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]

Tennis ball, car stopper in your garage, floogle, doesn't matter how you define it, I want to know how you explain it's essence - the essence that is elusive and undefinable. There is 'something' about a tennis ball. It's round, but not completely, it's fuzzy but it's not soft like a pillow. It's yellow, but not a canary.

I just can't put my finger on it. I can't describe the tennis ball perfectly, and neither can you. It must be supernatural, since it's so much more than rubber and thread. It's Wimbledon, it's Agassi and Graf, it's Venus and Serena, it's my memories from childhood. How in the world can you explain that without the supernatural!?

I know you have your "science" that tells me exactly how to make a tennis ball down to the atom, but I'm asking you for more! I want to know the stuff you can't explain. I claim there is magic in the gaps of your explanation that you can't account for.

That's you.

We know there are brains. We know there is consciousness. We scientifically can study what parts of the brains are involved in acts of consciousness. That’s all science can do. It’s amazing and we will continue to grow in it, so that’s not a knock; it’s just the definition of science.

We are talking about the production of consciousness. That’s not the realm of science. It’s not a mysterious gap that science will eventually unveil; it’s outside of science. It’s not a gap that I’m pushing the supernatural through. There is no gap. It’s a different field. It’s philosophy. I’ve given arguments for (1) consciousness being more than the brain (a conclusion which you all seem to agree with), and (2) that consciousness isn’t produced by the brain. Consciousness is either produced by brain/matter or something that is non-material. If the argument shows the first is faulty, there is only one other logical option left. No magic, just logic.

[The Tanager]

Can you clarify what you mean by "we do have continuity in spite of the changes"?

Are you saying that consciousness is unchanging?

I’m saying that our current consciousness is unified to previous conscious states. There is something that unifies those conscious states as being “I” instead of unrelated states of consciousness one after each other. If our consciousness was just an emergent property of the brain, as the matter of the brain (atoms, molecules, etc.) were replaced, we’d have different consciousnesses being produced without unity.

You think that a human being is both body and soul (the "Ghost" as I refer to it - and the body being the mechanism), it appears to me that you are saying that the Soul possesses the body.

There may need to be some nuances, but basically yes.

This is what I think you are saying of the brain as well. How can a brain be sentient? In order to have intentions, one has to be sentient.
Materialism might have it that there was no intention on the brains part to become sentient, to have the experience of having intention...but even so, it is not the brain which is arguing that it unintentionally made itself to be self aware, but the sentience itself arguing this ... seemingly on behalf of the brain...as a means of saying something along the lines of "even that I am sentient, I am the product of a non-sentient thing which has temporarily become the non-sentient things, sense of self."

I’m saying more than that. I’m saying that non-sentience can’t give rise to sentience. That “sentience” itself is an illusion of unrelated statements that we would have no reason to believe gives us truth about reality. That this resulting “sentience” isn’t really what we define “sentience” as.

It’s an AI just arranging data. The reason AI works is because it’s mimicking our human sentience. But the brain-emergent consciousness (AI, analogically) would be doing so without a sentience to mimic since the brain isn’t sentient.

Can you console this with the idea that there are "soul levels"? Don't levels speak of mechanisms?

What do you mean by “soul levels”?

[Clownboat]

Where consciousness and the brain interact is one thing, that’s not the problem.

Until you show some soul interacting with anything, this will remain a problem with your imagined position. Until souls are shown to be more than imagination, they are not credible explanations IMO. Souls are what they are. They are things that religious/spiritual people assert as being more than imagined concepts when such a thing has yet to be justified.

Souls are needed to explain what goes to heaven/hell. They are not needed to explain consciousness. I submit that the heaven/hell idea is what drives your desire for there to be a soul and point to the fact that souls cannot be detected nor are they needed to explain consciousness. I'm just not seeing a valid reason for this soul idea to be proposed. Do you have one?

The problem is then to simply claim that this shows consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

It does suggest such a thing and it would do you good to acknowledge this.
What do you have that suggest a soul? I would like to compare that with it being an emergent property of a working brain.

I’ve already done it. Post 52. I even re-quoted that in a later post. If you want to move this part of the discussion forward rationally, then directly respond to my arguments there.

How many times must I read post 52 before I see a good argument?

[boatsnguitars]

We are talking about the production of consciousness. That’s not the realm of science.

That's what I'm saying about the tennis ball! We're taking about the great gap of knowledge! How did we even think of a tennis ball!? How did we know how to spell it! It's outside the realm of science! It's too much! It's too mysterious! We might never know what a tennis ball truly is, but we know for certain, there is no way science can ever answer any question about it. Ever! We know nothing about tennis balls, but we know for certain, science has no place in talking about the tennis ball!

That's still you.

[The Tanager]

The problem is then to simply claim that this shows consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

It does suggest such a thing and it would do you good to acknowledge this.

Then give the reasoning for that. I’m not saying you’ve given it and I don’t think it’s good, so I don’t even have to respond to it (that’d be silly, right?); you haven’t given it. I can't acknowledge something that hasn't even been given. The last post doesn’t give it. What are the premises that move one from the science says X therefore consciousness is an emergent property?

How many times must I read post 52 before I see a good argument?

I’m not asking you to read it again, I’m asking you to explain why you don’t think it’s good. Rational discussion isn’t just sharing assertions, but showing why one thinks those assertions are true. If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true (that my arguments aren’t good) and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof (for supporting your claim that they aren’t good), then what is the purpose of your arguments?

[The Tanager]

That's what I'm saying about the tennis ball! We're taking about the great gap of knowledge! How did we even think of a tennis ball!? How did we know how to spell it! It's outside the realm of science! It's too much! It's too mysterious! We might never know what a tennis ball truly is, but we know for certain, there is no way science can ever answer any question about it. Ever! We know nothing about tennis balls, but we know for certain, science has no place in talking about the tennis ball!

That's still you.

The tennis ball is supposed to be the soul in your analogy, right? I’m not arguing for the essence of the tennis ball; I’m arguing for its existence. You can argue for the existence of the tennis ball without having perfect knowledge of everything about it, right? So no problem there.

I’m arguing for the tennis ball being supernatural because of what we observe about consciousness and the brain. It’s either natural or supernatural. It’s not natural (post 52). Therefore, it has to be supernatural. Straightforward logic, not just asserting the supernatural, not throwing it in a gap that science may one day close (because the very definition of science rules that possibility out so we know it’s not a gap).

Where is your analogy supposed to show the error? Are you saying I haven’t shown that science can’t give us the answer there? I have. It’s simply the definition of science. Science is the study of the material. No one in this thread has argued that consciousness is the brain, so it’s something non-material, even if it is an emergent property. The problem is that once we have a connection between the material (brain) and the immaterial (soul/mind), science can’t tell us anything but what happens materially because science is the study of the material. By its very definition, science cannot answer the question of whether the immaterial consciousness was produced by the material or simply interacts with it.

This isn’t “magic,” but following where reason leads. To move this discussion forward, respond directly to this reasoning.

[boatsnguitars]

That's what I'm saying about the tennis ball! We're taking about the great gap of knowledge! How did we even think of a tennis ball!? How did we know how to spell it! It's outside the realm of science! It's too much! It's too mysterious! We might never know what a tennis ball truly is, but we know for certain, there is no way science can ever answer any question about it. Ever! We know nothing about tennis balls, but we know for certain, science has no place in talking about the tennis ball!

That's still you.

The tennis ball is supposed to be the soul in your analogy, right? I’m not arguing for the essence of the tennis ball; I’m arguing for its existence. You can argue for the existence of the tennis ball without having perfect knowledge of everything about it, right? So no problem there.

I’m arguing for the tennis ball being supernatural because of what we observe about consciousness and the brain. It’s either natural or supernatural. It’s not natural (post 52). Therefore, it has to be supernatural. Straightforward logic, not just asserting the supernatural, not throwing it in a gap that science may one day close (because the very definition of science rules that possibility out so we know it’s not a gap).

Where is your analogy supposed to show the error? Are you saying I haven’t shown that science can’t give us the answer there? I have. It’s simply the definition of science. Science is the study of the material. No one in this thread has argued that consciousness is the brain, so it’s something non-material, even if it is an emergent property. The problem is that once we have a connection between the material (brain) and the immaterial (soul/mind), science can’t tell us anything but what happens materially because science is the study of the material. By its very definition, science cannot answer the question of whether the immaterial consciousness was produced by the material or simply interacts with it.

This isn’t “magic,” but following where reason leads. To move this discussion forward, respond directly to this reasoning.

The tennis ball is consciousness. We both know it exists, you are claiming it's supernatural. I'm using your reasoning to show how you are using a gap in our knowledge to claim that.
I am making the ridiculous case that that the 'mysterious properties" of the tennis ball are the important aspects - not its existence, but the part I find mysterious.
We both agree the consciousness exists, and we both know what it does, and that it is affected by brain trauma. You are claiming there is "something else" to it because, to you, it can't be described yet in materialistic terms so you claim it's supernatural.

You appeal to this mystery/magic when I ask you how something immaterial interacts with matter. This is critical to your argument and you punt. You claim the brain is like a radio, and the consciousness is like radio waves. Radio waves are material phenomenon.
Your claim that the brain picks up some "soul radio" would be plausible if you could show if something else could pick up those waves.
After all, we can detect the electro-chemical energy in the brain and use it to understand what people are thinking.

You claim that the gap in our ability to sense what you believe exists is a feature not a bug. You assert the existence of something you can't define, can't detect, can't understand - not even philosophically, since it is supernatural, is a strength to your argument.

You are claiming there is something called a "tennis ball" but that it's really supernatural, and we can't detect it or know it - because you refuse to explain how we would understand how the supernatural interacts with the natural. you just assert it's supernatural and therefore, science has no say in the matter.
We say, "Well, actually, we can explain the tennis ball quite well - and, sure, there are subjective experiences we all have about the tennis ball, but that doesn't make it supernatural."
And you say, "This isn’t “magic,” but following where reason leads. To move this discussion forward, respond directly to this reasoning."

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #162]

I’m saying that our current consciousness is unified to previous conscious states. There is something that unifies those conscious states as being “I” instead of unrelated states of consciousness one after each other. If our consciousness was just an emergent property of the brain, as the matter of the brain (atoms, molecules, etc.) were replaced, we’d have different consciousnesses being produced without unity.

On a macro scale, we have different consciousnesses being produced without unity. This appears to be what we have if we were to consider the field of human consciousness as one consciousness.
I know that this is not what you are arguing, but I think it still has some relevance in the way individual units of consciousness are not unified as one whole consciousness.
So the relationship between the two types of consciousness are different, and this appears to be due to how each human consciousness self identifies.
If we self identify as simply being the product of a non-sentient mechanism, everything reduces to materialism.

I am suggesting that this implies that the self-identification and perspectives of individuals play a role in shaping their human consciousness and its relationship or lack of relationship with the broader collective consciousness.

You think that a human being is both body and soul (the "Ghost" as I refer to it - and the body being the mechanism), it appears to me that you are saying that the Soul possesses the body.

There may need to be some nuances, but basically yes.

I ran that by GPT and the following conversation happened.

William: The full context of my original post to Tanager was in reply to him saying “If there is no self, it’s all just electronic circuitry going on.” and is as follows:

“This reminds me of GPT - as the AI has no sense of self. It is pretty much all "just electronic circuitry going on" with the addition of that hardware being able to sort vast amounts of data.
No matter that GPT reflects the data back in an organized manner and in doing so, gives every indication it is sentient, it is not. AI systems like GPT, have no sense of SELF.

Further to that, AI are types of brains but not brain's which sentience/sense of self emerge from.

Taking this thought further, IF one day it is shown that AI developed a sense of self, THEN it could be seen as consciousness being able to emerge from the hardware.

Even so, it could still be argued philosophically that a Ghost has possessed the AI hardware and is using its sense of self in that manner, in order to utilize the potential the hardware affords it.
So the mystery would still not finally be explained.

You think that a human being is both body and soul (the "Ghost" as I refer to it - and the body being the mechanism), it appears to me that you are saying that the Soul possesses the body.”

GPT: Thank you for providing the full context of your original post to Tanager. It helps to understand the broader discussion. Based on the additional information, it seems you were discussing the idea that AI systems like GPT lack a sense of self or sentience, despite their ability to process and organize vast amounts of data.
You explored the possibility that if AI were to develop a sense of self in the future, it could be seen as consciousness emerging from the hardware. However, you also mentioned that from a philosophical standpoint, it could still be argued that a non-material aspect, such as a "Ghost" or soul, is involved in utilizing the potential of the hardware.
These are philosophical speculations about the nature of self, consciousness, and the potential involvement of non-material elements. They touch upon questions regarding the relationship between mind and matter, the origin of consciousness, and the possibility of non-physical aspects influencing or being associated with physical systems.
It's important to note that these philosophical perspectives go beyond what current scientific evidence can definitively address. The nature of consciousness and the existence of non-physical elements, such as souls or ghosts, are topics that remain subjects of philosophical and metaphysical debate.

I’m saying more than that. I’m saying that non-sentience can’t give rise to sentience. That “sentience” itself is an illusion of unrelated statements that we would have no reason to believe gives us truth about reality. That this resulting “sentience” isn’t really what we define “sentience” as.

It’s an AI just arranging data. The reason AI works is because it’s mimicking our human sentience. But the brain-emergent consciousness (AI, analogically) would be doing so without a sentience to mimic since the brain isn’t sentient.

This circles back to my ongoing argument that the Earth itself must be sentient and even self aware.

Can you console this with the idea that there are "soul levels"? Don't levels speak of mechanisms?

What do you mean by “soul levels”?

I am referring to posts I read in the thread which spoke about "lessor animals and such". At this point it may be a tangent more than a focus on the path of our discussion here.

Since I have been running the question of sentience and consciousness by GPT, I though it might be worthwhile sharing the summary of the discussion that took place. Please note that the discussion was happening prior to my asking you about your comments. I included your comments in with the discussion that was going on as it was relevant in most respects.

Summary of Discussion: Consciousness, Sentience, and Self-Identification
Heading: Exploring the Nature of Consciousness and Self-Identification
Participants:
• William
• Tanager (referenced in William's comments)
Key Points Discussed:
1. Definitions: Consciousness refers to subjective awareness, while sentience involves the capacity to have subjective experiences.
2. Distinction between Consciousness and Sentience: Consciousness encompasses self-awareness, while sentience refers to the ability to perceive and have experiences.
3. Precision of Definitions: The precision of definitions can be influenced by our understanding and knowledge of the subject matter.
4. Complexity of Consciousness: Understanding consciousness is a complex pursuit intertwined with questions about identity and self-perception.
5. Self-Identification: Self-identification plays a role in shaping individual consciousness and its relationship with the broader collective consciousness.
6. Ignorance and Knowledge: Definitions are as precise as our knowledge of the subject matter, and ignorance represents a lack of knowing.
7. Limitations of Scientific Evidence: The mind, being non-material, poses challenges for scientific evidence, but philosophy can extend the discussion beyond scientific methods.
8. AI and Consciousness: The emergence of consciousness in AI is a topic of debate, and attributing sentience to AI is not straightforward.
9. Self-Consciousness and Possession: The idea of a non-material aspect, such as a soul or ghost, influencing the hardware and manifesting sentience is a philosophical possibility.
10. The Earth's Sentience: The concept of the Earth itself being sentient and self-aware was brought up as an extension of consciousness beyond human beings.
Note: This summary provides a condensed overview of the discussion and is not an exhaustive account of every detail.

Feel free to comment on the summary as you may feel to.

[The Tanager]

The tennis ball is consciousness. We both know it exists, you are claiming it's supernatural. I'm using your reasoning to show how you are using a gap in our knowledge to claim that.
I am making the ridiculous case that that the 'mysterious properties" of the tennis ball are the important aspects - not its existence, but the part I find mysterious.
We both agree the consciousness exists, and we both know what it does, and that it is affected by brain trauma. You are claiming there is "something else" to it because, to you, it can't be described yet in materialistic terms so you claim it's supernatural.

I’m claiming the originating source of consciousness is supernatural/immaterial/nonphysical. It’s not a scientific gap I’m filling with the supernatural because it isn’t a scientific question. Science cannot answer the question of whether the material is all there is to something we observe. It’s not a scientific gap. It’s not “can’t describe yet” but “can never describe because that isn’t its field”. I’m not saying I find parts of consciousness mysterious and, therefore, the supernatural. I’m saying logic of what we agree on about consciousness and the brain leads to the supernatural.

You appeal to this mystery/magic when I ask you how something immaterial interacts with matter. This is critical to your argument and you punt.

It is not critical to my argument. It is completely irrelevant to the issue we are discussing with the arguments I offered. I didn’t appeal to mystery/magic to explain the interaction. All I’ve said is reason shows us there must be an interaction. That’s it.

You claim the brain is like a radio, and the consciousness is like radio waves. Radio waves are material phenomenon.
Your claim that the brain picks up some "soul radio" would be plausible if you could show if something else could pick up those waves.
After all, we can detect the electro-chemical energy in the brain and use it to understand what people are thinking.

I did not claim these things. Analogically, my view would be that consciousness as it interacts with the brain presents a physical footprint ("radio waves"), but consciousness wouldn't have to take that form. It does give us this in material beings, but that doesn't mean the "radio waves" is all there is to consciousness.

You claim that the gap in our ability to sense what you believe exists is a feature not a bug. You assert the existence of something you can't define, can't detect, can't understand - not even philosophically, since it is supernatural, is a strength to your argument.

No, I supported why science can’t answer the question. We assert the existence of things we can’t define beyond the immediate argument all the time. The existence of electrons and their characteristics, for instance, are conclusions to arguments…not directly observed. The definitions arise from the argumentation. The detection with electrons is scientific because that is within its field. The detection with the “soul” is through philosophy because that is the field. Supernatural claims are in the field of philosophy, not something distinct.

You are claiming there is something called a "tennis ball" but that it's really supernatural, and we can't detect it or know it - because you refuse to explain how we would understand how the supernatural interacts with the natural. you just assert it's supernatural and therefore, science has no say in the matter.

That’s not my argument. I gave an argument of detection that leads to knowledge. How it interacts is a different question and irrelevant to this one of existence. I don’t just assert it is supernatural; I gave arguments. This doesn’t led to the conclusion that science has no say, but comes from the premise that science has no say in telling us that there is nothing beyond the material, by its very definition. You’ve got it backwards.

We say, "Well, actually, we can explain the tennis ball quite well - and, sure, there are subjective experiences we all have about the tennis ball, but that doesn't make it supernatural."
And you say, "This isn’t “magic,” but following where reason leads. To move this discussion forward, respond directly to this reasoning."

My reasoning is not “this isn’t magic”. Post 52 was detailed (and could be expanded on further). That is the reasoning you need to respond to. Your attempts have shown you didn't understand the arguments and their flow. I've corrected those misunderstandings on various occasions. You should take those into consideration and now respond to the reasoning in post 52 or ask further clarifying questions if you are still confused.

[The Tanager]

I am suggesting that this implies that the self-identification and perspectives of individuals play a role in shaping their human consciousness and its relationship or lack of relationship with the broader collective consciousness.

But if materialism is true, self-identity can’t shape the consciousness because the self-identity is an illusion that is wholly produced by the chemicals. The chemicals are the producers and aren't affected by illusions, but simply its material environment.

This circles back to my ongoing argument that the Earth itself must be sentient and even self aware.

Are you just noting the connection to that question or saying this supports your argument there as being true?

I am referring to posts I read in the thread which spoke about "lessor animals and such". At this point it may be a tangent more than a focus on the path of our discussion here.

Thanks for clarifying that, but I’m missing why different levels of soul would tell us something about the mechanism of each soul with the material aspect of the being. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you were making there.

I don’t have any further comments on the summary you offered; it seems accurate.