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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #558]

Exploring the Nature of the Mind and Burden of Proof

Philosopher 1: 1. If there are things true of X that aren’t true of Y, then X and Y are not the same thing
2. There are things true of conscious states that aren’t true of brain states.
3. Therefore, conscious states and brain states are not the same thing.


Philosopher 2: Even so, none can say with certainty or from necessity, that the “non-physical” aspects being argued for (re the mind) are truly non-physical.

Philosopher 1: So, you agree the mind is not the body or brain, but think it is still something physical?

Philosopher 2: I find it a curiosity that you do not know already that this is my view and position on things.

Philosopher 1: I was pretty sure it was, but I was playing it safe in case I had misunderstood you or you had changed your mind. Okay, so what is the physical evidence of this physical mind?

Philosopher 2: What do you mean by physical evidence? Surely all evidence is physical - naturally so.

Philosopher 1: No, not all evidence is physical (logical evidence, for instance). The belief that all evidence is physical is self-defeating because there isn't physical evidence of that belief.

Philosopher 2: Do you believe that the mind/consciousness is truly non-physical, or is it that you lean that way until you are shown otherwise?

Philosopher 1: Yes, I believe the mind is non-physical. No, it's not the default position. Neither is yours. What evidence do you have that the mind is physical.

Philosopher 2: Since I am not the philosopher making the three assertions, it is unnecessary for me to provide evidence I might have, as we both agree with my statement in response to said assumptions that none can say with certainty or from necessity, that the “non-physical” aspects being argued for (re the mind) are truly non-physical.
Rather, if you have evidence to support your belief that the mind is non-physical, please present that.
If you do not have the evidence or cannot produce it for whatever reasons (please provide those reasons) then I find it an unnecessary thing to believe that mind is truly “non-physical”.
So far it appears to be that the assumptions you presented produced the logic you are arguing for, rather than the other way around.

[The Tanager]

Tanager, I find this incredibly disingenuous. If you aren't aware of the evidence, you have been arguing in bad faith. I am very well versed in the claims you make for a non-physical mind.

Be honest: Have you researched or ever been told about the evidence for a material basis for the mind?

I am aware of materialist arguments that equate the mind with the brain, if that is what you mean. But I am not aware of arguments for William’s view (or at least my understanding of it) that the mind is physical, yet something physically distinct from the brain. William’s view (not materialism) is the context of my statement there.

[The Tanager]

Philosopher 2: Since I am not the philosopher making the three assertions, it is unnecessary for me to provide evidence I might have, as we both agree with my statement in response to said assumptions that none can say with certainty or from necessity, that the “non-physical” aspects being argued for (re the mind) are truly non-physical.
Rather, if you have evidence to support your belief that the mind is non-physical, please present that.
If you do not have the evidence or cannot produce it for whatever reasons (please provide those reasons) then I find it an unnecessary thing to believe that mind is truly “non-physical”.
So far it appears to be that the assumptions you presented produced the logic you are arguing for, rather than the other way around.

I agree that none of the arguments I made rule out a physical mind in addition to (yet distinct from) the physical brain. If you want to leave it at that, fine. But you are the first person I’ve ever run into who seems to be saying they believe the mind is physical, yet something physically distinct from the brain. All physical things leave a physical trace (brains, arms, toenails, etc.), so I’m wondering what physical trace your proposed physical mind leaves behind that is distinct from everything that materialists believe makes up the human body. I am unaware of any physical trace of a mind that is not part of the human body we all know about.

[William]

Philosopher 2: Since I am not the philosopher making the three assertions, it is unnecessary for me to provide evidence I might have, as we both agree with my statement in response to said assumptions that none can say with certainty or from necessity, that the “non-physical” aspects being argued for (re the mind) are truly non-physical.
Rather, if you have evidence to support your belief that the mind is non-physical, please present that.
If you do not have the evidence or cannot produce it for whatever reasons (please provide those reasons) then I find it an unnecessary thing to believe that mind is truly “non-physical”.
So far it appears to be that the assumptions you presented produced the logic you are arguing for, rather than the other way around.

I agree that none of the arguments I made rule out a physical mind in addition to (yet distinct from) the physical brain. If you want to leave it at that, fine.

I agree. However I also think it is important to explore differing arguments and why there are differing positions on such matters. So yes, we could leave it at that, but how helpful would it be to us if we did?

But you are the first person I’ve ever run into who seems to be saying they believe the mind is physical, yet something physically distinct from the brain. All physical things leave a physical trace (brains, arms, toenails, etc.), so I’m wondering what physical trace your proposed physical mind leaves behind that is distinct from everything that materialists believe makes up the human body. I am unaware of any physical trace of a mind that is not part of the human body we all know about.

Some of the things I think to include in the idea of minds being physical in nature are as follows;

Physical Nature of the Mind: Acknowledging the physical nature of the mind and asserting that it is considered a part of the physical world, even if not immediately observable in the same way as other physical entities.
Distinct But Physical: I clarify that proposing the mind as physically distinct from the brain doesn't imply a departure from a physicalist perspective. Instead, it suggests that the mind, while intimately connected to the brain, may exhibit features that are not immediately reducible to the observable structures of the brain.
Non-Visibility of Particles: I point out that the physical nature of many entities, including those in the human body, are often not directly visible to the human senses. For instance, the very particles making up physical objects are not individually observable, yet they are considered physical.
Absence of Physical Traces: I acknowledge the absence of direct, observable physical traces of the mind, similar to other bodily parts like brains, arms, and toenails. This absence, however, does not negate the physicality of the mind but underscores the unique challenges in directly observing its physical structure or possible componentry. The intricacies of the mind's physical composition may not leave conventional, visible marks, but this doesn't diminish its physical nature. Rather, it highlights the complexities and subtleties involved in understanding the physical nature of the mind.
Minds are Like Concepts: I think the idea that minds are like concepts defeats the necessity of a supernatural universe so highlight the analogy that if minds are regarded as non-physical, similar to concepts, this doesn't necessitate a supernatural universe if minds are regarded as physical in nature. Drawing this parallel challenges the assumption that non-physical aspects must imply a departure from the physical realm.
Open Questions on Location: I acknowledge the open question of where in the physical universe mind exist and that this remains a complex topic of exploration within the framework of physicalism. Indeed, even if minds are not incarnate into particular physical objects (such as biological life-forms) they would still be incarnate in the physical universe and thus never truly disincarnate...even if a mind were - say - to orbit the planet it would still be incarnate in the galaxy the planet exists within.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for sharing those reasons.

Some of the things I think to include in the idea of minds being physical in nature are as follows;

Physical Nature of the Mind: Acknowledging the physical nature of the mind and asserting that it is considered a part of the physical world, even if not immediately observable in the same way as other physical entities.

That’s stating that the mind has a physical nature; it isn’t reason to believe the mind is physical.

Distinct But Physical: I clarify that proposing the mind as physically distinct from the brain doesn't imply a departure from a physicalist perspective. Instead, it suggests that the mind, while intimately connected to the brain, may exhibit features that are not immediately reducible to the observable structures of the brain.

I agree the mind is distinct from the brain and that this doesn’t necessarily mean the mind is non-physical. My heart is distinct from my brain, but still physical.

Non-Visibility of Particles: I point out that the physical nature of many entities, including those in the human body, are often not directly visible to the human senses. For instance, the very particles making up physical objects are not individually observable, yet they are considered physical.

They are observable in theory, at least, with experiments and equations to back them up and ways to decide whether such things are (if they exist) physical or non-physical.

Absence of Physical Traces: I acknowledge the absence of direct, observable physical traces of the mind, similar to other bodily parts like brains, arms, and toenails. This absence, however, does not negate the physicality of the mind but underscores the unique challenges in directly observing its physical structure or possible componentry. The intricacies of the mind's physical composition may not leave conventional, visible marks, but this doesn't diminish its physical nature. Rather, it highlights the complexities and subtleties involved in understanding the physical nature of the mind.

No, it could mean that and only if we already assume the mind is physical, so this isn’t reason to believe it is physical.

Minds are Like Concepts: I think the idea that minds are like concepts defeats the necessity of a supernatural universe so highlight the analogy that if minds are regarded as non-physical, similar to concepts, this doesn't necessitate a supernatural universe if minds are regarded as physical in nature. Drawing this parallel challenges the assumption that non-physical aspects must imply a departure from the physical realm.

It’s not an assumption that non-physical aspects are not physical; that’s just the logic of the terms. Non-physical means not physical. And, again, this is what would be the case if minds are physical, not support for them being physical.

Open Questions on Location: I acknowledge the open question of where in the physical universe mind exist and that this remains a complex topic of exploration within the framework of physicalism. Indeed, even if minds are not incarnate into particular physical objects (such as biological life-forms) they would still be incarnate in the physical universe and thus never truly disincarnate...even if a mind were - say - to orbit the planet it would still be incarnate in the galaxy the planet exists within.

Sure, but possibility that there is physical evidence somewhere isn’t reason to believe that there actually is physical evidence somewhere that we just haven’t seen yet.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #565]

Some of the things I think to include in the idea of minds being physical in nature are as follows;
Physical Nature of the Mind: Acknowledging the physical nature of the mind and asserting that it is considered a part of the physical world, even if not immediately observable in the same way as other physical entities.

That’s stating that the mind has a physical nature; it isn’t reason to believe the mind is physical.

I did not mention/argue that these are "reasons to believe" but things I think are reasonable to include thinking about.

I agree the mind is distinct from the brain and that this doesn’t necessarily mean the mind is non-physical. My heart is distinct from my brain, but still physical.

Okay.

Non-Visibility of Particles: I point out that the physical nature of many entities, including those in the human body, are often not directly visible to the human senses. For instance, the very particles making up physical objects are not individually observable, yet they are considered physical.

They are observable in theory, at least, with experiments and equations to back them up and ways to decide whether such things are (if they exist) physical or non-physical.

We can apply similar theories re the mind being physical and back these up with experiments and equations - indeed it is mind which the capable thing allowing itself to do so.

Absence of Physical Traces: I acknowledge the absence of direct, observable physical traces of the mind, similar to other bodily parts like brains, arms, and toenails. This absence, however, does not negate the physicality of the mind but underscores the unique challenges in directly observing its physical structure or possible componentry. The intricacies of the mind's physical composition may not leave conventional, visible marks, but this doesn't diminish its physical nature. Rather, it highlights the complexities and subtleties involved in understanding the physical nature of the mind.

No, it could mean that and only if we already assume the mind is physical, so this isn’t reason to believe it is physical.

Again, I have not offered "reasons to believe"... but "things/ideas to think on" and possibly debate about.

Minds are Like Concepts: I think the idea that minds are like concepts defeats the necessity of a supernatural universe so highlight the analogy that if minds are regarded as non-physical, similar to concepts, this doesn't necessitate a supernatural universe if minds are regarded as physical in nature. Drawing this parallel challenges the assumption that non-physical aspects must imply a departure from the physical realm.

It’s not an assumption that non-physical aspects are not physical; that’s just the logic of the terms. Non-physical means not physical. And, again, this is what would be the case if minds are physical, not support for them being physical.

"Non-physical" may mean "things which are not physical in nature" but, it has not been established that non-physical things actually exist so - as a term - it is overstepping and I am looking to avoid double standards re determining "what is or isn't logical" and reject the necessity to accept the term as describing something real. I did not offer support for beliefs, because the ideas as summarized are simply ways to think and presented in that manner.
There is no support for the existence of such a thing/things as "non-physical" so the rule applies to any concepts which may arise as ideas.

Open Questions on Location: I acknowledge the open question of where in the physical universe mind exist and that this remains a complex topic of exploration within the framework of physicalism. Indeed, even if minds are not incarnate into particular physical objects (such as biological life-forms) they would still be incarnate in the physical universe and thus never truly disincarnate...even if a mind were - say - to orbit the planet it would still be incarnate in the galaxy the planet exists within.

Sure, but possibility that there is physical evidence somewhere isn’t reason to believe that there actually is physical evidence somewhere that we just haven’t seen yet.

Please be aware that I am not presenting "reasons for belief" but ideas for intelligent critique.

While the information may be unusual/"new boy on the block"-like, I am unable to agree to any double-standards imposed in order that any discussion et al can be had between you and I re the overall subject matter.

[The Tanager]

We can apply similar theories re the mind being physical and back these up with experiments and equations - indeed it is mind which the capable thing allowing itself to do so.

I would love to learn about and discuss the experiments and equations that distinguish this mind as physical (and distinct from the brain) rather than non-physical.

"Non-physical" may mean "things which are not physical in nature" but, it has not been established that non-physical things actually exist so - as a term - it is overstepping and I am looking to avoid double standards re determining "what is or isn't logical" and reject the necessity to accept the term as describing something real.

By my comments I haven’t assumed that anything non-physical does exist.

Please be aware that I am not presenting "reasons for belief" but ideas for intelligent critique.

While the information may be unusual/"new boy on the block"-like, I am unable to agree to any double-standards imposed in order that any discussion et al can be had between you and I re the overall subject matter.

What kind of critique are you wanting to discuss? It’s not if it’s logically possible because I already said I agreed it was and you didn’t want to just leave it at that. It’s apparently not if there are any good reasons to believe the mind is physical. So what kind of critique of your physical mind theory are you expecting to discuss?

[William]

We can apply similar theories re the mind being physical and back these up with experiments and equations - indeed it is mind which the capable thing allowing itself to do so.

I would love to learn about and discuss the experiments and equations that distinguish this mind as physical (and distinct from the brain) rather than non-physical.

I could say similar. I would love to learn about and discuss the experiments and equations that distinguish this mind as non-physical (and distinct from the brain) rather than physical.

The question is how to make this discussion possible between you and I.

"Non-physical" may mean "things which are not physical in nature" but, it has not been established that non-physical things actually exist so - as a term - it is overstepping and I am looking to avoid double standards re determining "what is or isn't logical" and reject the necessity to accept the term as describing something real.

By my comments I haven’t assumed that anything non-physical does exist.

Then your comments would have to be examined re why they were made re use of the term "non-physical". Why do you use this term, if you do not also assume such exists?
Further to that, what is one to make of your comments re "logic" and "rational" re including the term/having the term included in any discussion?

Please be aware that I am not presenting "reasons for belief" but ideas for intelligent critique.

While the information may be unusual/"new boy on the block"-like, I am unable to agree to any double-standards imposed in order that any discussion et al can be had between you and I re the overall subject matter.

What kind of critique are you wanting to discuss? It’s not if it’s logically possible because I already said I agreed it was and you didn’t want to just leave it at that.

I made my reasons clear as to why I preferred it to be that way. I even offered subject matter in the form of a summarized list of associated subject matter.

It’s apparently not if there are any good reasons to believe the mind is physical.

Therein there is a possible identification of difference of approach. I am not looking to build "reasons to believe" at this point. That would come naturally enough as agreement between us is made step by step.

So what kind of critique of your physical mind theory are you expecting to discuss?

None. I suspect that as the theory is presented to you/anyone for examination, one will find no thing therein to critique. However, I have no expectations either way. I am simply letting you know that the door is open and there is an available chair at that table of discussion.

Further to that, the theory is in the process of being extended and - like any theory - requires "peer review" type analysis in order to iron out any uncovered anomalies et al - so that is what I am signifying by use of the word "critique".

My saying I am happy to discuss and debate rather than leave things as they are (to the point we agree already) is an invitation you to continue along with this, if you choose to accommodate.

[The Tanager]

Physical evidence is the kind of thing that humans have direct access to, abundantly. So, it seems to me, reasonable to expect one positing a physical entity to show the physical evidence. A lack of that kind of evidence for physical entities tips the rational balance towards a non-physical nature.

Then your comments would have to be examined re why they were made re use of the term "non-physical". Why do you use this term, if you do not also assume such exists?
Further to that, what is one to make of your comments re "logic" and "rational" re including the term/having the term included in any discussion?

Physical and non-physical are coherent concepts and, therefore, should be included in any discussion involving that kind of question. Something that exists logically could be one, the other, or a mixture of the two.

None. I suspect that as the theory is presented to you/anyone for examination, one will find no thing therein to critique. However, I have no expectations either way. I am simply letting you know that the door is open and there is an available chair at that table of discussion.

Further to that, the theory is in the process of being extended and - like any theory - requires "peer review" type analysis in order to iron out any uncovered anomalies et al - so that is what I am signifying by use of the word "critique".

My saying I am happy to discuss and debate rather than leave things as they are (to the point we agree already) is an invitation you to continue along with this, if you choose to accommodate.

But the logical next step for me is to ask whether we have good reasons to believe such a thing actually exists. You don’t want to talk about that and you aren’t offering a different step to take with it.

[William]

Physical evidence is the kind of thing that humans have direct access to, abundantly. So, it seems to me, reasonable to expect one positing a physical entity to show the physical evidence. A lack of that kind of evidence for physical entities tips the rational balance towards a non-physical nature.

Then your comments would have to be examined re why they were made re use of the term "non-physical". Why do you use this term, if you do not also assume such exists?
Further to that, what is one to make of your comments re "logic" and "rational" re including the term/having the term included in any discussion?

Physical and non-physical are coherent concepts and, therefore, should be included in any discussion involving that kind of question. Something that exists logically could be one, the other, or a mixture of the two.

None. I suspect that as the theory is presented to you/anyone for examination, one will find no thing therein to critique. However, I have no expectations either way. I am simply letting you know that the door is open and there is an available chair at that table of discussion.

Further to that, the theory is in the process of being extended and - like any theory - requires "peer review" type analysis in order to iron out any uncovered anomalies et al - so that is what I am signifying by use of the word "critique".

My saying I am happy to discuss and debate rather than leave things as they are (to the point we agree already) is an invitation you to continue along with this, if you choose to accommodate.

But the logical next step for me is to ask whether we have good reasons to believe such a thing actually exists. You don’t want to talk about that and you aren’t offering a different step to take with it.

Then for now, there is no way forward.