[This post has been deleted.]

[dale coba]

The soul is something that many if not people believe exists, based on no evidence at all.

That seems like a good argument for it not existing - that is, it is a psychological phenomena, not the result of a reasoned analysis.

Yes, compactly put. The concept of the soul must start out on the "highly suspect" list, for psychological reasons. Irrational optimism is the foundation of most dating; chasing prey; or fleeing prey - very beneficial to propagating genes, to believe in the hope, no matter how irrational.

The Soul's Burden:
1) "Highly suspect" list.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
3) Despite incalculable effort by so many, no evidence, no progress reconciling science and the soul.
(Corollary: no one has found a way to exploit, to monetize the principles; even to stand in the park with a hat on the ground, doing soul tricks for quarters. If something is said to be cool but the science can't be monetized, does it exist?)

- Dale Coba

[xodar]

I don't know what a "soul" is except that it's a concept that apparently holds that your consciousness and identity can become detached from your body.

However, maybe machines can help show whether consciousness and identity are products of the brain or are separate entities that link to certain highly developed functions.

The problem is exactly how you would set up an experiment to prove it, since it, too, could be interpreted either with if a machine appeared to be a conscious entity -- did the electronic circuits produce it or did it enter a sufficiently complex setup?
Is there a point at which it can be said to be present? Certainly dogs are conscious and have relatively complex personalities (not all of its dimensions are likely accessible to us) are they close to the threshold?

Wouldn't any measure of conscious identity have to be based on observation of living creatures then applied to the machine?

[Svengli]

Why think so in the first place, you ask? The concept of the soul is naturally a honey trap.

I've always felt that are concepts that human nature very much wants to be true.
Wanting does not mean they are all true.

Dale breaks it down beautifully.

And the topic of philosophy is very interesting indeed. The methods of philosophers such as Socrates and Descartes has been to do something like "doubt everything and so see what one is certain of". But Dale's argument actually is good explanation why this process just come up with crap. Well, certainly not entirely crap but definitely reinforces "honey pot" concepts rather than demystifying them.

Anyway, physicist David Deutsch has a nice argument that the dominant ontology is holding back the creation of a general AI so the foibles of philosophy is certainly something to look closely at.