The Human Soul Likely Doesn't Exist.

My Case Against the Soul It seems Con misunderstands all three principles. Some is a trivial misunderstanding, others are a critical misunderstanding. P1: Con agrees this principle is sound, yet says it’s unimportant. I wouldn’t call it unimportant, because if this principle is unsound then the entire argument falls apart. Furthermore, Con is overcomplicating what I was saying in this principle. This principle makes no claim about what a mental state is, it isn’t about the brain sending signals to the body at all. This principle is saying the mind whatever it may be causes physical events. P2: Con’s first refutation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of “fundamental”(no pun intended). Fundamental as defined by Oxford is: Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance: [1] We instantly see how Con’s rebuttal falls apart, because liquid and gas are both fundamentally the same substance [2] Con then presents a really interesting argument for interaction. He is saying the mind essentially fades into matter and visa versa. If you are having trouble understanding or visualizing what he is saying with the colors, it’s like this http://www.debate.org... Except with the mind and body instead of evolution. I have to applaud Con for the originality in this response, but it’s nonetheless flawed. Every analogy falls apart somewhere, with colors it falls apart when it comes to shades. We can have various shades of red, but how can we have a shade of matter? Matter is only one thing, there is nothing in nature that we see that is sorta matter but we cannot really tell. Matter is one shade. It looks like the same is true for the mind. We don’t find proto-matter in nature and we don’t detect proto-mind within ourselves. Thus Con’s mind-body interaction proposition fails to be a sound description. Furthermore, even if I were to grant the possibility of this being a cogent description of interaction, it’s still unlikely. Con has posited mind transforms into proto-mind and then becomes proto-matter, to matter. Instead of having two substances in reality, Con has posited (at least) 4. By Occam’s razor, this account is still unlikely. This principle still holds due to the fact Con has completely dropped my conservation of energy argument. P3: Con hasn’t really attacked this principle. Like the last principles, Con has misunderstood this one. The principle is about the likelihood of having two causes for 1 event. In and of itself, it’s not about matter being sufficient for human choices. Con then goes onto defend his argument. Unfortunately this violates the debate format and thus violates a rule of the debate. Unfortunately, Con loses a conduct point for this. Con wasn’t suppose to defend his main arguments until this round. Conclusion Con has left my conservation of energy argument unaddressed. My argument about interaction remains standing, as fading matter is unlikely and he misunderstands what fundamental means. He has also violated a rule of the debate by violating the agreed upon format in round 1. Nonetheless, thanks for the debate. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.grc.nasa.gov...