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]

I wish you would have started with this. If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me what you think.
We're done, then, no? You don't even care to define what you think exists. Lame.

You can be done any time you want. I did define what I was arguing for: the thing that houses/produces consciousness. Mind/soul/immaterial TBD, floogle, whatever label you think isn't lame. Feel free to choose a name and address the arguments for it. Or feel free to not discuss the issue.

[Clownboat]

I wish you would have started with this. If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me what you think.
We're done, then, no? You don't even care to define what you think exists. Lame.

You can be done any time you want. I did define what I was arguing for: the thing that houses/produces consciousness. Mind/soul/immaterial TBD, floogle, whatever label you think isn't lame. Feel free to choose a name and address the arguments for it. Or feel free to not discuss the issue.

Premise 1:
Consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain.

The researchers looked for one particular hallmark of consciousness within the neural networks of the brain, bidirectional pathways, to pinpoint the parts of the brain where awareness resides. Our brains process information when we see something or experience something. This is known as a feed-forward signal, however receiving such signals is insufficient for consciousness. Our brains must also convey information back to us in what is known as feedback. Not every area of the brain can receive and respond to feed-forward information. Researchers hypothesized that these bidirectional connections are an essential hallmark of the parts of the brain responsible for consciousness.

“We found that the extracted complexes with the most bidirectionality were not evenly distributed among all major regions, but rather are concentrated in the cortical regions and thalamic regions,” said Kitazono. “On the other hand, regions in the other major regions have low bi-directionality. In particular, regions in the cerebellum have much lower bidirectionality.”

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/

Premise 2:
There is a thing that houses/produces consciousness that is not the brain:

Your turn to put these neuroscientists in their place.
Perhaps you can show that their reasoning is faulty or show that your explanation better explains the source for consciousness. We are all ears if you are up to it.

[boatsnguitars]

I wish you would have started with this. If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me what you think.
We're done, then, no? You don't even care to define what you think exists. Lame.

You can be done any time you want. I did define what I was arguing for: the thing that houses/produces consciousness. Mind/soul/immaterial TBD, floogle, whatever label you think isn't lame. Feel free to choose a name and address the arguments for it. Or feel free to not discuss the issue.

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.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #75]

Human consciousness can be altered in a number of different ways, including through hypnosis, with drugs, and mental exercises.

What makes you think it is consciousness which is altered?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #97]

If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then as the material constituents of the brain are replaced, the consciousness would also be replaced with new consciousnesses. We still wouldn’t be the same conscious self from one day to the next (Q1). But we do have continuity in spite of the changes (Q2). Therefore, consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain.

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

Are you saying that consciousness is unchanging?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #103]

If there is no self, it’s all just electronic circuitry going on.

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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #120]

The water isn’t intending anything because purely physical things don’t have intentions.

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."

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #127]

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.

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

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #75]

Human consciousness can be altered in a number of different ways, including through hypnosis, with drugs, and mental exercises.

What makes you think it is consciousness which is altered?

Your question does not serve to move the discussion forward. Call it what you want, I care not.

[The Tanager]

Premise 1:
Consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain.

The researchers looked for one particular hallmark of consciousness within the neural networks of the brain, bidirectional pathways, to pinpoint the parts of the brain where awareness resides. Our brains process information when we see something or experience something. This is known as a feed-forward signal, however receiving such signals is insufficient for consciousness. Our brains must also convey information back to us in what is known as feedback. Not every area of the brain can receive and respond to feed-forward information. Researchers hypothesized that these bidirectional connections are an essential hallmark of the parts of the brain responsible for consciousness.

“We found that the extracted complexes with the most bidirectionality were not evenly distributed among all major regions, but rather are concentrated in the cortical regions and thalamic regions,” said Kitazono. “On the other hand, regions in the other major regions have low bi-directionality. In particular, regions in the cerebellum have much lower bidirectionality.”

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/

Where consciousness and the brain interact is one thing, that’s not the problem. The problem is then to simply claim that this shows consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The science doesn’t show that. It’s a philosophical commitment.

Premise 2:
There is a thing that houses/produces consciousness that is not the brain:

Your turn to put these neuroscientists in their place.
Perhaps you can show that their reasoning is faulty or show that your explanation better explains the source for consciousness. We are all ears if you are up to it.

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.