Not at all.

There is no physical theory that explains how my mind is endowed with self-awareness. The soul is an explanation.

Given the situation which you have acknowledged, there will never be a physical explanation of how my mind is endowed with self-awareness. Therefore the soul will forever be a viable explanation.

The only experiment that can distinguish between these cases is death. I will await that inevitable resolution.

Isn't this just an argument from ignorance?

we can't explain it; let's make something up

religion in a nutshell.

here's an interesting question: once we invent an artificial intelligence that's as smart as or exceeds humans, would it be immoral to turn the computer off?

Really, I have a robot in mind rather than a computer. And there IS a test to differentiate between self awareness and non-self awareness. Place a mark on the robot's forehead. Then place the robot in front of a mirror. If the robot touches the mark while looking in the mirror, it is self aware. If not, it is not self aware.

Simple test. Used currently to see which animal species are self aware (I know for certain Chimpanzees have passed the test successfully, they are self aware).

I think RLK is using self aware to mean something slightly different than the way you're using it. I mean, we could probably program a robot to pass the test you're describing now. We would only need some sort of 'robot facial recognition' software, and then program the robot to touch anything on its face that did/didn't meet certain specifications. We would probably have to program in something that compared its own movements with the mirrored movements so it could differentiate between a reflection and an identical robot.

Wholly unnecessary for what?

A theory of particles is wholly unnecessary for a theory of macroscopic objects, but this does not negate in any way the existence of particles.

RLK was talking about a robot mimicking self awareness. So, if a robot could be made such that it's 100% indistinguishable from human, what use is a soul?

(assuming the robot doesn't have a soul)

Oooh ooh ooh, I know! The brain is the tether to the soul. When damaged, you can jiggle loose some connections. Your soul (and personality, memories ect) are all still intact, they're just not translating to your brain and this plane of existence correctly anymore.

Man I love jumping aboard the U.S.S. Make-****-Up sometimes. Everything is so easy when you don't have to bother about pesky things like reality.

What is a soul "used" for?

Edit: Or to go in another completely different direction, does the 100% indistinguishability make the robot a human?

I don't think it's used for anything (I don't think it exists).

I would think so.

Thanks for handling this in my absence. This was an excellent response.

I have to acknowledge that I have acquired a sincere respect for the quality of your intellectual arguments and the honesty with which you approach debate. I still disagree with you, but I respect you.

It is not an issue of "making things up". It is an acknowledgement that there are multiple explanations that fit the observations. Until there is an experiment that can distinguish between the possibilities, they are just that: possibilities. To pick one or the other and say that it is the truth is not an expression of fact. It is a statement of belief. I have no problem with you having a belief. Just acknowledge what it is.

Thank you, that means a lot.

Could you define what a soul is so that we're all on the same page? What are it's properties and functions during life and/or after death?

Mimicking self-awareness and having self-awareness are two different things. If our self-awareness is actually a property that can never be present in a machine, it now becomes evidence that there is something more to existence than physical science can model.

If it is true that science can never confirm that awareness does or does not exist in a constructed machine, then the issues of the soul, afterlife and God will be forever unresolvable through physical science. That is not an unreasonable situation assuming that there is a God.