2 ms·

If you think "souls" have some physical mechanism then they are not souls by the definition I am using. We would then agree, though I do not yet think we have f

If you think "souls" have some physical mechanism then they are not souls by the definition I am using. We would then agree, though I do not yet think we have found reason for new physical laws to be required, however that can of course be a possibility.

lolakutty 5d ago
>they are not souls by the definition Kindly share that concrete definition..
- hardbass 5d ago
  It should have been clear from our discussion when I said "souls" I meant belief in the non-physical. Magic juice in the brain that is unexplainable by physics at all. Being unexplainable by current physics but explainable by future physics is not a "soul" by that definition.
  - lolakutty 5d ago
    > non-physical. Now, what is your definition for this?
    - hardbass 5d ago
      Go ask the people who believe in it. I for one cannot understand how something aphysical can affect our thoughts and decisions. But some think consciousness resides outside of physical systems entirely.
      - lolakutty 5d ago
        But you said it, so you should have a definition, or else what did you mean to communicate by saying it? Or are you just parroting cool sounding words and phrases?
        hardbass 5d ago
        Define consciousness
        lolakutty 5d ago
        All humans intrinsically understand it what that word refer to. So it is ok if we cannot define it in words. It conveys the idea.. But "non-physical"? I don't have a clue what it means...Why don't you tell me..