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.

[Clownboat]

You argue that Human consciousness can be altered in a number of different ways, including through hypnosis, with drugs, and mental exercises. Yet there is no evidence that the consciousness is altered at all, but rather the evidence is that the states of the brain is altered in which the unaltered consciousness can and does experience those alterations.

Again, this points to consciousness coming from a working brain. See your own words in bold.

Don't be shy now. If you have a valid argument that you would like to propose for explaining consciousness, now would be the time to present it to us so we can compare it with the idea that consciousness comes from a working brain.

Let's compare your mechanism to that of nuroscientists:
These findings align with where scientists have long thought consciousness resides in the brain. The cerebral cortex, located on the surface of the brain, contains sensory areas, motor areas and association areas that are thought to be essential to consciousness experience. The thalamus, located in the middle of the brain, has likewise been thought to be related to consciousness, and in particular, the interaction between the thalamus and cortical regions, called the thalamocortical loop, is considered important for consciousness. These results support the idea that the bi-directionality in the brain network is a key to identifying the place of consciousness.
https://scitechdaily.com/where-does-con ... -location/

Therefore, affecting a working brain does not affect ones consciousness.

It sure seems to and I'll need more than your assurances to the contrary.

Rather it allows consciousness to experience alternative things

Now consciousness is a thing that experiences things. Please show your work.

[boatsnguitars]

Let's compare your mechanism to that of nuroscientists:
These findings align with where scientists have long thought consciousness resides in the brain. The cerebral cortex, located on the surface of the brain, contains sensory areas, motor areas and association areas that are thought to be essential to consciousness experience. The thalamus, located in the middle of the brain, has likewise been thought to be related to consciousness, and in particular, the interaction between the thalamus and cortical regions, called the thalamocortical loop, is considered important for consciousness. These results support the idea that the bi-directionality in the brain network is a key to identifying the place of consciousness.
https://scitechdaily.com/where-does-con ... -location/

I'd love to see Tanager explain the soul in such specific terms. Do you think he'll ever get round to it?

[Clownboat]

Why does that follow? If a soul provides consciousness within a soul-body composite being, why wouldn’t affecting the body part affect the consciousness?

Now you want me to try to imagine answers for you? YOU submit this soul as if it is a thing we should consider. YOU should really do your own work.
If a soul is what provides consciousness, how does it interact with us and where did this soul idea come from?

You will fail to answer this question honestly, so says the prophet Clownboat.

That’s not the argument. The argument is that when there is certain damage (not just losing sight or smell but extensive damage to those parts responsible for consciousness, then we would expect a similar loss of parts or the entirety of consciousness. This doesn’t happen. These parts of the brain can be extensively damaged without loss of consciousness (some functions, yes, but not consciousness as a whole).

Your just complaining, not providing any evidence for your preferred mechanism.

You'll probably just ignore this too:
Consciousness is an awareness of one’s self and surroundings. Brain injury can cause disorders of consciousness (DOC). Some injuries are mild; they may cause minor changes in consciousness such as brief confusion. Severe injuries can cause permanent unconsciousness.
https://msktc.org/tbi/factsheets/facts- ... %20survive.

It’s a different car.

No, it is the same car, but now with a working alternator. Surely you don't get a new title when you put new oil in your car!

The point being that if the brain continually produces consciousness, then a different brain will produce a different consciousness.

Again, you're really just complaining about our current best explanation. So I ask you to hopefully show how ineffective your point is... At what point in your life did you acquire a different brain? Let's examine your consciousness just before this new brain and then just after you received it.
Garbage in, garbage out!

But it’s the same consciousness we have throughout our life.

Not if your brain has been injured. Brain injuries can affect our consciousness. It's almost as if consciousness is a property of a working brain, but we can't have that because our souls need somewhere to go.

Of course I don’t believe that. But the material of our brain, over time, is getting replaced. Our consciousnesses aren't replaced over time.

I'm guessing you're going to be surprised to learn that most neurons in the brain do not renew themselves and nobody has proposed that consciousness ever gets replaced, yet here you are addressing that in place of offering evidence for the idea of a soul.

[The Tanager]

I have argued that the extra layer of supernaturalism you attempt to superimpose upon the natural universe creates more complexity than necessary to an already complex natural system.

All else being equal, I agree.

The answer to the question "why" can be found in the nature of nature itself. The Matter is arranged by The Mind for the purpose of experiencing the forms being arranged.

Therefore, no "supernatural" explanation required where a Mind creates other minds and places these minds into a universe it created ex nihilo, but does not directly experience the created thing itself.

Is your Mind/minds purely Matter/matter? If not, then they are non-material. Or we could use the synonym that means the exact same thing for our purpose here: non-natural. Or we could use another synonym that means the exact same thing for our purpose here: supernatural. Therefore, your Mind explanation is a “supernatural” explanation, as I mean the term. Thus, your view (all else being equal) isn’t less complex than my “supernatural” one. Both have the level of mind/supernatural/non-physical/immaterial/etc.

Whereas your view is that minds within the universe are a product of an unknown source, but are not related to the supernatural mind your argument claims created them, and the universe.

Why do you say my view is that minds within the universe are a product of an unknown source? I think you mean material source, not the efficient source since you say my argument claims a supernatural mind created them. (My argument here actually doesn’t say what created them, as that is a different question and, therefore, irrelevant to the argument, but I do think a supernatural Mind created them). If you mean material source, then it’s not an unknown source, but that it is known there is no source.

My view has no ex nihilo component as it is an unnecessary idea when the explanation is that Unorganized Matter is reorganized in cycles and the whole process is self-propelled and eternal requiring no addition of any supernatural/outside of nature element.

The question regarding the process of consciousnesses being created "as new" remains unanswered in your response. It would be helpful for further clarification on how this creation process occurs within your perspective.

Why do you think your creation via transformation is less complex than creation ex nihilo? In your view organized matter is explained via (1) self-propelled reorganization and in my view organized matter is explained via (1) creation ex nihilo. One isn’t simpler than one.

As far as clarifying creation ex nihilo (if you still think it’s needed), I’m not sure what you don’t understand about it that needs further clarification.

My view is that the whole problem of supernaturalism is in thinking that the immaterial is somehow not an aspect of the material, let alone it being the primary reason for the engagement in and organizing of Matter.
My view is that unorganised matter is indistinguishable from the immaterial mind. What makes that matter into material is all in the organisation of it.

It’s indistinguishable prior to organization, not after organization, correct? Otherwise, why call one matter and one mind?

My viewpoint challenges the traditional dualistic separation between the material and immaterial, providing a framework that sees them as interconnected and mutually influencing. It offers a different perspective on the relationship between mind and matter, highlighting the role of an organizing Mind directly involved in shaping the material world.

The traditional dualism sees them as interconnected and mutually influencing as well, so that’s not different. Your view still separates them, or you wouldn’t call one mind and the other matter.

Then my argument puts that argument to rest because while matter is being organized, the process is happening within that which is being organized, so there is no justification to think of the immaterial aspect of the material reality to have to exist outside of the material reality in order to organize/create said material.

I don’t mean “outside” in the sense of “it doesn’t reside within material,” but just that it is a different thing.

I do not understand why anyone reading my view would interpret that I am arguing that “minds are involved with the mechanics of Nature but aren’t that Nature”
It may be that you are conflating "nature" with the organised material. I am arguing that the material is being organised by a natural process. I am arguing that The Mind is as natural as the material and that the organisation of the material is a natural consequence of that mindful intention.

Then you are using “natural” in a way I’m not. I’m using “natural” to mean “physical” or “material”. You aren’t here, right?

Without further clarification, it is difficult to determine the specific nature of these "other truths" and how they relate to the argument for the necessity of supernaturalism.

Once tabled, we can then evaluate the soundness and validity of the argument you are making as to whether the "other truths" are influencing the "logic" you are applying.

It was just meant to catch any other source of truth, other philosophical claims, historical truths, mathematical truths, etc.

[The Tanager]

Because it's incoherent. It's logically incoherent. The supernatural is non-natural, therefore, it wouldn't have any similarity, or physics, or nature that is common to the natural.

This is the absurdity of your claim.

I understand you meant it’s incoherent; I was asking you to show why it’s incoherent because I didn’t see anything incoherent definitionally. So, the supernatural can’t affect the natural because it doesn’t have any similarity? Only similar things can affect each other? Why? Dissimilar things seem to affect each other all the time. Rain affects you, but you aren’t similar things. I must be misunderstanding you. Could you clear up my confusion?

[The Tanager]

Affecting a working brain affects ones consciousness. That is the reason. If there was a soul providing consciousness, then affecting a brain wouldn't affect consciousness.

Why does that follow? If a soul provides consciousness within a soul-body composite being, why wouldn’t affecting the body part affect the consciousness

Now you want me to try to imagine answers for you? YOU submit this soul as if it is a thing we should consider. YOU should really do your own work.

You made the bolded claim above. It is your burden to support that claim. I’m asking you to imagine answers for you. Why is that claim of yours true?

If a soul is what provides consciousness, how does it interact with us and where did this soul idea come from?

You will fail to answer this question honestly, so says the prophet Clownboat.

How it interacts is a good but different question that is irrelevant to the one we are discussing. One need not know or explain how to explain that it does. This claim comes from the arguments I gave in post 52 and we have finally begun to discuss in more detail recently. I answered this question (at least as I understand it) honestly.

Your just complaining, not providing any evidence for your preferred mechanism.

Saying that I think you misunderstood the argument and clarifying what I thought it said so that you can then respond to that is complaining?

You'll probably just ignore this too:
Consciousness is an awareness of one’s self and surroundings. Brain injury can cause disorders of consciousness (DOC). Some injuries are mild; they may cause minor changes in consciousness such as brief confusion. Severe injuries can cause permanent unconsciousness.
https://msktc.org/tbi/factsheets/facts- ... %20survive.

Consciousness is more than just being aware of one’s self and surroundings. I listed five states of conscisousness in that post, for instance. These arguments are more focused on the unified sense of self, the unified consciousness as an “I”. A brief confusion doesn’t negate that. Amnesia doesn’t negate that. One may not know or remember who they are or were, but that doesn’t mean they are a different consciousness.

I also already talked about death and permanent unconsciousness. Argument 3 is about partial damage to the brain and still having an intact consciousness (even if some functions are lost). That consciousness seeks to have physical effects on the material brain at the death of the brain is irrelevant (and quite expected within my view).

No, it is the same car, but now with a working alternator. Surely you don't get a new title when you put new oil in your car!

Why is the title how we define a car? A car is simply the name we give a specific group of matter. It is nothing more than matter. So, if the matter changes, then the entity is changed. It’s the same with all matter clumps, including our brain. Otherwise, you’d have to define the brain as something more than the specific matter it is made of. You’d be saying the brain is actually supernatural.

Not if your brain has been injured. Brain injuries can affect our consciousness. It's almost as if consciousness is a property of a working brain, but we can't have that because our souls need somewhere to go.

They affect the functions, but not the sense of being an “I”. Maybe previous memories of the “I” is lost, but not the sense of being an “I”.

I'm guessing you're going to be surprised to learn that most neurons in the brain do not renew themselves and nobody has proposed that consciousness ever gets replaced, yet here you are addressing that in place of offering evidence for the idea of a soul.

I’m not surprised by that. I didn’t mean to write or imply that most neurons were.

[JoeyKnothead]

Because it's incoherent. It's logically incoherent. The supernatural is non-natural, therefore, it wouldn't have any similarity, or physics, or nature that is common to the natural.

This is the absurdity of your claim.

I understand you meant it’s incoherent; I was asking you to show why it’s incoherent because I didn’t see anything incoherent definitionally. So, the supernatural can’t affect the natural because it doesn’t have any similarity? Only similar things can affect each other? Why? Dissimilar things seem to affect each other all the time. Rain affects you, but you aren’t similar things. I must be misunderstanding you. Could you clear up my confusion?

Rain is mostly water. Humans are mostly water.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #189]

But the material of our brain, over time, is getting replaced. Our consciousnesses aren't replaced over time.

During mitosis, when cells make copies of themselves, the copies carry out exactly the same function as the parent cells which eventually die and are disposed of. Neurons generally do not undergo mitosis (here and here), and once destroyed are lost. But other cells within the brain do. This doesn't mean that the "brain material is getting replaced" with something that would or could behave differently. It isn't individual cells that carry out higher level brain functions like consciousness, but the many integrated systems that the cells make up.

The idea that cell reproduction in the brain would somehow make the brain function differently to produce a different consciousness, or "I", doesn't make sense. The structures the cells make still function in exactly the same way when their component cells reproduce. It is no different than when cells in other parts of the body are replaced ... the same bodily functions continue. A typical human replaces about 330 billion cells per day, but this process does not result in the structures and organs the cells make behave differently. There's no reason to expect that cell reproduction in the brain would have any impact whatsoever on consciousness if consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #189]

But the material of our brain, over time, is getting replaced. Our consciousnesses aren't replaced over time.

During mitosis, when cells make copies of themselves, the copies carry out exactly the same function as the parent cells which eventually die and are disposed of. Neurons generally do not undergo mitosis (here and here), and once destroyed are lost. But other cells within the brain do. This doesn't mean that the "brain material is getting replaced" with something that would or could behave differently. It isn't individual cells that carry out higher level brain functions like consciousness, but the many integrated systems that the cells make up.

The idea that cell reproduction in the brain would somehow make the brain function differently to produce a different consciousness, or "I", doesn't make sense. The structures the cells make still function in exactly the same way when their component cells reproduce. It is no different than when cells in other parts of the body are replaced ... the same bodily functions continue. A typical human replaces about 330 billion cells per day, but this process does not result in the structures and organs the cells make behave differently. There's no reason to expect that cell reproduction in the brain would have any impact whatsoever on consciousness if consciousness is an emergent property of a brain.

But, the Dualists have a feeling that the consciousness isn't rooted in the material world. How can you argue against that?!

What's funny, too, is that they have no idea if the "soul" also undergoes changes that would submit it to the same criticism they levy against the Materialist view. That is, they can only assert "Our consciousnesses aren't replaced over time" - when they actually have no evidence they are or aren't. They might claim they don't experience a change of consciousness, but how do they know? Perhaps mental illness (like schizophrenia) isn't a problem in the brain - maybe it's a problem in the soul? Maybe, Alzheimer's is the consciousness being replaced over time?

Of course, they'd say "But this means you admit that the consciousness is immaterial!" No, I'm just saying the logic behind their critique of it being material is out of order.

[Clownboat]

You made the bolded claim above. It is your burden to support that claim. I’m asking you to imagine answers for you. Why is that claim of yours true?

If 'x' does a thing, then affecting 'y' is to not affect 'x'. The statement stands on its own. Are you now trying to claim that the soul needs the brain, but why say that as it just points out the fact that the soul isn't even needed as a concept in the first place?

How it interacts is a good but different question that is irrelevant to the one we are discussing.

I submit that you offer an imagined thing that you call a soul. The fact that you cannot show that it interacts with our reality in any way, shape or form is very relevant to the topic.

One need not know or explain how to explain that it does.

As you demonstrate for us all. You don't know anything at all about a soul if we are being honest, except for your belief that a soul lives on after death. That is literally all you have and the ONLY justification for there to be a soul. I acknowledge that soul belief is religious in nature and have noted this from the start. That doesn't make the soul idea false, but it shows it to be what it is, just a religious/spiritual musing (until shown to be more).

Consciousness is more than just being aware of one’s self and surroundings. I listed five states of conscisousness in that post, for instance. These arguments are more focused on the unified sense of self, the unified consciousness as an “I”. A brief confusion doesn’t negate that. Amnesia doesn’t negate that. One may not know or remember who they are or were, but that doesn’t mean they are a different consciousness.

See the bold. This is where it seems like dishonesty is creeping in.
Brain injuries can cause changes in our consciousness which suggests a relationship between the brain and consciousness. It is only you that is making the odd claim that the consciousness would now be a different consciousness.

I also already talked about death and permanent unconsciousness.

This is what I refer to as complaining. Just provide evidence for your argument that a soul is what supplies consciousness and not a working brain.
This reminds me of talking about evolution. Creation doesn't become true if we complain enough about the best explanation we currently have and that seems to be your approach here.

Argument 3 is about partial damage to the brain and still having an intact consciousness (even if some functions are lost). That consciousness seeks to have physical effects on the material brain at the death of the brain is irrelevant (and quite expected within my view).

Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury can result in prolonged or permanent changes in a person's state of consciousness, awareness or responsiveness.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20378557

Why is the title how we define a car?

You define a car as a title? That's odd, but off topic. Are you unhappy about how we transfer ownership of cars?

A car is simply the name we give a specific group of matter. It is nothing more than matter. So, if the matter changes, then the entity is changed.

The car is still the car, but the oil has been changed. The car has changed only to the degree that the oil was replaced and is in fact, still the same car. The banks nor the government would consider this to be a different car. You ONLY want to call it a different car because you want to think that getting some new brain cells will cause a different consciousness. Neither idea is reasonable.

It’s the same with all matter clumps, including our brain.

Yup. Remember this from Mayo?
Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury can result in prolonged or permanent changes in a person's state of consciousness, awareness or responsiveness.
Change/damage a brain enough and consciousness will be affected. Not sure where a soul comes in to play. Can you assist?

They affect the functions, but not the sense of being an “I”. Maybe previous memories of the “I” is lost, but not the sense of being an “I”.

Surely by now you see that I am at least offering reasons to support my argument. You even note how affecting the brain can and does affect this thing you call an "I". What do you have for a soul is what I have been asking from the start.

I’m not surprised by that. I didn’t mean to write or imply that most neurons were.

This is what you did say: "But the material of our brain, over time, is getting replaced."
Neurons are the things that send signals to and from the brain/body and would be important if the brain does supply consciousness. Most neurons do not renew themselves. Again, this doesn't prove that consciousness is in the brain, but I'm offering support for such a thing at least. What do you have for souls?