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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #58]

I just don’t see how science would be able to do that if consciousness isn’t a physical thing. It seems that to make the connection to the non-physical thing, we have to enter philosophy because of the very definition of science.

I'm only pointing out that nonphysical things like consciousness (or a thought, or awareness, etc.) are by definition not physical things themselves. A thought is not composed of atoms any more than consciousness is, but there is reason to believe that a thought is the result of brain activity that produces it.

If consciousness also results from physical activity of a working brain, as an emergent property, then there is nothing contradictory or wrong with saying that consciousness itself is a nonphysical thing, but is produced by physical actions within a brain. No reason to resort to philosophical arguments in that case ... the physical workings of the very complicated system that is a brain, is much more than the sum of its parts (neurons, memory, chemical and electrical signaling, etc.). There are many examples of systems that produce outcomes which are not possible from its components existing outside of the integrated system. Consciousness may be in that category, with a purely physical explanation for its cause that science can elucidate.

[The Tanager]

Tested how?

Philosophical analysis of the various theories in how they account or don’t account for the various data collected from other fields and other philosophical arguments that are established as reasonable theories that outstrip alternative views.

[The Tanager]

I'm only pointing out that nonphysical things like consciousness (or a thought, or awareness, etc.) are by definition not physical things themselves. A thought is not composed of atoms any more than consciousness is, but there is reason to believe that a thought is the result of brain activity that produces it.

The reasons to believe so (or not believe so) are philosophical, though, not scientific.

If consciousness also results from physical activity of a working brain, as an emergent property, then there is nothing contradictory or wrong with saying that consciousness itself is a nonphysical thing, but is produced by physical actions within a brain.

Yes, but it’s philosophy not science that is the last step to get to such a conclusion.

[boatsnguitars]

Tested how?

Philosophical analysis of the various theories in how they account or don’t account for the various data collected from other fields and other philosophical arguments that are established as reasonable theories that outstrip alternative views.

Reasonable according to whom, based on what metric?

[The Tanager]

Tested how?

Philosophical analysis of the various theories in how they account or don’t account for the various data collected from other fields and other philosophical arguments that are established as reasonable theories that outstrip alternative views.

Reasonable according to whom, based on what metric?

Logic.

[boatsnguitars]

Tested how?

Philosophical analysis of the various theories in how they account or don’t account for the various data collected from other fields and other philosophical arguments that are established as reasonable theories that outstrip alternative views.

Reasonable according to whom, based on what metric?

Logic.

Great. So we agree that we need rigorous logic to assess physical data collected in a precise manner to build an understanding of our reality.

For example, the fact that we can now read people's minds based on electrical impulses in our brain would indicate "we" (our consciousness) is physical. Correct?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/scie ... guage.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/ ... rks-debate

[Clownboat]

Tested how?

Philosophical analysis of the various theories in how they account or don’t account for the various data collected from other fields and other philosophical arguments that are established as reasonable theories that outstrip alternative views.

Reasonable according to whom, based on what metric?

Logic.

Great. So we agree that we need rigorous logic to assess physical data collected in a precise manner to build an understanding of our reality.

For example, the fact that we can now read people's minds based on electrical impulses in our brain would indicate "we" (our consciousness) is physical. Correct?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/scie ... guage.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/ ... rks-debate

Yes, but such a belief goes against the most popular religions we currently have and will be rejected by the religious in order to maintain their religious beliefs (like the ability to live forever in a heaven or whatever the promise happens to be).

It's evidence, but rejected evidence for no other reason then to maintain a religious belief. It would be hard to believe in an eternal soul after all if a soul is just an emerging property of a working brain.

[boatsnguitars]

Tested how?

Philosophical analysis of the various theories in how they account or don’t account for the various data collected from other fields and other philosophical arguments that are established as reasonable theories that outstrip alternative views.

Reasonable according to whom, based on what metric?

Logic.

Great. So we agree that we need rigorous logic to assess physical data collected in a precise manner to build an understanding of our reality.

For example, the fact that we can now read people's minds based on electrical impulses in our brain would indicate "we" (our consciousness) is physical. Correct?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/scie ... guage.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/ ... rks-debate

Yes, but such a belief goes against the most popular religions we currently have and will be rejected by the religious in order to maintain their religious beliefs (like the ability to live forever in a heaven or whatever the promise happens to be).

It's evidence, but rejected evidence for no other reason then to maintain a religious belief. It would be hard to believe in an eternal soul after all if a soul is just an emerging property of a working brain.

As a former Christian, I can't tell you how glad I am to not have to play that religious game of "plug your ears and yell, "I can't hear you!"" anymore!

[The Tanager]

Great. So we agree that we need rigorous logic to assess physical data collected in a precise manner to build an understanding of our reality.

For example, the fact that we can now read people's minds based on electrical impulses in our brain would indicate "we" (our consciousness) is physical. Correct?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/scie ... guage.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/ ... rks-debate

What is the logical argument (and support for those premises) that get you to that asserted conclusion? If it's in the NY Times piece, then I don't have access and you'll have to present it for us. The Al Jazeera article doesn't make any logical argument to this effect.

[boatsnguitars]

Great. So we agree that we need rigorous logic to assess physical data collected in a precise manner to build an understanding of our reality.

For example, the fact that we can now read people's minds based on electrical impulses in our brain would indicate "we" (our consciousness) is physical. Correct?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/scie ... guage.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/ ... rks-debate

What is the logical argument (and support for those premises) that get you to that asserted conclusion? If it's in the NY Times piece, then I don't have access and you'll have to present it for us. The Al Jazeera article doesn't make any logical argument to this effect.

Premise 1: If AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI's and other brain scans, then consciousness must have a physical basis.

Premise 2: AI can read our thoughts and emotions via MRI's and other brain scans.

Conclusion: Therefore, consciousness must have a physical basis.

The argument is based on the assumption that if AI can detect and interpret the patterns of neural activity in the brain that correspond to thoughts and emotions, then those patterns must have a physical basis. This is because the technology used to detect these patterns is based on physical principles and relies on physical measurements, such as changes in blood flow, electrical signals, or magnetic fields. Therefore, if consciousness can be detected and interpreted in this way, it must have a physical basis.