There is no unchanging, separate self.

I’m not sure if Strycora will continue this debate or not, but as I think both sides have a burden of proof here I will make opening arguments for the existence of a self that is distinct from the body. A Philosophical Argument. First, a philosophical argument. We know from the rules of logic that A is equal to B if, and only if, A and B share exactly the same properties. So the self is equal to the body if, and only if, the self and the body share exactly the same properties. So from this we can say that I (the thing I call myself, essence, or soul. Here after I will refer to it as “the soul” for ease) and my body are the same thing if, and only if, my body and my soul share exactly the same properties. But my soul does have a property that my body does not have. It is possible to conceive of my soul as surviving without my body. It is not possible to conceive of my body surviving without my body (that’s just nonsense), but it seems like a perfectly coherent idea that my soul or self can exist without my body. We don’t just see this conception in religion and theology, but we see it in science fiction all the time too. Every story where a person switches bodies with another person or when an individual survives the death of his body by having his mind transferred to a machine is an example of this reality. We can conceive of a soul existing without its original body, but we cannot conceive of a body existing without itself. My body and my soul are the same thing if and only if they share all the same properties. My soul has a property my body does not. Therefore my soul and my body are not identical. It's a little tricky to follow, but it works. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga explains this argument here Evidence from Science There is an increasing body of evidence that some people seem to survive the death of their body. If the body and soul/self are the same thing this should not be possible. A recently published study suggests this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... You can read the original press release here. http://www.southampton.ac.uk... The point of all this is that there are cases where someone dies on the operating table and is medically dead for several minutes. Then upon being revived the person is able to describe events that transpired while they were medically dead. This should not be possible if there is no self/soul, but there are well document accounts of this happening (such as the above example). Sometime the person is even able to describe events that occurred outside of the room their dead body was in. Check out this book for more examples and appropriate documentation. http://www.amazon.com... I appreciate that thoughtful people are skeptical about such claims and evidence (as well they should be), but there are many well documented examples of such things occurring. If such a thing has even happened once, that proves the body and the soul are not the same thing. For a further example check out what this neurosurgeon who had such an NDE says about it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... To anyone skeptical of this evidence I encourage you to read the appropriate studies, books, and listen to the stories of people who have had these experiences. While there are easy defeaters for some instances of such phenomena (like when someone on drugs has an out of body experience) there are other instances which are not easily explained away (A team of doctors observed someone die, they manage to revive him, and then he describes the actions they took while he was dead). Another Philosophical Argument It’s not often in philosophy that you get a knock down drag out argument for the truth or falsity of something, but I think we have on here.1. If there is no soul or self, then determinism is almost certainly true. If my own self is an illusion, then everything I do is simply determined by certain brain states. I did not choose to make and drink coffee this morning. Several brain states compelled my body to do so. Those brain states are in turn caused by certain factors within my body and outside of my body (such as the low level of caffeine in my blood, the smell of coffee my wife has already made, etc). So if there is no distinction between myself and my body then I do not choose anything and all choice is simply an illusion. Everything I do is determined by states, factors, and considerations within my body and in the external world. This is the definition of determinism.2. If determinism is true, no one actually thinks about anything. Even my own thoughts would simply be an illusion as they are actually the result of those same forces that compelled me to make and drink coffee.3. Rationality requires thought. The definition of a rational person is someone that looks at evidence, arguments, and reasons and attempts to weigh and consider them to figure out what is most likely true (hopefully you are doing this while reading my writing).4. Therefore the non-existence of the self/soul cannot be rationally affirmed. If even our very thoughts are determined (and they are if determinism is true) then no one can actually weigh reasons, evidence, and arguments and come to a conclusion. I may think I am doing that, but such a thing is then impossible and I am suffering from a delusion. What this shows us is that if it is true that there is no self/soul, then no one can truly say, “I’ve looked at the evidence, thought about it, and concluded there is no soul or self.” They can say those words, but the words are not true because it becomes impossible to look at evidence or think about anything. The person who affirms that there is no soul is simply saying what various states and factors have forced him to say. He has no control over his thoughts or beliefs any more than a tree has control over the way it grows. He is a small cog in a giant machine being pushed and pulled by external forces and he cannot push or pull anything himself. Hence the non-existence of a soul or self cannot be rationally affirmed. Those who make such a claim are in effect arguing that what they say has as much truth value as the etchings on a rock left by the wind. The claim for the non-existence of a self is self-refuting. Normally I would now respond to objections or address counter arguments, but since Strycora didn’t give us any I’ll just wait to see what he says.