[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not quite catching this. Please explain, since I do want to understand.

Are you saying that soul depends on brain function--- that it arises with brain function, declines with declining brain function, disappears if brain function falls below a certain level, comes back if brain function advances to a certain level? Are you saying, therefore, that a human being can be alive but have no soul?

[Bokababe]

"Are you saying that soul depends on brain function--- that it arises with brain function, declines with declining brain function, disappears if brain function falls below a certain level, comes back if brain function advances to a certain level? Are you saying, therefore, that a human being can be alive but have no soul?"

Logically, an excellent question.

[Petronski]

Are you saying that soul depends on brain function--- that it arises with brain function, declines with declining brain function, disappears if brain function falls below a certain level, comes back if brain function advances to a certain level? Are you saying, therefore, that a human being can be alive but have no soul?

You have captured the unavoidable logic of that position.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Are you saying that soul depends on brain function--- that it arises with brain function, declines with declining brain function, disappears if brain function falls below a certain level, comes back if brain function advances to a certain level? Are you saying, therefore, that a human being can be alive but have no soul?

I'm saying that brain function is the tie between body and soul. When the brain does not function, the soul is no longer with the body.

A body can be kept alive with machines, for an extended time after there is no brain activity. Very few -- including many generally opposed to euthanasia, as I've found out discussing this here -- would object to the body being allowed to die.

I am unsure, however, at what level of brain function is needed for the soul to be attached.