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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

I, being of low intelligence and questionable moral character, hadn't even thought of that.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

I, being of low intelligence and questionable moral character, hadn't even thought of that.

I doubt either are true, but I laughed nonetheless!

[The Tanager]

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 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).

Science is telling us certain (but not all) signals are connected to states of consciousness. That’s the physical footprint. Philosophers then take that data and make philosophical claims such as “if the brain dies, consciousness ceases to exist” or “this data shows that consciousness is a product of the brain” or “this data shows that physical beings’ states of consciousness are connected to certain physical signals, but we can’t therefore say anything else about it”.

Why the Premise 1 above instead of this last claim?


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.

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.

I agree the brain affects our consciousness. We aren’t talking about just affecting here, but being the source. If consciousness arises from even complex interactions within the brain, certain (not necessarily all) damages to the brain would have to destroy consciousness. We aren’t talking about at death here, but while the human is still alive. That doesn’t happen. A sense of self still fully exists even when our memories are damaged.


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.

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.

I’m talking about how atoms, molecules, cells, etc. that make up our brain are constantly changing.

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.

…

Continuity just requires that the same brain function well enough to maintain a conscious state, or return to such a state.

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.

This sense of continuity would be an illusion, though. It would be different brain states having different states of consciousness, that build upon a string of actually unconnected subsequent memories. You would literally not be the same person that started reading this post.

Intention would also be an illusion. Physical objects (or the emergent states of those physical objects) don’t have intentional properties, will. This non-reductive physicalist view can’t account for our states of consciousness intending to think about our vacation or of our beautiful spouses or friends. Intention is, after all, thinking about or of something.

If you want to bite that bullet, then you’ll need to admit that every word of your response is just a bunch of electronic bits and not really about anything; they are meaningless marks.

It is the universal human intuition that there is a continuous self and that intention is a real thing. The simplest answer is to trust those intuitions unless evidence shows otherwise. Non-reductive materialism hasn’t carried that burden, giving us reasons to believe these illusions, this more complex view of reality is worth holding.

On top of that, these illusions would be self-defeating. An illusion is an illusion of something; it’s an intentional state. An illusion of intentionality is itself an intentional state.

Even our ability to reason points against non-reductive physicalism. If there is no self, it’s all just electronic circuitry going on. Any conclusion you are trying to argue for would have no rational basis. Reasoning would be an illusion.

Mental causation would also be an illusion. States of consciousness would simply be products of various brain states with no causal agency. You can’t think “I’ll write this in response” and then write it because of that thought. Why, then, think it means anything? Neuroplasticity would be an illusion.

If you think “you” does any of these things, then you shouldn’t be a non-reductive physicalist.

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.

I don’t see how I’m committed to these things. Why do you think so? I believe humans are both material (body) and immaterial (soul), so why wouldn’t the growth of the brain in concert with growth in consciousness occur?


Other

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.

I believe animals have souls. Christians as a whole, traditionally, do as well. That doesn’t mean there aren’t different kinds or levels of souls.

[boatsnguitars]

I believe animals have souls. Christians as a whole, traditionally, do as well. That doesn’t mean there aren’t different kinds or levels of souls.

First link:
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/chris ... souls.html

Do Animals Have Souls?
Animals do not have souls, but they do have a certain kind of consciousness.

I believe humans are both material (body) and immaterial (soul), so why wouldn’t the growth of the brain in concert with growth in consciousness occur?

Why do you believe this?

Perhaps you can describe the soul for us (and, for the record, note that we are no longer talking about consciousness).

I suppose you'd also think that the degredation of the body affects the soul?

And, no body would mean no soul?

I think you owe us all an explanation, because it appears to me you are making this up as you go along.


As for the first part of your post:
The sense of continuity may be an illusion, sure. But it is an illusion that serves an important function in our lives. Our brains and bodies are constantly changing and evolving, but the illusion of continuity allows us to create a sense of self and identity that is important for our mental health and well-being.

As for intentionality, it is true that physical objects do not have intentional properties, but our brains are capable of generating intentional states through complex processes of neural activity. Our ability to think about our vacation or loved ones is not an illusion, but a result of the intricate functioning of our brains.

It's also important to note that just because something is an illusion, it doesn't mean that it is not real or meaningful. Illusions can have real effects on our lives and behavior. For example, the illusion of free will is an important aspect of human experience, even though it may not be based on a completely accurate understanding of how our brains work. (A mirage is an illusion, it doesn't mean it isn't real).

Finally, while non-reductive physicalism may present some philosophical challenges, it is still a valid perspective that has been supported by empirical evidence from fields such as neuroscience and psychology. The fact that we are able to reason and make rational arguments does not necessarily require the existence of a non-physical self, as these processes can be explained by the functioning of our brains. Overall, the materialist perspective offers a robust framework for understanding the relationship between consciousness and the physical world.

You have not offered an adequate alternative, except God of the Gaps.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #103]

If you want to bite that bullet, then you’ll need to admit that every word of your response is just a bunch of electronic bits and not really about anything; they are meaningless marks.

Even our ability to reason points against non-reductive physicalism. If there is no self, it’s all just electronic circuitry going on. Any conclusion you are trying to argue for would have no rational basis. Reasoning would be an illusion.

This is a common response from people who believe that consciousness has some non-natural component or cause. ESG just hinted at a similar thing in another thread in post 22:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=40570&start=20

Saying that consciousness results from complex brain function in no way implies that everything is a random result because chemistry is random, or "electrical bits" are random. It is the very interaction of these things, and integration into more complex networks and systems, that enable the higher (and organized) functions. Crystals form because chemical bonding is not random. In DNA, A bonds with T and C bonds with G because of the chemical structures of these base pairs. The codons that triplets of base pairs form and whcih define amino acid sequences during the gene-to-protein process are not random so that DNA just combines to produce nonsense. This kind of "randomness" argument is completely off base.

Mental causation would also be an illusion. States of consciousness would simply be products of various brain states with no causal agency. You can’t think “I’ll write this in response” and then write it because of that thought. Why, then, think it means anything? Neuroplasticity would be an illusion.

Brains have evolved over hundreds of milllions of years, and we can see the progression in capability from worms to humans. A paper I linked in the other thread mentioned above:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 143517.htm

describes a very simple brain in a worm. That simple brain of only 302 cells can carry out some reasonably complex tasks. Multiply that up to 100 billion neurons and associated structures and it doesn't seem at all surprising that a modern human brain can do what it does, purely as the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution in brains. Capability progressed all along the path, just as you'd expect from an evolutionary process. Mental causation would not be an illusion in a materialist view of consciousness ... it is just another function enabled by the brain working as an integrated system.

[The Tanager]

First link:
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/chris ... souls.html

I didn’t say all Christians believe animals have souls. Traditionally, the majority teaching has been that they do have souls. The features that people attach to a ‘soul’ have also changed. For instance, the article you linked to connects understanding right from wrong with having a soul. Traditionally, that has not been the case. I’ve argued that consciousness is a faculty of the soul, so if the article writer accepted that definition, they would also say animals have a soul, just a different kind of soul than humans since the writer believes they do have consciousness. The writer also heavily attaches the soul to whether animals can live in heaven for eternity. Traditionally, that hasn’t been a definitive part to having a soul.

I believe humans are both material (body) and immaterial (soul), so why wouldn’t the growth of the brain in concert with growth in consciousness occur?

Why do you believe this?

Perhaps you can describe the soul for us (and, for the record, note that we are no longer talking about consciousness).

As to animals having souls, I only shared that belief because DrNoGods argued that believing only humans have souls would be a mark against the soul existing. I don’t believe only humans have souls, so even if that was a good critique, it would not apply to my view. Going into why I believe animals have souls seems an irrelevant tangent to my arguments for the soul via the existence of consciousness. If you can show it’s not irrelevant, I’ll go down that road with you.

As to humans being a body-soul hybrid, I’ve been sharing why. Your critique of my “Q” argument was that if I believe consciousness is not a product of the brain, then I would be committed to believing that consciousness couldn’t grow along with the brain. You have the burden of showing why that is true.

I suppose you'd also think that the degredation of the body affects the soul?

And, no body would mean no soul?

I think you owe us all an explanation, because it appears to me you are making this up as you go along.

I think that in humans, that the body affects the soul and the soul affects the body, yes. I do not think that no body means no soul. I do think no body means no fully human being.

The sense of continuity may be an illusion, sure. But it is an illusion that serves an important function in our lives. Our brains and bodies are constantly changing and evolving, but the illusion of continuity allows us to create a sense of self and identity that is important for our mental health and well-being.

There is no “our”. That’s the point. “We” don’t have mental health or well-being because there is no “we”. So, you are saying this illusion serves an important function in the illusive mental health.

As for intentionality, it is true that physical objects do not have intentional properties, but our brains are capable of generating intentional states through complex processes of neural activity. Our ability to think about our vacation or loved ones is not an illusion, but a result of the intricate functioning of our brains.

No, they are simply illusions produced by chemicals that would have no actual basis in reality if your view is true.

The fact that we are able to reason and make rational arguments does not necessarily require the existence of a non-physical self, as these processes can be explained by the functioning of our brains. Overall, the materialist perspective offers a robust framework for understanding the relationship between consciousness and the physical world.

Without a non-physical self, the “self” is just a series of chemical states. “Our” “reasoning” could just as well seem to be good reasoning while it’s completely divorced from reality.

Do you have anything else to say supporting your Premise 1 or is your case done there?

[The Tanager]

Saying that consciousness results from complex brain function in no way implies that everything is a random result because chemistry is random, or "electrical bits" are random. It is the very interaction of these things, and integration into more complex networks and systems, that enable the higher (and organized) functions. Crystals form because chemical bonding is not random. In DNA, A bonds with T and C bonds with G because of the chemical structures of these base pairs. The codons that triplets of base pairs form and whcih define amino acid sequences during the gene-to-protein process are not random so that DNA just combines to produce nonsense. This kind of "randomness" argument is completely off base.

I didn’t say everything was random; I said it doesn’t ground the stuff that happens in truth.

Brains have evolved over hundreds of milllions of years, and we can see the progression in capability from worms to humans. A paper I linked in the other thread mentioned above:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 143517.htm

describes a very simple brain in a worm. That simple brain of only 302 cells can carry out some reasonably complex tasks. Multiply that up to 100 billion neurons and associated structures and it doesn't seem at all surprising that a modern human brain can do what it does, purely as the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution in brains. Capability progressed all along the path, just as you'd expect from an evolutionary process. Mental causation would not be an illusion in a materialist view of consciousness ... it is just another function enabled by the brain working as an integrated system.

I didn’t say the brain couldn’t do some crazily complex things. Capabilities could be added for sure. Still, the mental things would be a determined product of chemical processes. There is no guarantee that these processes give us truth about reality; they might as well give us a completely false picture of reality because physical processes just are, they don’t get at truth statements. To think the brain can grow that function is a blind faith position.

[Clownboat]

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 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).

Science is telling us certain (but not all) signals are connected to states of consciousness. That’s the physical footprint. Philosophers then take that data and make philosophical claims such as “if the brain dies, consciousness ceases to exist” or “this data shows that consciousness is a product of the brain” or “this data shows that physical beings’ states of consciousness are connected to certain physical signals, but we can’t therefore say anything else about it”.

Why the Premise 1 above instead of this last claim?


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.

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.

I agree the brain affects our consciousness. We aren’t talking about just affecting here, but being the source. If consciousness arises from even complex interactions within the brain, certain (not necessarily all) damages to the brain would have to destroy consciousness. We aren’t talking about at death here, but while the human is still alive. That doesn’t happen. A sense of self still fully exists even when our memories are damaged.


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.

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.

I’m talking about how atoms, molecules, cells, etc. that make up our brain are constantly changing.

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.

…

Continuity just requires that the same brain function well enough to maintain a conscious state, or return to such a state.

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.

This sense of continuity would be an illusion, though. It would be different brain states having different states of consciousness, that build upon a string of actually unconnected subsequent memories. You would literally not be the same person that started reading this post.

Intention would also be an illusion. Physical objects (or the emergent states of those physical objects) don’t have intentional properties, will. This non-reductive physicalist view can’t account for our states of consciousness intending to think about our vacation or of our beautiful spouses or friends. Intention is, after all, thinking about or of something.

If you want to bite that bullet, then you’ll need to admit that every word of your response is just a bunch of electronic bits and not really about anything; they are meaningless marks.

It is the universal human intuition that there is a continuous self and that intention is a real thing. The simplest answer is to trust those intuitions unless evidence shows otherwise. Non-reductive materialism hasn’t carried that burden, giving us reasons to believe these illusions, this more complex view of reality is worth holding.

On top of that, these illusions would be self-defeating. An illusion is an illusion of something; it’s an intentional state. An illusion of intentionality is itself an intentional state.

Even our ability to reason points against non-reductive physicalism. If there is no self, it’s all just electronic circuitry going on. Any conclusion you are trying to argue for would have no rational basis. Reasoning would be an illusion.

Mental causation would also be an illusion. States of consciousness would simply be products of various brain states with no causal agency. You can’t think “I’ll write this in response” and then write it because of that thought. Why, then, think it means anything? Neuroplasticity would be an illusion.

If you think “you” does any of these things, then you shouldn’t be a non-reductive physicalist.

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.

I don’t see how I’m committed to these things. Why do you think so? I believe humans are both material (body) and immaterial (soul), so why wouldn’t the growth of the brain in concert with growth in consciousness occur?


Other

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.

I believe animals have souls. Christians as a whole, traditionally, do as well. That doesn’t mean there aren’t different kinds or levels of souls.

I hear you, but there is literally no reason to propose a soul idea besides for religions purposes. Yes, that is good enough for some, but not for all.

Furthermore, these soul beliefs are mostly believed in due to where a person is born on this planet. This is not a good indication for an unneeded thing to be argued for as being real or needed, but that doesn't stop the religious from doing it because souls are necessary for religions to survive.

[The Tanager]

I hear you, but there is literally no reason to propose a soul idea besides for religions purposes. Yes, that is good enough for some, but not for all.

I offered arguments that were not “for religion purposes” but are sound whether or not any specific religion is true.

Furthermore, these soul beliefs are mostly believed in due to where a person is born on this planet. This is not a good indication for an unneeded thing to be argued for as being real or needed, but that doesn't stop the religious from doing it because souls are necessary for religions to survive.

That is a textbook genetic fallacy. The truth of something isn’t about how a person initially gained such a belief, or even why some hold it now. My arguments for the soul are not based on people holding a belief in the soul, where they were born, or that religion needs it to survive. As I said earlier, feel free to respond to my arguments, not these straw men.

Also feel free to defend the claim that the affecting of consciousness by affecting the brain means consciousness is a physical product of brains.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #107]

I didn’t say the brain couldn’t do some crazily complex things. Capabilities could be added for sure. Still, the mental things would be a determined product of chemical processes. There is no guarantee that these processes give us truth about reality; they might as well give us a completely false picture of reality because physical processes just are, they don’t get at truth statements. To think the brain can grow that function is a blind faith position.

It appears, then, that your primary issue with a purely materialistic explanation for consciousness relates to things like truth, morals and siimilar things. Correct? I don't see why these things cannot be categorized as simply the result of our ability to think and reason, store memories, etc. which are byproducts of normal brain function. Certainly there are people who seem to have faulty brain functions and make horrible decisions (mass shooters for example), but this is just another example in support of consciousness being an emergent property.

If it were guided by some non-natural influence (eg. a god being of some sort for lack of another example) there should be no random mass shooters in shopping malls. We all are born with a functional brain, but everyone learns differently and the result of that learning as we progress from a newborn to an adult shapes our ideas on right and wrong, and general behavior. No one is born a serial killer ... environment has a great deal to do with how an individual's brain develops and how their views on morality, truth, etc. develop. The physical basis for views on these things can be the same in each person (ie. the mechanics of brain function), but lead to very different results as we can clearly see in the different behavior of people.

The chemical and electrical processes do not need to be "determined" beyond our own, innate ability to make decisions. If these physical processes enable memory storage and decision making, they enable a nearly infinite array of outcomes for behavior in humans, and their views on any subject.