>>51353650My thinking is that in a naturalistic sense, a soul probably exists more as a gradient than a binary yes/no switch. Like, clearly a rock doesn't have a soul (well, not necessarily, but this is a base assumption I'm making), and clearly a human does have a soul. But it seems to me any "switch off" point between the two would be overly arbitrary. Does a monkey have a soul? Well, probably, since they're so close to us. What about a dolphin? Much more different to humans, but still very intelligent, probably yes. What about a rat? An eel? A snail? An amoeba?
Thus, imo the presence of the soul is not caused by the intrinsic nature of the being, but by a property it has, which determines how "soulful" it is. Humans are like 100% soulful, rocks 0%, amoeba 2%, earthworms 10%, crabs 50%, moles 95%, dolphin 100%.
What is that property? Well, I don't think it truly needs to be rigorously defined. It's probably one of those "You know it when you see it" things. If I had to, I think the complexity of thoughts, memory retention and remembrance and capacity for self-realization would be pretty important.
>>51353732You're welcome, standard color scum.
