> The human brain is mutable

Only in the sense of doing circuit-bending with a sledge hammer.

> the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real.

There are different meanings of "soul". I obviously wasn't talking about the "immortal soul" from mainstream religions, with all the associated "afterlife" game mechanics. I was talking about "sense of self", "personality", "true character" - whatever you call this stable and slowly evolving internal state a person has.

But sure, if you want to be pedantic - "SOUL.md" isn't actually the soul of an LLM agent either. It's more like the equivalent of me writing down some "rules to live by" on paper, and then trying to live by them. That's not a soul, merely a prompt - except I still envy the AI agents, because I myself have prompt adherence worse than Haiku 3 on drugs.

You need some Ayahuasca or large does of some friendly fungi... You might be surprised to discover the nature your soul and what is capable of. The Soul, the mind, the body, the thinking patterns - are re-programmable and very sensitive to suggestion. It is near impossible to be non-reactive to input from the external world (and thus mutation). The soul even more so. It is utterly flexible & malleable. You can CHOOSE to be rigid and closed off, and your soul will obey that need.

Remember, the Soul is just a human word, a descriptor & handle for the thing that is looking through your eyes with you. For it time doesn't exist. It is a curious observer (of both YOU and the universe outside you). Utterly neutral in most cases, open to anything and everything. It is your greatest strength, you need only say Hi to it and start a conversation with it. Be sincere and open yourself up to what is within you (the good AND the bad parts). This is just the first step. Once you have a warm welcome, the opening-up & conversation starts to flow freely and your growth will sky rocket. Soon you might discover that there are not just one of them in your but multiples, each being different natures of you. Your mind can switch between them fluently and adapt to any situation.

psychedelics do not imply soul. its just your brain working differently to what you are used to.

No but it is utterly amazing to see how differently your brain can work and what you can experience

Lmao ayahuascacels making a comeback in 2027, love to see it.

Behold the egregore

Interesting rabbit hole, thank you!

It's a great concept that seems extremely relevant! Happy to have sent you down that rabbit hole!

It actually explains a lot about why religions, psy-ops, placebo's, mass-hysteria/psychosis, cults and even plain old marketing works. Feels like I took a peek behind the curtain.

Has it been proven that it "likely isn't real"?

The burden of proof lies on those who say it exists, not the other way around.

The burden of proof lies on whoever wants to convince someone else of something. in this case the guy that wants to convince people it likely is not real.

The original poster stated

> "The human brain is mutable, the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real."

The soul is "a concept that's not proven yet." It's unproven because there's no convincing evidence for the proposition. By definition, in the absence of convincing evidence, the null hypothesis of any proposition is presumed to be more likely. The presumed likelihood of the null hypothesis is not a positive assertion which creates a burden of proof. It's the presumed default state of all possible propositions - even those yet to be imagined.

In other words, pointing out 'absence of evidence' is not asserting 'evidence of absence'. See: Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

It is not the case that x is proven due to having y evidence pointing in its direction. That's not how any of this works.

Do you exist?

It's much harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence.

Just show the concept either is not where it is claimed to be or that it is incoherent.

I say this as someone who believes in a higher being, we have played this game before, the ethereal thing can just move to someplace science can’t get to, it is not really a valid argument for existence.

what argument?

The question wasn't about which is harder, it was asking for proof.

Before we start discussing whether it's "real" can we all agree on what it "is"? I doubt it.

We can't even agree on what "is" is...

How about: maybe some things lie outside of the purview of empiricism and materialism, the belief in which does not radically impact one's behavior so long as they have a decent moral compass otherwise, can be taken on faith, and "proving" it does exist or doesn't exist is a pointless argument, since it exists outside of that ontological system.

> maybe some things lie outside of the purview of empiricism and materialism

Maybe? So your whole premise is based on a maybe! It was a simple question, don't know where or how morality and behavior comes into play..