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]

This is what I'm not getting. Why would a materialist not have exactly the same morals, appreciation for life and happiness, sense of right and wrong, etc. as anyone else? Materialism does not disallow these things in any way, but simply claims they are manifestations of complex brain functions rather than being produiced by some external, unknown "thing" (in whole or in part). The exact same human can exist in either case.

I clearly said that this didn’t mean that a materialist would have different morals, no appreciation for life and happiness, no sense of right and wrong. But if they followed their materialism out logically, they would have a different view about morals, meaning, and all the rest for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. You just keep asserting that for some unknown reason, these chemical and electrical signals could produce these things.

What do you mean by "don't physically interact"? My point is that the constituents of the brain do physically interact in very complex ways to produce the end result. In fact, that is the crux of the argument for consciousness being an emergent propery of a brain. There isn't shared consciousness because it doesn't come from elements outside of our brain. Each person is different and their brain works independently of other people.

I meant that your physical stuff doesn’t interact with my physical stuff, our signals don’t touch each other. Yet, we can share and be affected by each other’s thoughts. If all my thoughts are just a product of my signals and my signals don’t interact directly with your signals, then why would we even be able to talk to each other, much less be talking about the same kinds of stuff and have shared understandings on things. I know it’s a feature of reality and so a materialist needs it to fit somehow, but I don’t see materialism offering any reason for why it would fit.

Not only more complex, but with exponentially more functional capability which is the key point. The brain system cannot exist without the "collection of chemical and electrical processes", but individually those cannot function like the integrated system (the brain). It is the system that creates consciousness.

Yes, more capability, but for the reasons I’ve shared I don’t think it can give brains the functions we have been talking about.

Just because science can't yet explain something does not make it "mysterious" ... it just means it is an open problem. The explanation may be a mystery until it is sorted out, but the inability to produce the explanation does make the problem a mystery. Materialists aren't claiming that some mysterious thing is happening to enable the brain to do what it does, but that brain activity is (by far) the most sensible and logical explanation for consciousness, and is strongly supported by observations.

That’s semantics. Not knowing is exactly what is meant by being “mysterious”. Materialists are saying they don’t know what is happening, simply assuming enough complexity can get us there one day. This isn’t supported by observations, it’s a leap of faith.

So the task is to continue to investigate to try and better understand how it does its thing. A huge amount of progress has been made in brain research over the last 2-3 decades, and it continues. Given the track record of science solving problems in the past, it is reasonable to believe it can solve the consciousness problem as well. That may be "science of the gaps", but at least there is a centuries long track record to justify it (unlike non-natural explanations for virtually anything).

Yes, one should always investigate and there have been great strides, but consciousness, as I’ve already shared why, isn’t in the realm of science. The greatest track record in history doesn’t matter if the question is a category mistake; the problem isn’t a scientific one.

[Clownboat]

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.

What qualities of a soul can you share with us and when you answer this question, could I then substitute the word soul with the word 'magic'.

That is a textbook genetic fallacy.

That religions need soul concepts to be real in order to level threats against is not a genetic fallacy.
If you would like to argue that accepting a specific soul belief because of your geography is reasonable, then do so. Currently I reject such reasoning as I would like to see evidence for a soul.

The truth of something isn’t about how a person initially gained such a belief, or even why some hold it now.

Correct. Muslims could be right about their god being the one and only, but accepting such a claim because you were born in Iran or not is not logical. I'm addressing logic, not truth.

My arguments for the soul are not based on people holding a belief in the soul,

I just re-read post 52 and I agree, you argue for a soul and I claim you do it because you are religious and your religion requires a soul concept to make threats against. What you haven't done is provide evidence for a soul. If a soul existed and interacted in the real world, we could detect such interactions.

As I said earlier, feel free to respond to my arguments, not these straw men.

Your arguments are not convincing and you hold them for religious reasons, not because you are detecting a soul. Evidence, not just arguing for a soul, now that would be something. Again, I fully understand why you forced to argue for the existence of a soul. You literally cannot get to heaven and have eternal life without one. This is your baggage. I'm open to the idea of a soul if one can be suggested. I fear not the idea of a soul (or to not have one for that matter).

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

Where else would consciousness come from? I could argue fairies, but until I provide evidence, you will likely reject my argument. Especially if I hold my belief because I was born into a population of humans that subscribe to fairies as being real.

I'm not claiming you are wrong about a soul, but hopefully you can see why your arguments are not very convincing and that providing evidence and not arguments would be more effective. For example, we can't show you a black hole, but we can show you how it interacts in the real world. That would be a great start for the idea of a soul if you ask me.

[boatsnguitars]

Who is lying? Who is decieving you? Who is purposely telling you a falsehood?

A mirage is a "naturally-occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays bend via refraction to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky."

(An illusion is "an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.")

You might think it looks like water, like a stain on a wall looks like Jesus, but that's not the mirage's or stain's fault.

The fact is a mirage is real. (If it's a lie, it's God's Creation lying to you - under Theism)

A mirage is real - even if it's an illusion. Like consciousness; like our sense of self.
I simply can't understand why you'd call it a lie.

Is a straw in a glass of water, that looks bent, a lie? Is it the water or the light that is intending to decieve you?

I think we have a very different idea of what Nature is. Just because we have a wrong impression of something doesn't make it not real!

I’m not saying it is a lie in the sense of someone telling you a falsehood; it just is a falsehood, a deception, a misinterpreted view. I’m not saying it’s the water or stain’s fault. But the mirage isn’t real. It’s a real experience, sure, but what we see isn’t actually there, it’s something else giving us that false impression. That the straw is bent is a deception. It’s not bent; it’s straight. The water isn’t intending anything because purely physical things don’t have intentions.

If non-reductive physicalism is true, then it’s a deception that there is even a “we” that experiences falsehood. It's a falsehood that this this false self has intentions. “You” are the wrong impression that the chemical and electrical signals are creating. It’s not that nothing exists, it’s that the real “you” is just a specific collection of signals. Those signals don't have intentions, reason, etc.

Again, I think we have very different understanding of Nature. I don't look at Nature as something that is described by my misinterpretations of it. A mirage is real - it really happens to electromagnetic waves in those conditions. There is no deception, or lie - in fact, nothing could be more true than the speed of light refracts in those conditions.

If anything, we are seeing the truth, not a lie. Likewise, our consciousness is the truth - even if an illusion - it is true because that's what brains do. Mirage = what light does in those conditions. Consciousness = what brains do.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #121]

You just keep asserting that for some unknown reason, these chemical and electrical signals could produce these things.

We may not understand the details at the molecular level yet, but this is by definition the materialist view. It is not made invalid just because we can't yet write down every mechanism. You are suggesting some other mechanism but cannot define exactly what that is any better than the materialist. What favors the materialist view is that it is the most logical explanation and is supported by observations that only animals with brains exhibit consciousness, and we know brains are highly complex organs with capabilities that can enable consciousness, in principle.

If all my thoughts are just a product of my signals and my signals don’t interact directly with your signals, then why would we even be able to talk to each other, much less be talking about the same kinds of stuff and have shared understandings on things.

Because it isn't our electrical and chemical signals that are interacting, it is the system that they are assembled into (brain) that is doing the interacting. This system has capabilities far beyond just the electrical and chemical signals that make up neurons, memory elements, etc. and their higher level functions.

Materialists are saying they don’t know what is happening, simply assuming enough complexity can get us there one day. This isn’t supported by observations, it’s a leap of faith.

We say we don't fully understand the mechanisms behind what is happening, but Law of Parsinomy and Occam's razor type of arguments suggest that the brain produces consciousness. That, and the historical track record of science solving problems like this, make it a reasonable position. Non-natural explanations have zero track record of success, so why even propose such a thing for consciousness?

Yes, one should always investigate and there have been great strides, but consciousness, as I’ve already shared why, isn’t in the realm of science. The greatest track record in history doesn’t matter if the question is a category mistake; the problem isn’t a scientific one.

That is only true if a materialist explanation is discarded outright, and my argument is that it is premature to make such a determination. Relegating the problem to philosophers would mean that research into a physical basis for consciousness should be terminated and we simply give up. I don't think that has any chance of happening, fortunately.

[The Tanager]

What qualities of a soul can you share with us and when you answer this question, could I then substitute the word soul with the word 'magic'.

The quality the arguments point to is that the soul is the seat of consciousness. It would be irrational to call that seat ‘magic’, but you can do it (possibly poisoning the well and, if not, irrelevant).

That religions need soul concepts to be real in order to level threats against is not a genetic fallacy.
If you would like to argue that accepting a specific soul belief because of your geography is reasonable, then do so. Currently I reject such reasoning as I would like to see evidence for a soul.

I would not like to argue and I never have argued that one should believe in a soul because of their geography. You talked about soul beliefs being mostly due to where a person is born on this planet (genetic fallacy or simply irrelevant).

Correct. Muslims could be right about their god being the one and only, but accepting such a claim because you were born in Iran or not is not logical. I'm addressing logic, not truth.

You are applying logic to a claim no one made in this thread (straw man).

I just re-read post 52 and I agree, you argue for a soul and I claim you do it because you are religious and your religion requires a soul concept to make threats against. What you haven't done is provide evidence for a soul. If a soul existed and interacted in the real world, we could detect such interactions.

So, instead of responding to the points of the argument, you psychologize (factually incorrect but even if it were the genetic fallacy…which isn’t just about geography), claim I didn’t even provide points of evidence (clearly incorrect even if my points are weak), and then possibly fault an immaterial thing for not being physically detectable (category mistake).

Your arguments are not convincing and you hold them for religious reasons, not because you are detecting a soul. Evidence, not just arguing for a soul, now that would be something. Again, I fully understand why you forced to argue for the existence of a soul. You literally cannot get to heaven and have eternal life without one. This is your baggage. I'm open to the idea of a soul if one can be suggested. I fear not the idea of a soul (or to not have one for that matter).

And possibly act like scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that would work (self-defeating scientism).

[The Tanager]

Again, I think we have very different understanding of Nature. I don't look at Nature as something that is described by my misinterpretations of it. A mirage is real - it really happens to electromagnetic waves in those conditions. There is no deception, or lie - in fact, nothing could be more true than the speed of light refracts in those conditions.

If anything, we are seeing the truth, not a lie. Likewise, our consciousness is the truth - even if an illusion - it is true because that's what brains do. Mirage = what light does in those conditions. Consciousness = what brains do.

Is water really there in the desert mirage? Is water really being seen? Is that straw really bent in that glass of water? Or is the reality something else? There is no water. The straw is straight. Consciousness is not the straight straw, which is the only actual straw. Consciousness is like the bent straw: a misperception of what is really there.

[The Tanager]

We may not understand the details at the molecular level yet, but this is by definition the materialist view. It is not made invalid just because we can't yet write down every mechanism.

I didn’t bring this up as a critique of the theory. I didn’t say it’s invalid because we can’t write it all down yet. My critiques have been about how it is a category mistake to even think one could write it all down scientifically, that if it’s true, that the writing down itself has no truth basis, etc.

It was brought up from the materialist’s side to try to support it being true. The argument was put forth that since science has progressed our knowledge so far, we probably will be able to write it down some day. Materialism isn’t made valid just because of blind faith.

The view should also not be seen to be valid simply because one has faith

You are suggesting some other mechanism but cannot define exactly what that is any better than the materialist.

It’s unclear what is even meant by “mechanism”. Physical things have parts that work together and we call those the mechanisms at work, but it would be a category mistake to think immaterial things would have to have the same.

What favors the materialist view is that it is the most logical explanation and is supported by observations that only animals with brains exhibit consciousness, and we know brains are highly complex organs with capabilities that can enable consciousness, in principle.

You think it is the most logical explanation. I’ve offered reasons as to why I think it’s not. If you mean physical observations, then of course the only kinds of observations we could have would be of material beings that exhibit consciousness. That’s all science can do here. That is not logical support for material beings being the only kind of things that can have consciousness. All we know from the data is that brains have the capability to interact with consciousness.

If by ‘observations’, you mean more than physical observations, then there are reasons to think consciousness exists outside of material beings. I’ve given some of them in this thread.

Because it isn't our electrical and chemical signals that are interacting, it is the system that they are assembled into (brain) that is doing the interacting. This system has capabilities far beyond just the electrical and chemical signals that make up neurons, memory elements, etc. and their higher level functions.

The capabilities are illusions produced by the signals.

We say we don't fully understand the mechanisms behind what is happening, but Law of Parsinomy and Occam's razor type of arguments suggest that the brain produces consciousness.

Maybe if all we had was either (1) brain is responsible or (2) soul and body work together, but that isn’t all we have.

That, and the historical track record of science solving problems like this, make it a reasonable position.

Science has never solved non-scientific problems.

Non-natural explanations have zero track record of success, so why even propose such a thing for consciousness?

If non-natural explanations have zero track record of success, then science is meaningless because it relies on philosophical explanations (i.e., non-natural evidences) to be true. Thus, science would have no track record of success. But non-natural explanations do have a track record of success, thankfully.

That is only true if a materialist explanation is discarded outright, and my argument is that it is premature to make such a determination.

Materialism is not science, it’s philosophy. Its answer is philosophical. I’m not discarding it at all.

Relegating the problem to philosophers would mean that research into a physical basis for consciousness should be terminated and we simply give up. I don't think that has any chance of happening, fortunately.

We don’t research into a physical basis for consciousness at all. None of the scientific research is doing that. It’s research into the physical footprint that philosophers (both trained and untrained) then turn into claims of not only a footprint but a physical basis

[boatsnguitars]

Again, I think we have very different understanding of Nature. I don't look at Nature as something that is described by my misinterpretations of it. A mirage is real - it really happens to electromagnetic waves in those conditions. There is no deception, or lie - in fact, nothing could be more true than the speed of light refracts in those conditions.

If anything, we are seeing the truth, not a lie. Likewise, our consciousness is the truth - even if an illusion - it is true because that's what brains do. Mirage = what light does in those conditions. Consciousness = what brains do.

Is water really there in the desert mirage? Is water really being seen? Is that straw really bent in that glass of water? Or is the reality something else? There is no water. The straw is straight. Consciousness is not the straight straw, which is the only actual straw. Consciousness is like the bent straw: a misperception of what is really there.

Again, we have a very different world view. I accept that refraction is a real thing. The light particles are real, the water is real, the straw is real, our vision is real - everything we are talking about is real - except that they're all lies.

Is mirage a real thing?
Mirage - Wikipedia
In contrast to a hallucination, a mirage is a real optical phenomenon that can be captured on camera, since light rays are actually refracted to form the false image at the observer's location. What the image appears to represent, however, is determined by the interpretive faculties of the human mind.

Do you believe color is a lie to? In fact, do you think anything that appears to someone differently than what it is is a lie? For example, is sound a lie to a deaf person? Are rainbows a lie? I simply can't understand why you'd want to choose this proverbial hill to die on?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_phenomena
Are they all lies? Is God lying to us, through his Creation (or, is it because of sin that we don't see things properly?) Or, is it a simple feature of our reality, and we are mere Apes with limited faculties?

Are you saying consciousness is a lie? Are you saying that while you feel that "you are you", it's not really you? Because, again, that makes no sense to me. Where are "you" then? I feel that I am in my body, because brains produce consciousness.

I really must ask where you got the idea that there was a remote "soul" or consciousness in the first place? Why do you have an impression that you aren't you? Have you been reading pseudoscience from 2000 years ago?

[Clownboat]

The quality the arguments point to is that the soul is the seat of consciousness. It would be irrational to call that seat ‘magic’, but you can do it (possibly poisoning the well and, if not, irrelevant).

You failed to provide any properties of a soul, just a claim that the soul is the seat of consciousness. Surely you understand as to why your claim, without any supporting evidence should not be accepted as factual?

I would not like to argue and I never have argued that one should believe in a soul because of their geography.

I understand as to why you don't make this argument. Sadly, the majority of soul believers do believe in souls for religious reason that stem from where they were born. NOT due to any good reasoning to suggest the need for souls. I'm just pointing this reality out.

You talked about soul beliefs being mostly due to where a person is born on this planet (genetic fallacy or simply irrelevant).

Call it what you want, but it is still the reality we live in on this planet. I fear you claim fallacy so you can stick your head in the sand and not acknowledge this reality though.

So, instead of responding to the points of the argument, you psychologize (factually incorrect but even if it were the genetic fallacy…which isn’t just about geography), claim I didn’t even provide points of evidence (clearly incorrect even if my points are weak), and then possibly fault an immaterial thing for not being physically detectable (category mistake).

Which argument are you referring to? Are any of them what you would consider to be good arguments for why a soul must exist? Why is there no evidence for a soul nor a way to detect a soul affecting our world if they are real things?

And possibly act like scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that would work (self-defeating scientism).

I think you should provide some evidence before complaining about types.

Again, I'm open to the idea of souls. You're just not offering up any convincing evidence that makes souls an explanation for, well... anything to be honest. Furthermore, I fully understand what drives your need/desire for there to be a soul. You can't go to heaven without a soul. I believed in souls for the very same reason you still do. Being set free from my religious beliefs allowed me to acknowledge that souls could be real, but also not real. Prior to this, I was not allowed to not believe in a soul as it was tied into my eternal salvation that I so greatly desired. Is it possible that this is what is driving your argumentation for there being a soul? If you were not religious, do you honestly think that souls being real would still be something you would be arguing for?

I see it a bit like how a flat earther is forced to argue that NASA is in on it. The conclusion (NASA or the soul) is predetermined because of the held belief (the earth is flat or a soul is what goes to heaven), not for being in evidence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #127]

We don’t research into a physical basis for consciousness at all. None of the scientific research is doing that.

There is a lot of research in neuroscience that is geared specifically to trying to understand the physical basis for consciousness. It has been going on with that specific goal for many decades, or even centuries. Here are just a couple of recent examples:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225786/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41377113

https://www.oatext.com/The-physical-bas ... ations.php

As expected, a topic such as this attracts a lot of attention, and it is likely to continue until we figure it out. The progress to date is reason enough to expect a scientific solution ... call if "faith" if you like, but it has a solid basis upon which to place the expectation.

Physical things have parts that work together and we call those the mechanisms at work, but it would be a category mistake to think immaterial things would have to have the same.

It is not a category mistake to say that consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. Consciousness, like a thought, is not a physical thing made of atoms, but there's no reason to believe this perception and awareness we call consciousness is not created by the brain working as a system. The mental images of dreams are not physical pixels or "movies" existing at any location within the brain ... they result from the brain piecing together "stories" from stored memories and experiences. There's no reason it can't create consciousness in a similar way, despite consciousness itself being "immaterial", like a thought or a dream.