Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated

[Compassionist]

Most religions claim that souls exist. Some religions claim that souls are immortal and are reincarnated after the death of the body while other religions claim that souls are immortal and are resurrected after the death of the body. Can anyone please prove that souls exist and are either resurrected or reincarnated? Thank you.

[The Tanager]

The last century of scientific inquiry into how the brain works, and consciousness, are not simply unsupported claims. Scientific results are published in the open literature for anyone to read, interpret, challenge, etc. The supporting evidence and arguments presented in these many thousands of papers are outlined in them in detail (ie. support). As for the very strong correlation between consciousness and brains, this is a direct observation that is easy to make (ie. support).

I’m not talking about the scientific claims, I’m talking about the philosophical claim that the brain produces consciousness. That isn’t a scientific claim. All of that excellent scientific work isn’t what I’m contesting. What is your support for the claim that the brain produces consciousness rather than just a correlation of brain and mind in material beings existing?

Sure it can. All we have to do is show that without a working brain, consciousness cannot exist. At some point the correlation becomes so strong that is cannot be refuted. We're not there yet of course, but you are claiming (without support I'd point out) that we'll never get there.

I absolutely offered support. I’ll try to restate it and flesh it out some more. It cannot be done because of the very definition of science. Science studies physical things. If consciousness unattached to physical things existed, science could not study it, by definition. Thus, it’s impossible for science to prove consciousness can’t exist without a brain. The absence of non-scientific evidence for consciousness may make one rational to not believe in immaterial consciousness existing (a weaker claim…in the sense of what it claims, not in support), but it cannot prove that such a thing doesn’t exist (the stronger claim). To think the absence could make the correlation so strong it can’t be refuted would be to argue from silence, which is fallacious reasoning.

However, I do believe that the observations of such strong correlation suggest that the most likely explanation for consciousness is as an emergent property of a working brain. It certainly cannot be ruled out with philosophical arguments.

Why does a physical footprint of consciousness for material beings that display consciousness say anything about whether consciousness can occur within immaterial beings, if they exist? Would truths about cats necessarily give us truth about non-cats, if they exist? No. You are making an inferential leap from what science has (and can) study…consciousness in physical things…to what science can’t, by definition, address…if consciousness exists outside of physical things.

This is not a good argument. A worm and a human are both conscious animals, but the brain of a worm is orders of magnitude less capable (and physically far smaller) than a human brain. Arguing that the worm is "less conscious" than a human does not follow from the definition of consciousness (and many people fold intelligence into their definition of consciousness ... especially when humans are part of the discussion). So a worm, with 1/Nth the brain capacity of a human (N being some big number) is still a conscious animal. No one would argue, I don't think, that a human who has lost 90% of their brain capacity is no longer conscious, even if they may be far less capable and still be sentient. If they are aware of their existence they are conscious, but if they lose 100% of their brain activity then they are not conscious (no brain, no consciousness).

We have no idea if no brain means no consciousness in such beings. We have no way to scientifically investigate it because science only studies material things. No brain scientifically means no brain. No brain, no consciousness is a philosophical claim that calls for philosophical arguments for and against.

Then I can turn your starting comment back and ask what support you have to claim that consciousness is NOT an emergent property of a working brain. I also didn't say "God" ... I used the word divine (maybe I should have used supernatural, or nonnatural, or ???). But the point is that any nonmaterial source for consciousness has yet to be demonstrated ... only claimed with no support.

Did you read post 52? I clearly offered support.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #91]

I’m not talking about the scientific claims, I’m talking about the philosophical claim that the brain produces consciousness. That isn’t a scientific claim.

How is it not a scientific claim? The brain is a highly complex system comprised of many interacting elements (neurons, memory, electrical and chemical signals, etc.). The scientific argument is that this complex system can produce consciousness as one manifestation of its function. This is consistent with the observation that living things with brains appear to be able to possess consciousness, while nothing else does (at least using a dictionary definition of consciousness).

A philosophical claim "that the brain produces consciousness" must in some way make a connection to the material brain (as the producer). Without that, the philosophical claim simply asserts that consciousness is some mystical "thing" without any attempt to explain how it comes about (unlike the scientific claim that it is an emergent property of a brain, whether or not we understand every detail of the mechanism).

If consciousness unattached to physical things existed, science could not study it, by definition.

That is the crux of the issue ... no one has shown that consciousness can exist without being produced by a physical thing (a brain in this case). I'd argue that as a result, the default position should be that it is a natural phenomenon and let science continue to try and understand it better.

Thus, it’s impossible for science to prove consciousness can’t exist without a brain.

But it can gather enough evidence and understanding to push the probability of it existing without a brain to lower and lower numbers. Is there even one example of consciousness existing without a brain? I can give many examples of consciousness existing in something with a brain (eg. the entire animal kingdom from worms to humans and everything in between).

You are making an inferential leap from what science has (and can) study…consciousness in physical things…to what science can’t, by definition, address…if consciousness exists outside of physical things.

If consciousness is shown to exist outside of physical things (or rather, be produced outside of physical things like a brain) then it transitions into the world of the supernatural and I agree that would be outside of the science realm. But there is no evidence of such a source for consciousness apart from philosophical musings. If the claim is that consciousness is some non-natural "thing" whose source is a complete mystery that cannot be scientifically studied, then this discussion probably belongs in the philosophy section.

We have no idea if no brain means no consciousness in such beings. We have no way to scientifically investigate it because science only studies material things. No brain scientifically means no brain. No brain, no consciousness is a philosophical claim that calls for philosophical arguments for and against.

But we have millennia of observations that point to "no brain, no consciousness" as far as what we can infer about the relationship. Can you produce even one example where consciousness has been observed to exist when a functioning brain (at any level) was not also present? How would you detect consciousness that is produced without a brain, and what would it be associated with? Or is your argument that it is a purely philosophical topic and the scientific efforts to understand consciousness are a waste of time (ie. can never succeed because consciousness is a supernatural thing ... a claim I would argue needs a lot more justification and support).

[boatsnguitars]

I absolutely addressed the evidence/arguments for the existence of the soul. It’s right there in post 52 for all to see and critique. I made a claim and supported it. If you respond to it, I will either rescind it (if I agree with your critique) or respond back (if I disagree with your critique).

You’ve made a claim. You began to support it. I’ve critiqued it. You have stopped responding in support of your claim. I’ll ask again: Why does AI being able to read our thoughts and emotions via MRI’s and other brain scans support consciousness being caused by the physical rather than simply consciousness within physical beings having a physical footprint? Do you have anything rational to say in response to this?

You simply explained how consciousness works. You gave no account of it from a non-materialist point of view. You alluded to something else, outside of the brain, and gave your level best to explain the "Hard Problem", but you didn't do anything to explain how and what this non-material thing is that drives all of it.

Directly responding to your post #52:

From a Materialist perspective, the idea that there is a difference between states of consciousness and the thing that can be in those states is not necessarily contentious. Materialists would argue that consciousness is a product of the brain, and that different states of consciousness correspond to different patterns of brain activity. While it is true that brain states do not have the same properties as conscious states (e.g., they are not about anything), Materialists would argue that this is simply a reflection of the fact that consciousness is a higher-level phenomenon that emerges from the activity of the brain.

While it is true that there may be things that are true of conscious states that are not true of brain states, Materialists would argue that this does not necessarily imply that consciousness is a separate entity from the brain. Rather, it simply reflects the fact that consciousness is a different kind of phenomenon than brain activity.

Also, the example of the neuroscientist Mary does not necessarily support the existence of a non-physical soul or mind. Materialists would argue that Mary's lack of knowledge of what it is like to hear prior to gaining the ability to hear is simply a result of the fact that her brain was not previously configured to process auditory information. Once her brain was reconfigured, she was able to have the experience of hearing. This does not necessarily imply the existence of a non-physical entity.

So, from a Materialist perspective, the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain is well-supported by empirical evidence, and there is no need to posit the existence of a non-physical soul or mind to explain the nature of consciousness.

[The Tanager]

How is it not a scientific claim? The brain is a highly complex system comprised of many interacting elements (neurons, memory, electrical and chemical signals, etc.). The scientific argument is that this complex system can produce consciousness as one manifestation of its function. This is consistent with the observation that living things with brains appear to be able to possess consciousness, while nothing else does (at least using a dictionary definition of consciousness).

A philosophical claim "that the brain produces consciousness" must in some way make a connection to the material brain (as the producer). Without that, the philosophical claim simply asserts that consciousness is some mystical "thing" without any attempt to explain how it comes about (unlike the scientific claim that it is an emergent property of a brain, whether or not we understand every detail of the mechanism).

The science shows us a connection between the brain and consciousness in physical beings (let’s call that the physical footprint). Logically, this physical footprint may be because (1) consciousness is reducible to the brain or (2) consciousness is not reducible to the brain but shows itself in the physical footprint. What scientific evidence decides between (1) and (2)? By definition, science could not negate (2) because it is consistent with the same scientific data as (1).

How (2) would work, the “mechanism” that keeps getting brought up, is irrelevant to the above question.

That is the crux of the issue ... no one has shown that consciousness can exist without being produced by a physical thing (a brain in this case). I'd argue that as a result, the default position should be that it is a natural phenomenon and let science continue to try and understand it better.

The default position on anything is agnosticism. But I agree that void of any good philosophical arguments, the reasonable position would become the materialist position. But I offered arguments, so it shifts to you successfully critiquing those arguments to maintain the materialist advantage there.

But there is no evidence of such a source for consciousness apart from philosophical musings. If the claim is that consciousness is some non-natural "thing" whose source is a complete mystery that cannot be scientifically studied, then this discussion probably belongs in the philosophy section.

Both of the claims, that consciousness is a non-natural thing and that it is no more than a natural thing are philosophical claims that cannot be studied scientifically. Science can only tell us the physical workings, not if there is anything beyond the physical or not.

Or is your argument that it is a purely philosophical topic and the scientific efforts to understand consciousness are a waste of time (ie. can never succeed because consciousness is a supernatural thing ... a claim I would argue needs a lot more justification and support).

The scientific efforts are not a waste of time. Philosophical attempts to figure out what consciousness is must account for the scientific data to be good philosophical positions. But they must also go beyond the science, whatever position one takes.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #93]

Okay, so you agree that consciousness isn’t reducible to the brain. But you seemed to have stopped part the way through my post. I gave two arguments for consciousness being the product of the soul rather than the brain. Where do you disagree with those?

P1. If I’m either fully present or not, but my body and brain are divisible, then I can’t be my brain or body.
P2. I’m either fully present or not.
P3. Therefore, I can’t be my brain or body.

That something needs a name. Calling it the soul doesn’t lay out all of its characteristics, but ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ is what most people call that thing.

Q1. If we were our brains, then we couldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next.
Q2. Our conscious self has a continuity from one day to the next.
Q3. Therefore, we are not our brains.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #95]

Q1. If we were our brains, then we couldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next.
Q2. Our conscious self has a continuity from one day to the next.
Q3. Therefore, we are not our brains.

This fails in the same way that modal ontological arguments for gods existing fail. The statement "we are our brains" is not (at all) the same thing as the statement that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. The materialist position is that the brain is very complicated system, and as such is capable of far more than the sum of its parts. The emergent properties of the complex brain system do not exist in any one of its constituent parts (neurons, memory elements, etc.). It is only the combination of parts working together as a system that we get consciousness, thoughts, emotions, and all of the nonphysical perceptions that exist in a conscious animal. The statement "we are our brains" makes no sense ... but the statement "our brains produce our conscious states" does make sense, even if we can't yet write down the exact mechanisms at a molecular level for how this works.

Your example of a woman who could not hear, and then science figured out how to bring back that function, just means that the physical mechanisms that produce the electrical signals that the brain processes (via the cochlear nuclei, superior olivary nuclei, lateral lemniscus, inferior colliculus, medial geniculate nuclei, and auditory cortex) to produce the perception of sound have been restored, or simulated to the extent that the electrical signals are properly presented to the auditory section of the brain. Her new sense of hearing as a perception produced by the brain is restored because the auditory system of the brain was already there and undamaged (presumably ... you didn't detail how her hearing was restored) and the science contribution was in restoring the electrical signals to the brain's auditory system by some means.

Logically, this physical footprint may be because (1) consciousness is reducible to the brain or (2) consciousness is not reducible to the brain but shows itself in the physical footprint. What scientific evidence decides between (1) and (2)? By definition, science could not negate (2) because it is consistent with the same scientific data as (1).

Elaborate on what you mean by "physical footprint." This sounds to me as an acceptance that consciousness has a physical basis (ie. is an emergent property of the brain). The external indicators that we measure via EEGs, MRI/fMRI, etc. are electrical and magnetic signals that are either passsive (EEG) or stimulated (MRI/fMRI), and these EM signals are real things in the sense that we can measure them directly. But if I ask someone for their opinion on a subject and they respond with their opinion, I assume they are conscious and have formulated the opinion using their brain, while a different person may form a different opinion from the same input data, despite having a very similar physical brain and brain structure. It is their memories, experiences, etc. that differ, and the thing that produces the different opinions from the two people is not something that can be pinpointed as any particular physical structure within the brain, but as a result of the interactions of many different brain subsystems. Would you say that the different opinions are different "physical footprints"? How could consciousness have a physical footprint any differently than an opinion could?

Both of the claims, that consciousness is a non-natural thing and that it is no more than a natural thing are philosophical claims that cannot be studied scientifically.

I disagree. There is no reason it should be impossible for science to eventually show that consciousness is purely an emergent property of a working brain. You're claiming consciousness does have a nonphysical basis or component, and is therefore outside of the purview of science. My argument is that this has yet to be demonstrated, and until that occurs science has a chance to solve the consciousness "problem."

[The Tanager]

Your example of a woman who could not hear, and then science figured out how to bring back that function, just means that the physical mechanisms that produce the electrical signals that the brain processes (via the cochlear nuclei, superior olivary nuclei, lateral lemniscus, inferior colliculus, medial geniculate nuclei, and auditory cortex) to produce the perception of sound have been restored, or simulated to the extent that the electrical signals are properly presented to the auditory section of the brain. Her new sense of hearing as a perception produced by the brain is restored because the auditory system of the brain was already there and undamaged (presumably ... you didn't detail how her hearing was restored) and the science contribution was in restoring the electrical signals to the brain's auditory system by some means.

That example was in the first part of the argument, which was trying to establish consciousness and the brain being separate things. Those that believe consciousness is emergent agree they are separate in this way.

This fails in the same way that modal ontological arguments for gods existing fail. The statement "we are our brains" is not (at all) the same thing as the statement that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. The materialist position is that the brain is very complicated system, and as such is capable of far more than the sum of its parts. The emergent properties of the complex brain system do not exist in any one of its constituent parts (neurons, memory elements, etc.). It is only the combination of parts working together as a system that we get consciousness, thoughts, emotions, and all of the nonphysical perceptions that exist in a conscious animal. The statement "we are our brains" makes no sense ... but the statement "our brains produce our conscious states" does make sense, even if we can't yet write down the exact mechanisms at a molecular level for how this works.

Whether I should have used that phrasing or not, it was meant as the same thing. If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then as the material constituents of the brain are replaced, the consciousness would also be replaced with new consciousnesses. We still wouldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next (Q1). But we do have continuity in spite of the changes (Q2). Therefore, consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain.

Elaborate on what you mean by "physical footprint." This sounds to me as an acceptance that consciousness has a physical basis (ie. is an emergent property of the brain).

It’s not. It simply means there are physical traces of consciousness. Whether that is all consciousness is (an emergent property) or not (a soul) is a different (and philosophical) issue.

Would you say that the different opinions are different "physical footprints"? How could consciousness have a physical footprint any differently than an opinion could?

Person A having an opinion in their material brain would obviously be different than Person B having even the same opinion in their material brain because the brains are physically distinct, but that’s not what I mean. They are the same “physical footprint” in the sense that they leave physical traces of consciousness.

I disagree. There is no reason it should be impossible for science to eventually show that consciousness is purely an emergent property of a working brain. You're claiming consciousness does have a nonphysical basis or component, and is therefore outside of the purview of science. My argument is that this has yet to be demonstrated, and until that occurs science has a chance to solve the consciousness "problem."

No, I’m not claiming that. I’m saying the question of whether it has a nonphysical basis or component or not is outside the purview of science. Before we know an answer to this question, we know it is outside the purview of science. I'm not saying here is the answer to that question and now, because of that answer, we know it is outside the purview of science. How could something that only studies physical nature say the physical is all that exists?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #93]

Okay, so you agree that consciousness isn’t reducible to the brain. But you seemed to have stopped part the way through my post. I gave two arguments for consciousness being the product of the soul rather than the brain. Where do you disagree with those?

P1. If I’m either fully present or not, but my body and brain are divisible, then I can’t be my brain or body.
P2. I’m either fully present or not.
P3. Therefore, I can’t be my brain or body.

That something needs a name. Calling it the soul doesn’t lay out all of its characteristics, but ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ is what most people call that thing.

Q1. If we were our brains, then we couldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next.
Q2. Our conscious self has a continuity from one day to the next.
Q3. Therefore, we are not our brains.

The first argument assumes that if something is divisible, then it cannot be the source of consciousness. However, there is no reason to assume that consciousness cannot arise from complex interactions within the brain and body, even if they are divisible. In fact, studies in neuroscience have shown that changes in brain activity can affect consciousness and even create altered states of consciousness. Therefore, it is not necessary to posit the existence of a non-physical soul or mind to account for consciousness.

The second argument assumes that if we were our brains, then our conscious self could not have continuity from one day to the next. However, this is not necessarily the case. The brain is a highly complex and dynamic system that is constantly changing in response to experiences and environmental factors. These changes can result in the formation of memories, which allow us to maintain a sense of continuity over time. Furthermore, the brain is capable of generating new neurons and forming new connections throughout life, suggesting that our conscious self can continue to evolve and develop over time.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #97]

If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then as the material constituents of the brain are replaced, the consciousness would also be replaced with new consciousnesses. We still wouldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next (Q1). But we do have continuity in spite of the changes (Q2). Therefore, consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain.

I think the flaw in this argument is the part I bolded. Consciousness is the result of many different parts of the brain interacting as a very complicated system. But not 100% of the brain needs to be involved to produce the result. The auditory subsytem can fail so that hearing is lost, or the visual cortex so that sight is lost, but these would not change a person's consciousness in terms of the awareness they would have, the memories, etc. And what mechanism is there for the material constituents of the brain to be replaced? Is there any known mechanism or example of a human undergoing this process? Brain surgeries obviously happen for multiple reasons (remove tumors, relieve pressure, treat blood clots, aneurysms, etc.), but I don't think any of these could be described as replacing material constituents of the brain. Continuity just requires that the same brain function well enough to maintain a conscious state, or return to such a state.

It’s not. It simply means there are physical traces of consciousness. Whether that is all consciousness is (an emergent property) or not (a soul) is a different (and philosophical) issue.

The things we measure in EEGs, MRI/fMRI, etc. are signals that can be interpreted and related to certain brain functions. By "physical footprint" I assume you are equating the presence of such signals with consciousness (ie. they indicate consciousness if they exist)? An "unconscious" person still emits brain waves that can be studied using fMRI and other techniques. Someone in a coma or persistent vegetative state may have brain stem functions to maintain heart beat and breathing, but be technically unconscious. But when "brain death" occurs, the person is legally dead and all brain signals stop. At this point, as far as we know, consciousness also vanishes (ie. when the brain dies, so does conscioiusness for that animal).

If something like a "soul" existed, is it only humans who have them? Or do all conscious animals from worms to humans have souls? Certainly this is philisophical stuff, but it is awfully hard to believe in such things and especially so if only humans are supposedly afforded the luxury.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #93]

Okay, so you agree that consciousness isn’t reducible to the brain. But you seemed to have stopped part the way through my post. I gave two arguments for consciousness being the product of the soul rather than the brain. Where do you disagree with those?

P1. If I’m either fully present or not, but my body and brain are divisible, then I can’t be my brain or body.
P2. I’m either fully present or not.
P3. Therefore, I can’t be my brain or body.

That something needs a name. Calling it the soul doesn’t lay out all of its characteristics, but ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ is what most people call that thing.

Q1. If we were our brains, then we couldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next.
Q2. Our conscious self has a continuity from one day to the next.
Q3. Therefore, we are not our brains.

The first argument assumes that if something is divisible, then it cannot be the source of consciousness. However, there is no reason to assume that consciousness cannot arise from complex interactions within the brain and body, even if they are divisible. In fact, studies in neuroscience have shown that changes in brain activity can affect consciousness and even create altered states of consciousness. Therefore, it is not necessary to posit the existence of a non-physical soul or mind to account for consciousness.

The second argument assumes that if we were our brains, then our conscious self could not have continuity from one day to the next. However, this is not necessarily the case. The brain is a highly complex and dynamic system that is constantly changing in response to experiences and environmental factors. These changes can result in the formation of memories, which allow us to maintain a sense of continuity over time. Furthermore, the brain is capable of generating new neurons and forming new connections throughout life, suggesting that our conscious self can continue to evolve and develop over time.

BTW, I might add that the second argument is ONLY supported by Materialism, since if you claim our consciousness transcends the brain, and physical brain development, then we'd either still think, act, and be like babies - Or, we'd have mature thoughts and understandings when we were babies. Both are not true.
Various studies that show how the brain develops, and how we learn things like object permanence, etc., are strong arguments for Materialism, not Dualism. For example, why are babies better at learning languages than adults? Because of the malleability of the brain. If our consciousness was separate, we'd be able to learn easily at any point.

You've literally done a self pwn.


edit: And i can't help but get the feeling that it's only Theists who argue for Idealism or Dualism. I know there are some non-theists who are either of those, but they seem rare. It seems to me the bulk of Idealists and Dualist are Theists, and since they've decided an immaterial brain exists in God, they desperately need to convince themselves that it's true for them too. (After all, we know that when Theists think of what God thinks, they access the same area of the brain the is self-referential. They don't realize it, but they are the God they believe in).