[powerset]

Yeah the soul question seemed unfair, in the sense that I answered the first two with the assumption there is no soul, but the third question asks to assume a soul exists, so there's no way to answer it and stay consistent with my previous two answers

[Ukv]

I thought that initially, but I think the question is intentional in only describing (as stated facts, rather than as implied by labelling of "call it a soul") its properties as something immaterial that floats between humans/animals very slightly affecting their character - without asserting that it's "the real you".

E.G: A family heirloom might travel between people on death and slightly affect the character of whoever's wearing it through self-perception, but (under the assumption that what I value is self-preservation) I wouldn't sacrifice my physical brain containing the only copy of my personality/memories/etc. in order to save it.

I'd guess what it's testing would then be whether you identify this thing with a pre-existing belief of an immaterial you, or already believe you are physical(ly instantiated patterns) and that this thing is just incidental - like any other environmental impact on yourself.

[brookst]

Same. If you accept the game's assertion that souls and reincarnation have been proven, it go e's you a hard time for changing your answer based on new evidence. Very strange for a game purporting to explore beliefs.