1) The soul is not incorporeal - it is a part of the materiel world and gives rise to consciousness, as an emergent property of soul plus brain
Then it would be detectable in some or form. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
2) It is incorporeal yet through some mystery it interacts with the physical
Appeal to mystery, really is no way to argue.
3) The distinction between mental and physical is a human construct that doesn't necessarily reflect reality
This one I agree with. We actually
are our brains.
To us, it
feels as if "I" is an entity that is "trapped" in our body, which is another entity.
In truth, or perhaps better said: according to the objective facts and evidence, this is simply not the case and that which we call our "spirit" or "soul" or the "I" that is trapped in the body, or our "mental self" if you prefer, actually is just the physical neural network in our brains.
We ARE our brain.
That's what literally all the evidence points to.
And in fact, the more we learn about how the brain works, the more that idea is reinforced.
I think the first one is the best one
Well, I like it best certainly because it is defined as something that
should be detectable since it would have some kind of manifestation in detectable reality. So at least with that, you have something that in principle COULD have evidence to support it.
That's awesome, because it gives you a starting point to start the search.
So, call me when you detect the "soul" in measurable fashion.
Until then, I have no justifiable reason to accept that there is such a thing as a "soul" - which, btw, still hasn't properly been defined.... And that's kind of strange, in a thread asking the question if X has a soul. How can you even begin answering that question, if it isn't first crystal clear what a soul is?
Tell me, do cats have
gooblydockydoodoo?
Or is it just dogs?
See? If you don't define your terms, your questions are kind of pointless.
