But surely it is self-contradictory to say on the one hand that the soul consists in genetic information and on the other that a dead organism - which manifestly does contain genetic information - has no soul? When you say a dead organism has no soul, what is it that makes it physically different from a living organism?
I agree that you need the genetic information to create a living organism in the first place. But actually you do not need genetic information for life biochemistry to carry on once it has started. For example cells with no nucleus can stay alive: red blood cells for example.
So I see some real problems with this concept.
Thank you for your comments, they force me to clarify my argument.
1. My first post on this topic took the definition of a soul as presented by Aristotle, to which I added my definition of life, which lead me to argue that the concept of soul presented by Aristotle 2000+ years ago suggests an association with the modern day understanding of information encoded within RNA and DNA molecules. As you say, it would be a contradiction for the soul of Aristotle to be limited to the information itself, that is, the nucleotide sequence, there must be something else. A clue comes from the meaning of the words 'first actuality' used by Aristotle...e.g., the soul for my argument to hold must be the encoded information actualized. Thus the aspect of the soul that is missing from an entity that was once living, now dead, is not the information itself, but the ability of that information to be actualized (e.g., transcribed and translated).
2. Vertebrate red blood cells fit my argument well. Some vertebrates such as amphibians do have red blood cells with a nucleus present, but the ability of any encoded information within the DNA to be actualized to allow for transcription and translation has been lost. Mammals have a more specialized red blood cell morphology where the nucleus also is lost, which is adaptive because this increases surface area available for more oxygen to be transported. So, let us look at a human red blood cell, does it have a soul, and is it a living entity in of itself ? The answer to both questions is no. Soul does not exist within a human red blood cell because the encoded information is gone, and it is no more alive than a virus cell, for the reason that it has lost its ability of self generated reproduction.
3. I welcome continued discussion of problems with my argument.
Let us return to the OP of this thread. This question was asked:
Is the soul a kind of psychic genetic code ?
My argument is that the answer to this question is yes. I reach this conclusion by adopting the definition of a soul presented by Aristotle, merged with my definition of life. For Aristotle the soul is a representation of the form of a living entity, and conversely, the living entity represents the matter (and energy) of the soul. Thus the concept of soul applies to all living entities from the most complex to single celled organisms such as bacteria.
The soul and the living entity are not identical. Thus, as form is to matter (form:matter), then (soul:living entity), and I conclude (information:matter), which by information I mean the encoded genetic information present in nucleic acids (RNA, DNA). From this I conclude that the soul of Aristotle can be thought to be associated with the modern day concept of genetic code, e.g., a concept of genetic information within a nucleotide sequence to be actualized. One such kind of a code would be the nucleotide sequence related to development of "psychic" (mind) faculty. But, according to Aristotle, the soul is more diverse than what is possible from a psychic genetic code. In addition to the mind, the soul is also a kind of nutritional, perception, and desire/emotion genetic code. Each of these 'kinds of soul' has a unique nucleotide sequence. Thus each living entity has a unique soul due to the uniqueness of the genetic information present within it.