doesnt preclude the existence of a soul, which may well control the body by the intricate means of physically changing the brain. it could also go the other way, the physical machine being automous, "imprinting" itself onto the spiritual ghost..
What you suggest is unparsimonious. You or someone else are still welcome to look for evidence for that proposition. Until such evidence is presented, the soul is like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. "Mommy, I stayed up all night, and he didn't come down the chimney!" "That's because there was a storm in Brazil and his sled is running a little late. But he will come here at some point."
valid point. at the same time though, "Mommy, I stayed up all night, and he didn't come down the chimney!" is not a way to prove santa doesnt exist either. granted its near impossible to disprove something like a soul (or most things for that matter) so any arguments for definitive absence are going to be as flawed as arguments for definitive presence. now, this does become a problem when people start trying to use these types of arguments to affect real world decisions (like "i dont want medication, ill just pray") but as long as we are just discussing the philosophical implications, its all well and good.
The concept of a soul could have one of two characters:
1) If a soul exists then there necessarily exists evidence for souls even if the evidence is unknown.
| Evidence for Souls exist | Evidence against Souls exists |
| Souls exist | Yes | No |
| Souls don't exist | No | No |
In this case there is good reason to reject the concept of souls until such evidence would be found.
2) If a soul exists then there does not necessarily exists evidence for souls even if the evidence is unknown.
| Evidence for Souls exist | Evidence against Souls exists |
| Souls exist | No | No |
| Souls don't exist | No | No |
In this case there is no reason to reject either position. Though there is good reason against holding both positions.
