I sense that I am distinct in reality from my body and physical brain because I can observe them in the first person. This experience, my conscious subjective state, appears radically different from simply a lump of brain detecting the world or itself in a computerlike way. Viewing the world as me appears drastically different than some other brain viewing the world, even if our physical brains were exactly the same, since it would not be "my" self undergoing the experience. That this difference exists despite the two physical brains being physically the same tends to suggest to me the existence of my soul having a reality distinguishable from my physical brain alone.
Others have noted this same perception of the Self:
The Skeptics' answer that I've heard is that consciousness and the Self are just processes and illusions by the brain, whereby what really happens is that the physical brain lump detects (or is conscious of) itself, and this generates the perceptive that it has its own "Self".
This reminds me of the line of reasoning that the mind's experiences cannot be revealed in purely physical terms, and so this subjective experience must have a reality and existence that is not purely physical:
I also think that the anecdotal evidence of ghosts who exist in an afterlife state also suggests that the soul exists in reality distinct from the physical body. However, skeptics argue that the existence of ghosts is not shown to be real.
Perhaps one argument can be that "meaning" is real and yet not physical, and so not everything that is real in the world is purely physical. Further, a being that creates meaning - an animal, its mind and its soul - must be real and yet not be physical either.
I think that this might be what the writer below was getting at:
This reminds me of the argument based on intentionality:
Another argument recently has been that the soul exists in quantum particles and thus can survive the death of the brain, as in the form of information:
Since the soul is immaterial, I am not sure that it is possible to prove whether the soul has a real existence instead of just being a product of some people's imaginations and myths.
One argument is that God and the soul are not provable through science and scientific material experiments, but only through experience:
Others have noted this same perception of the Self:
When I meditate and let thoughts come and go without attaching myself to them, what is the self remaining unattached and who is allowing the thoughts to come and go? It seems obvious at times like that that I am not my thoughts but then what am "I" if not an entity of some description channeled through and influenced by this brain and body? A brain is essentially a computer, but who's running it? There is no scientific explanation for consciousness and nobody has any idea why the sum of our brains components create it, there is no centre of consciousness in the brain.
CMV: The soul exists • r/changemyview
The Skeptics' answer that I've heard is that consciousness and the Self are just processes and illusions by the brain, whereby what really happens is that the physical brain lump detects (or is conscious of) itself, and this generates the perceptive that it has its own "Self".
This reminds me of the line of reasoning that the mind's experiences cannot be revealed in purely physical terms, and so this subjective experience must have a reality and existence that is not purely physical:
Still, while I can experience the electrochemical processes that show me hot or cold, and other senses, I am not experiencing a metallic metereological device's electronic senses of weather changes, but most would say that this doesn't mean that the weather device has a soul and mind. Likewise, even a rock or leaf can react to a raindrop and can show the raindrop's effects on itself. But just because something has an experience, reacts to, or detects something doesn't mean that it has a soul or mind, right? Conscious experience is different than just a mere sensation or reaction, but skeptics would say that this difference is just a matter of the physical object detecting itself.Conscious experience cannot be explained in purely physical terms
Conscious experience and awareness of sensations appear impossible to explain in purely physical terms. As Moreland writes, "The subjective texture of our conscious mental experiences-the feeling of pain, the experience of sound, the awareness of color-is different from anything that is simply physical" (52).
Take, for example, the sensation of pain-a mental event. Can it be that it just seems to be a mental event and is really a physical event or property? It seems that the answer must be no because sensations have as their very essence "the felt quality or sensory property that makes them what they are" (44).
But a felt quality has no physical features. This is evident from the illustration Moreland gives about a deaf scientist who becomes an expert on the neurology of hearing. He might be able to know everything about the physical process of hearing, but there is still one thing he would not know: what it is like to hear something. Since the felt quality of something-that is, the experience of what it is like--is the essence of a sensation, it follows that a sensation is not physical. Thus, there is a dimension to hearing (and all sensations) that is beyond the physical. And if there is something beyond what is purely physical, then dualism is by definition true. The Existence and Nature of the Soul
I also think that the anecdotal evidence of ghosts who exist in an afterlife state also suggests that the soul exists in reality distinct from the physical body. However, skeptics argue that the existence of ghosts is not shown to be real.
Perhaps one argument can be that "meaning" is real and yet not physical, and so not everything that is real in the world is purely physical. Further, a being that creates meaning - an animal, its mind and its soul - must be real and yet not be physical either.
I think that this might be what the writer below was getting at:
Life is synonymous with activity. It is easier to understand how inanimate objects are moved by something already in motion than to understand how animate entities are moved. Animate entities have a source of immanent activity (coming from within)... In human [beings] there is an activity th[at] transcends physical sensation even though in its present mode of existence it is extrinsically dependent of matter (extrinsic meaning it is not dependent on matter for its existence).
This activity is called "cognition" the activity of the intellect, and volition, the activity of the will in man. they are both faculties of the soul. the soul is called spiritual because of the nature of this activity, which is not physical, but spiritual. Since it is spiritual activity, there is necessarily a principle of this activity, the principle is a spiritual soul, the elans vital
~ynotzap
How do we prove the soul exists?
This reminds me of the argument based on intentionality:
Intentionality
A physical object can have many relationships to another physical object. It can be close or far, above or below, larger or smaller than. But it is nonsense to think of a physical object as having a purpose or aim towards something. It would be nonsense to think of a collection of atoms intending to do something. So it does not seem that a physical entity can have the property of intentionality. Intentionality could only exist if there is something more than the physical realm.
The Existence and Nature of the Soul
Another argument recently has been that the soul exists in quantum particles and thus can survive the death of the brain, as in the form of information:
But I think that this is not a very good theory. First, it would equate the soul with physical material - quantum particles. Second, just as the brain's memory cells could deteriorate and get rearranged as the body decays and is taken up by new natural and organic processes (eg. when eaten by a vulture), the same could happen to the quantum particles, thus making the soul not really "immortal", even if it could outlive the brain. Third, if it was material quantum particles, the soul would still be considered part of the physical brain, even if it could separate from the rest of the brain's physical lump.Consciousness resides, according to Stuart and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, in the microtubules of the brain cells, which are the primary sites of quantum processing. Upon death, this information is released from your body, meaning that your consciousness goes with it. They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).
"Is This Proof That The Soul Exists? Experts Say Yes", Is This Proof That The Soul Exists? Experts Say Yes
Since the soul is immaterial, I am not sure that it is possible to prove whether the soul has a real existence instead of just being a product of some people's imaginations and myths.
What do u mean by the word proof? u mean whether it can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or detected in an instrument? The qualities attributed to soul does not yield to any of the tests mentioned above. In fact, soul is said to belong to another dimension of existence which is not bound by time and space even. So there is no way to prove the existence of souls objectively. But this does not by any means rule out its existence. There are much more things that man has not known than what he has known objectively.
~Shunmugham
What is a proof that soul exists? Aren't we mere a biological entity? - Spiritual Discussion
One argument is that God and the soul are not provable through science and scientific material experiments, but only through experience:
But experiential proof is of a different order. Some have experienced the truth of God in such a way that they are left in no doubt that God exists, God loves them, they know it, and they are experiencing the tests of faith and the gifts God has lavished upon them.
Miracles might well constitute for some a kind of evidence that is experiential, if not experimental. That is to say, we are not expected to see a miracle in a science laboratory.
The point is that not all knowledge must be experimental in order to be worthy of our belief. There is knowledge that is deductive. There is knowledge that is faith based. There is knowledge that is experiential. There is knowledge that is intuitive.
~Charlemagne III, "How do we prove the soul exists?", forums.catholic.com/t/how-do-we-prove-the-soul-exists/370117/79