaat? Are you seriously expecting anyone to allow that? 2 and 3 are what you are trying to prove and you say because you word them as a denial you don’t have to?

 

[rom]

These are just claims. There is zero evidence to back this up.

I just posted my arguments why concepts do not reside in the brain but in the soul (Post # 33 above). So, why are you saying these are just claims with zero evidence? I think you would get more respect if, instead of making silly remarks like this, you spend your time refuting the arguments that I presented.

What has happened is that philosophers, way before there was any idea that man is actually an animal and way before there was any way to delve into the neurological processes of the brain, made assumptions about the world, wondered what separated us from the beasts of the field (lucky happenstance is all), looked at what we could do versus assumptions about what other animals appeared not to be able to do and declared that it was our intellect that differentiated us. Not realising it was simply a matter of degree.

On the contrary, the old philosophers realized that the difference between men and animals was a difference in kind, not just a difference in degree. Actually, the old philosophers make more sense than many people today who take pride in the advancement of modern science, and yet are blind to see that the science that humans have is a different kind of knowledge than animal knowledge. Human science involves understanding and conceptual thinking, creativity and inventiveness. Animal knowledge is mostly sense-based and instinctive, lackluster and stereotyped. If the primates were solving algebra problems, and we are solving more difficult algebra problems, then there is just a difference in degree, a quantitative difference. But when we are doing algebra and they can’t even do simple math (such as multiply or divide), then there is a difference in kind, a qualitative difference. This kind of difference will manifest itself in the things that we do. Look, there was a time when men and wolves looked up in the sky and watched the birds fly. Today wolves still look up in the sky and watch the birds fly, but men are already flying faster than the birds! And yet, wolves have been on this planet for far longer time than men have been. And you call that just a difference in degree? This kind of blindness on your part is the result of closing your eyes to immaterial reality, or to realities that cannot be sensed. The soul, the intellect, and the qualitative difference between human and purely animal intelligence are immaterial realities that cannot be sensed, but which are understood by the mind. The attitude of ignoring or disregarding them produce biased intellectuals who look but do not see, and who speak but don’t make sense. I think that you need to review your philosophical position and your intellectual prejudices before trying to convince anybody that we differ from brute animals only by a difference in degree.

 

[rom]

If the arguments were being made today they wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow because nobody would be listening to them.

Really? I don’t know about you, Freddy. But people listen to me and love me when I tell them that they are far superior to brute animals.

Whaaat? Are you seriously expecting anyone to allow that? 2 and 3 are what you are trying to prove and you say because you word them as a denial you don’t have to?

Sorry, Freddy. In his post MasterHaster requested me to prove my assertions, not my denials. And it makes sense, because we have a rule in debate that says, “He who asserts must prove.”

Now, . . . why don’t you try to prove the opposite of my negative propositions? If, for example, you think that our concepts reside in the brain, why don’t you try to prove it? All you did was cite an article that . . . fails to distinguish concepts from the neural representations of concepts, and you thought you’ve presented evidence?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If the arguments were being made today they wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow because nobody would be listening to them.

Sorry, Freddy. In his post MasterHaster requested me to prove my assertions, not my denials. And it makes sense, because we have a rule in debate that says, “He who asserts must prove.”

Exactly. And you have asserted that souls exist. The op wanted to know how to prove this. All you have done is assumed it and then spent not an inconsiderable amount of time explaining what you think the soul does.

Dakman72:

How can I make solid arguments for the existence of an immaterial soul?

Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which the soul is.

How about this:
Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which my pet dragon is.

You could swap ‘my pet dragon’ for ‘soul’ in any of your posts and they will still be logically valid. But they will do nothing whatsoever to prove that my pet dragon exists. You have spent all this time trying to show what souls do and why you think that they do it but you haven’t written one word to convince anyone that they actually exist.

 

[CoffeeCatholic]

Since he is an atheist, you may or may not be able to win your argument with him. When you have reached the impasse’ that you just can’t keep debating this with him, perhaps let him know that there is absolutely no way he can promise everyone in class that there is absolutely ‘nothing’ after we die. But that perhaps he needs to just admit that it’s a Schrödinger’s cat situation. Until he personally dies and finds out whether or not he has a soul, he’ll have to believe we do have souls and we don’t have souls. Only after his own death can he promise anything to anyone… and of course, then, he can’t make promises to anyone anyway.

 

[rom]

Since he is an atheist, you may or may not be able to win your argument with him.

That’s ok, CoffeeCatholic. He is giving us plenty of examples of how not to think about the soul. By allowing him to give his objections in this forum, we then get the opportunity to explain the fine points of St. Thomas’ teaching on the soul, and by exposing his fallacies, we learn the pitfalls to avoid.

 

[rom]

Exactly. And you have asserted that souls exist. The op wanted to know how to prove this. All you have done is assumed it and then spent not an inconsiderable amount of time explaining what you think the soul does .

I did not just assume that an immaterial soul exists. In Post#24 I gave the OP the premises he needs to deduce the conclusion that an immaterial soul exists. Right at the beginning I said: “We are capable of operations or actions that are immaterial or free of the conditions of materiality. Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which the soul is.” Since it is already obvious, I let the OP add the final conclusion himself: “Therefore, an immaterial soul exists.” Am I wrong in presuming that the OP is intelligent and can add that conclusion himself?

How about this:
Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which my pet dragon is.

That’s bad substitution, Freddy. Your pet dragon is not immaterial; it is imaginary. A human soul is immaterial but real, and is the source or principle of the real intellectual operations that produce our universal concepts. An imaginary entity, like your pet dragon, cannot be the source of real operations, but is only the plaything of the imagination. It exists as long as the brain (which is also the seat of the imagination) is alive. Once the brain dies, your pet dragon ceases to exist, which betrays its materiality and intrinsic dependence on matter. It is totally unlike our immaterial soul which, because it is unaffected by changes in the body, will survive the death of the body. Now I hope you understand why I spent some time explaining what the soul does in my Post # 24. In paragraph # 2 of that post I talked about our consciousness as giving us internal and introspective evidence that our soul is unaffected by changes in our body. That is vastly important because it gives us a clue, not only to the immateriality of the soul, but also to its immortality. If our soul is intrinsically independent of the changes that happen to the body, then it also will survive the death of the body.

You have spent all this time trying to show what souls do and why you think that they do it but you haven’t written one word to convince anyone that they actually exist.

Read Post #24 again. The conclusion you seek is implicitly there, but if you want to make it explicit, just add at the end of my opening paragraph, where I said “which the soul is,” this statement: "Therefore, an immaterial soul exists." Obviously, if the immaterial soul is the source of the immaterial operations that we make, then that immaterial soul exists. Are you happy now?