I'm describing natural phenomena that have been mistakenly described as the soul.
Yeah, and that, in its entirety, is exactly all I said that you had a burden to prove, since you are making that claim. All the other stuff you've brought up, such as accusing me of appealing to tradition, evidently you've done so because you've utterly missed my point there. What I said was, to assert that claim which I've quoted, as a thesis, there is actually a lot to check, and doing so would occupy a diligent researcher for a lifetime. I'm certainly skeptical that your notion of soul
encompasses all of what the ancients meant when they said soul,
immortal and incorporeal aside.
No, you're still the one utterly missing the point. You still don't get that the outrageous claim is not that there is no soul, but that there is. I'm sorry, but this is fairly basic stuff -- I must be explaining it poorly. Maybe this will explain it better than I can:
No, sorry, it's you who don't get what I'm saying.
I never said that the claim that there is a soul is less outrageous than the claim that there is not one. That doesn't relate at all to what burden of proof I think you have.
If you've been paying attention, I already said that I don't believe in the classical soul.
One more time, again: The burden of proof is on you to show that your rational definition #1 is a reasonable substitute for classical conception #2, or else why hijack the term soul
in the first place to denote #1, when a term like consciousness
would probably do better.
The burden is on you to show that, especially since you claimed, at least implicitly, that you are alluding to the same thing that classical philosophers were. It is that very claim, that you are alluding to the same thing, that I'm highly skeptical of, and which requires proof. Clear now?