South Dakota is introducing a bill that will ban abortion

[Ben Kenobi]

What do you mean? What are these different types of physical change to which you refer?

Any physical change to our bodies.

Skin cells shedding for example.

If you argue only things that change our personalities count, then you are a new person every day because your new experiences change who you are.

Secondly, your example of Phineas Gage argues that one must maintain a constant personality in order to retain one's identity. If this is so, then you return to my problem of experience.

Employing the term radical implies a set limit on change to qualify. I find this standard arbitrary because it is impossible to delineate the precise moment where one crosses the line.

1. How is it absurd? On what basis do you argue that this is not possible?

Because that would imply that one contains thousands of souls.

Secondly, in postulating your theory, you suggest that it is possible to have such an entity as 'half a soul.' I don't believe that's possible, like splitting a magnet into magnetic monopoles. Souls are indivisible. That's one of the reasons why people only suggest a soul sometime after conception, and not before.

Where does this intrinsic property come from? If this property is emergent upon conception, then it isn't intrinsic. If it is intrinsic, then it exists prior to conception, and we're left with the infinite recursion of souls.

A new entity forms at conception from the individual parts. The property of growth and development comes from this union, from the formation of the genetic code directing the growth, and from the motive power supplied by the cells of the zygote.

The intrinsic capacity comes from this union, and so long as the union remains the capacity is inherent in the zygote.

Where do souls come from?

Well, that's a rather deep question. But now we're getting into theology.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Skin cells shedding for example.

Shedding skin cells do not affect one's consciousness.

If you argue only things that change our personalities count, then you are a new person every day because your new experiences change who you are.

Yes, that could be. I wouldn't say that I'm a "new person," seeing as how I carry some of my memories from the previous day. However, I'm certainly a different person than I was on the previous day.

Secondly, your example of Phineas Gage argues that one must maintain a constant personality in order to retain one's identity.

Phineas Gage retained his identity -- he still knew that he was Phineas Gage, he still had many of his memories intact, etc. However, he behaved like a completely different person, which runs contrary to a dualistic Gage.

Employing the term radical implies a set limit on change to qualify.

Not really. It just implies that Phineas's personality change was more drastic and more rapid than most people's personality changes. This is understandable -- rather than suffering from a slow process of development/deterioration/change like the rest of us, Gage suffered a much more rapid process of physical change.

Because that would imply that one contains thousands of souls.

So?

Souls are indivisible.

Okay, maybe the souls are only stored in the ova, and potential ova. Or (potential) sperm.

The intrinsic capacity comes from this union, and so long as the union remains the capacity is inherent in the zygote.

Then this intrinsic capacity is really an emergent property? What's so special about this particular emergent property, then -- why is the "potential to form consciousness" a more metaphysically important emergent property than is "consciousness"? It seems as though the former property is essentially meaningless -- it belies the fact that consciousness and only consciousness is the emergent property.

Where do souls come from?

Well, that's a rather deep question. But now we're getting into theology.

It's an important question if you're going to link the formation of a soul with the formation of the "intrinsic capacity to potentially form consciousness."

How much of your body can you cut away before you cease to be "you"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
at least according to JP Moreland.

Either he's wrong or your representation of his arguments are incorrect.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If this were true, then we would all contain more than one soul in our bodies. But this is absurd, ergo, the soul must come afterwards.

Why is this absurd? Other religions believe in multiple souls. In one Japanese belief, all things have four souls which must be in perfect harmony. If they come out of harmony, the thing becomes a demon. Not that I believe in souls.

Souls are indivisible.

And you know this how?