### Part 1: Max More’s Top 10 Arguments Against the Soul
While Max More describes his approach as "sidestepping" or "Aikido," he explicitly lists several philosophical and scientific challenges to the existence of a soul throughout his article. Here are 10 arguments he presents:
1. **Neural Dependence:** Mental phenomena (consciousness, personality, memory) are fundamentally tied to the physical state of the neural substrate.
2. **Lack of Empirical Evidence:** No scientist has ever been able to detect a soul; the most reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing there to measure.
3. **Explanatory Inertia:** Like "phlogiston" or the "ether," the soul is a concept that fails to explain phenomena and is abandoned as science provides better, materialist explanations.
4. **Incoherence:** The concept of the soul is logically incoherent, particularly the idea of an entity that exists outside of space and time yet somehow "interacts" with a body.
5. **Lack of Utility:** Much like the hypothetical "blue elf on the moon," the soul is an unnecessary, arbitrary hypothesis that we have no need of to explain human existence.
6. **The Problem of Change:** If the soul is "eternal and unchanging," it cannot logically be the bearer of a personality that necessarily changes and evolves over time.
7. **Functionalist Continuity:** He suggests that human identity is better explained by functionalism—a pattern of information—which renders the concept of a separate, metaphysical "thing" (a soul) redundant.
8. **The "Third State" of Death:** By defining death through an information-theoretic lens, he renders the "departure" of a soul at the moment of clinical death conceptually irrelevant to the physical task of preservation.
9. **The Evolution of Definitions:** Because the definition of a "soul" varies wildly between cultures and religions (Christian, Buddhist, Aristotelian, etc.), no single, stable definition exists to be defended.
10. **The IVF Precedent:** The historical fear that "artificial" life (IVF embryos) would be soulless—a fear that has been empirically silenced by the existence of millions of living, normal adults—shows that "soul-based" anxieties are historically unreliable.
***
### Part 2: The Argument for Confrontation
If Max More truly believes that the soul is an "incoherent," "explanatorily inert," and "prescientific" concept, his decision to "sidestep" and employ "persuasional Aikido" is actually a disservice to his own stated mission of advancing rational inquiry and scientific preservation.
There is a fundamental tension in More’s position: he argues that soul-based thinking creates "real-world" obstacles to biostasis, yet he avoids dismantling the root cause of that thinking. To argue that he should confront, rather than sidestep, one must look at the following three points:
**1. The Danger of "Intellectual Appeasement"**
By treating the soul as something that can "coexist" with biostasis, More grants the concept an unearned seat at the table of serious discussion. If the soul is, as he says, a "prescientific explanation" akin to caloric or the ether, then treating it as a legitimate variable in a survival debate implicitly validates it. By avoiding direct confrontation, he reinforces the very cognitive dissonance that keeps people trapped in supernatural thinking, rather than teaching them the physicalist framework he advocates.
**2. The Inefficacy of "Aikido" for Long-Term Change**
More’s "Aikido" approach is a short-term persuasive tactic, not an intellectual one. By sidestepping the soul, he avoids a "collision" with the religious emotions of his audience, but he also misses the opportunity to liberate them from the error. If his goal is to promote a secular, science-based approach to death, the middle-term strategy should be to encourage his audience to outgrow the necessity of the "soul" hypothesis. A person who is persuaded because they are told their soul will simply "wait" for them is a person who has not actually grasped the (potentially atheist) physicalism that makes biostasis most logically coherent.
**3. The Failure of Consistency**
More’s own writing identifies the soul as an obstacle: "philosophical and religious objections sway many people." If he is a rigorous thinker, he should recognize that the only way to permanently remove that obstacle is to render the belief unsustainable in the mind of the reader. By "sidestepping" the issue, he leaves the foundational error of his interlocutors intact. If he truly believes he is right about the physicalist nature of reality, he owes his audience the truth, not a rhetorical technique that preserves their errors to make his own work easier to sell.
In short, by "sidestepping," More avoids the "work" of persuasion, ensuring his audience remains stuck in the same superstitious framework he claims to view as "incoherent." A true leader of scientific thought would not just work *around* the fallacy; they would systematically deconstruct it.
Responses