i guess we will all find out eventually since death is the great equalizer. I wonder if we will be self-aware after death or will we be just nothingness with no thought, sight, or any other senses for all eternity. If there is no god and soul then an eternal nothing sleep awaits us all its kind of a scary thought but i guess it wont matter after we die. I hope sincerely hope there is a God.
Proving the soul (in the sense of public evidence) probably isnt possible, non the less, I think it would be possible to seek out *private* evidence for its existence. in practice this would mean pursuing mystic practice or drugs to induce an NDE. Assuming you did achieve your goal of experiencing yourself as an eternal soul however, the question then would be; "how do I know I wasnt hallucinating?" You wouldnt.
.. But since you dont know youre not hallucinating right now, it would probably be little more than common prejudice against the uncommon experience to deny full transcendence on these grounds alone.
Just as religion held science back for centuries for considering any studies that went against their dogmas as hierarchy. Right now the reason there is no scientific proof of a soul is because no one wants to go down that line of study and become ridiculed by the scientific community.
A big problem lies in the belief that the a soul is non-material, and the belief that this also means that it's non-physical. We can scan a brain, and simulate it. If this responds to stimuli just like a real person, then we can say that all our actions, thinking, decisions and so on is caused by the neuron network, and not because of a soul's intervention. Consciousness can be seen as a "phenomena".
Honestly, I don't think we live in the right era to really understand and explore this topic. We have scientist today that like to think they have solved all of the universes mysteries, and there is also what I like to call a cold war going on between science and religion. Science blaming religion for irrational ideas having held humanity back for centuries (Dark Ages). So any hypothesis into matters of metaphysics is quickly denied and considered absurd.
My thought is that the potential for life has always existed, and always will exist, and if this is true then there is always the chance that you will exist. If your consciousness only exists as an emergent property of your brain, then once that brain has gone, you will be conscious of nothing. But since the potential for life always exists, eventually you will become conscious again. It may take trillions of years, but you will experience none of this passing of time without consciousness.
Faith healing is nothing more than a placebo effect used to "cure" someone who is "afflicted" by "demons" (in other words mental disorders) or they will think that they can be cured of a disease if they just "believe". Also there is no reason to believe in demons for there is no proof that demons exists. Physicians are not priests or exorcists leave the religious mumbo jumbo to the priest and exorcist. Besides, a doctor using "faith healing" is unethical.
You do realize that if the soul is tied to the mind then it cannot be eternal. That is unless you think the mind is the soul and our thoughts and feeling do in fact last beyond our physical bodies. However, your break down of “Brain, Mind, Soul” is similar to my understanding of being made image of GOD. I say it Mind, Body, and soul. A singular three part being as the Trinity. Just a though…
Consider: Why is your mind "located" physically within your brain, and not in mine? That is, how is your "youness" your own? And what does it mean to "have an experience"? If we could build an android which would respond to its environment exactly as humans do (a-la-Data from Star Trek) would that android actually "experience" life, or would it just run its programs? I don't think even Data himself would know the answer.
So, although I am an atheist who denies a God, I do not deny the soul.
"...should he treat the patient with material medicine, or faith based prayer?"
I see that more intelligent beings than I have already been hashing out whether God exists or not, and all sorts of other questions.
So, although it's probably already been answered somewhere in the previous umptyclutch dozen answers and I haven't found it, I would like to humbly submit my answer to the question: He should treat with both, according to the patient's wishes. Simple. As the patient believes.
@elsiebea So by your own take on the matter, whether the patient gets actually treated is inconsequential as long as the procedure meets the patient's beliefs.
Maybe burn some nearby witch who might be the cause?
I'll say there's probably no soul, in the same way that there's probably no God.
- As a mystical vehicle for self, I have no use for it. As much as I'd like to be immortal, the truth is I'm not.
- If it's defined as "what we don't understand yet", then it's a "soul of the gaps" and I see no point in treating it as an independent entity instead of doing more research to fill said gaps.
The correct answer will probably elude us for a while.
But perhaps the 'operator' (soul) can only use the 'machine' (brain) only to its limits, like the computer-users can only use the computer to a limited degree and cannot go further unless they learn more (er, meditation? Self-discovery?) or improve the machine (umm... in terms of brain may it be any further evolution?). That's of course a pure speculation.
A very nice video and good argument on your behalf.
But certains words will have to be made clear like defining self-awareness, as the meaning of the words can be confusing and each one has one's own definition of it. Will make the argument very simple with simple words
If it is accepted that knower and known are completely different from each other then we can conclude that what is known is not the knower and what knows is not known.
This IS interesting. I went to YouTube in an attempt to explain the ghost in the machine to my daughter after finding wikipedia's article to be a sorry hash. I tend to consider the whole question to be more about body and spirit rather than about mind and soul. I'm a nurse familiar with evidence-based medicine and find myself with no answers. I've seen many die, even died myself at one point, and have come away with no answers. Are souls the personality, the ability to think?
I'm working on a video on emergent properties, which I think is key to understanding this. The colony does not reside in the ant, but emerges from the behavior of many ants. You will not FULLY understand a colony by studying a single ant. Likewise, the mind does not reside in a single neuron, but it emerges from the full complexity of the physical brain. The soul, the qualia of experiences, emerges from complex minds, which are themselves made of units of agency.
A better Wikipedia article to start on would be "Sense of agency" or SA. This leads to "Sense of Ownership", SO. Not all animals with well-developed brains have SA and SO, but those that do could be said to be aware of their own ghost in the machine. They would be aware of external interference in their internal thoughts or outward movements or sensations.
These agencies are sometimes "localized", but you can't reduce their function to a single brain region. Fascinating, no?
@C0nc0rdance Absolutely fascinating! I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a soul. Most of my friends find the concept of being constantly at the mercy of the mechanics of their nervous system a gloomy proposition, but it's the only one that makes sense, and I don't think it's particularly depressing. It's sad that we lose our ability to think and feel at death, and it's sad that life is short, but lack of free will doesn't disturb me that much.
@C0nc0rdance Seems pretty sound. And yet are we applying soul to a certain level of complexity of neurons? I once drove my very quiet car up close behind a dog standing in the middle of an empty street. I just stopped and waited. The dog eventually turned and saw my car and reacted with all the fear one could expect from a being about to be hit by a car even though I wasn't moving. Thus he demonstrated a knowledge of consequences and anticipated events in a complex manner. sigh (part 1)
@C0nc0rdance (part 2) Thus we would have to admit the idea of animals as having souls if souls are a portion of the totality of the being including intelligence as we always define humanity. Or is the soul self-aware intelligence alone? The dog certainly seemed self aware, some of my patients aren't. I mean, they were at one point but physical incapacity has robbed them of that. Science would say that the neuron exchanges are gone no matter what the family would like to believe. Complex.
Yes, some, but not all, animals would have "souls", depending on the functional definition (SA and SO are popular criteria). Worms would not have mind. Birds have mind, but little or no SA. Dogs have a less robust SA than humans, but they have it. They perceive themselves as the ghost in the machine, but they don't have the "meta" awareness of it. They don't have the same complexity of self-agency detection that we do.
Yes, some patients are no longer self-aware in the classical sense. They would not recognize themselves in the mirror. Damage to the physical brain has limited the functions of the mind.
The practical outcome of these types of definitions is hospice/end of life care, so it's not an abstract, intellectual exercise in medicine. You are better prepared to make these judgements than I am... and I'm grateful for that, and for your profession.
@C0nc0rdance Prepared, maybe, able to juggle these questions in the face of the fears and mores of others? Not so much. The only thing I have to show is lack of evidence. Being dead for a few minutes granted me no insights that weren't probably the side effects of lack of oxygen or the drugs used to keep me in a medical coma. My mother tells me that would be because it wasn't truly my time. I do think that anybody who found the seat of the soul would be in for a lot of trouble or a lynching
He can however sense the Paramatma as his conscience, depending on how covered he is, if he is extremely ignorant he wont have much of a concsience and so on. A saintly person is not one who runs around doing miracles, hitting peoples foreheads and so on, rather a saintly person is one who has overcome this material condition and is situated in his original spiritual eternal nature.
True saintly persons are very rare and likely will be unknown by the general public.
To get off the wheel of birth and death (Samsara) this is not easily achieved as many snake oil salvationists and the like would have us believe, its not achieved by declaration of allegiance or changing ones faith etc...its achieved by the practice of devotion.
The soul when "conditioned" that is covered by the laws of material nature, he cannot see or respect other souls, and he cant see or feel the presence of the partial expansion of the Paramatma) ( Lord within the heart).
Too much to go into detail here, but the law of Karma is not some little thing as most people imagine, it is a vast law that controls your destiny, type of body etc...according to your actions and consciousness.
Anyway I dont want to take up anymore space, but to conclude the vedas teaches that there are 8 million 400 thousand species of life and each one of those species is inhabited by an individual soul, when he achieves the human form he has self awareness and the opportunity. (contd)
However he becomes subject to the laws of karma, duality and the threefold miseries (depending on his actions), essentially he is put into illusion because his real position is he is not the body, not the mind or any other designation, he leaves the body at the time of death and according to his conciousness takes on another body.
That is why some people are born with a chip on their shoulder, some are born talented, some rich etc...etc...all of this is the law of karma.
There is another soul Paramatma, the supreme Lord who is also eternal and remains completely unknown to the Jiva atma from time immemorial.
Why is this? it is because the Jiva Atma (individual soul) desires to enjoy the material energy through the agency of the senses, he has minute independence and the Lord does not interfere with that independence so he allows the jiva atma to completely forget him life after life (there are hints of this in the bible).
Then perhaps one may consider the vedic literatures to get some reference.
For example its described in the "Katha Upanishad" that the individual soul (jiva atma) is atomic, that is he is minute, but eternal, and because of this minuteness he is overthrown by the material energy and the laws of karma (cause and effect).
He is subject to the material laws and especially the subtle material energy (the mind) because of his minuteness, even tho he is eternal and indestructible.
So the latter for example if born in the middle east would become a "Muslim" and if born the "west" would become a Christian, these however are designations and dont necessarily help us to achieve a deeper understanding of our true identity and in fact often create even further problems because of sectarianism and so on, although if the second category aspirant is sincere he wont fall into these traps. If one wants to know more about the soul, which is your true identity and eternal (cont)
Hello C0nc0rdance this is a very interesting video.
Most of your observations are very accurate.
However unfortunately most of the major religions in the world today have a very limited source of information as to what the soul actually is, so there is a lot of confusion in this area.
First of all (in regards to religion) there is a gulf of difference between seeking the truth or meaning of life, as compared to simply joining a religion and declaring allegiance to that faith. (contd)
If a computer system could be constructed that duplicated the mapping and complexities of a human brain I find it highly unlikely that anyone would believe that it harbored a consciousness. Strangely enough, when the neuronetwork is biological, and not mechanical, it is able to produce a consciousness. There must be something indetectable to us that distinguishes these two "machines" from each other.
the only adjective i could use to describe the soul is eternal. the interaction i make that affects another human being, whether good or bad, is some size of data that other human being will store in its physical brain which will affect his opinions, and furthermore his actions, which may have been different had you had a different interaction with that individual. ones soul, to me, is a subject of his brain...but also a subject of his time.....
what a curious subject to investigate. should we really even try to take the individuality from our souls excuse them as the resolve of a simple mathmatical equation? i do agree that the efficiency and physical condition of one's brain directly affect one's awareness of himself which, in turn, affects his choices. we can only live and learn. monkey see, monkey do. this to me is the soul. it is not a physical state of ourselves. rather its the "carbon footprint"of the interactions we have made w/
Even moreover, a computer can't do anything illogical, where as our souls can command our brain to embellish our manners through acts that defy logic, meaning we as beings control our brains and can even override the brains failsafes that are in place to keep us breathing; suicide is perhaps the most grandiose and extreme proof of this. Therefore it can be established that being and breathing are two different things.
the brain, like a heart, like lungs, like all of the organs of the body, is just hardware. And elaborated on the fact that we're not computers, because computers don't actuate terms that are not understandable to them, they just use 0s and 1s, where as humans think about things that their brains cannot actualize, such as the mystery of the flow of time, the scale of the universe, and especially, trying to comprehend nothingness.
If the brain is thought of more as an interface between that which the soul desires and that which we do, instead of the impetus for those things, some of the questions about brain damage (or any changes made to the physical function of the brain) become clearer. If we rewire a light switch to turn on the stereo, anyone looking for light will get music, regardless of their intention.
"The Mona Lisa isn't a beautiful painting! It's just pigment on canvas!" This doesn't disprove the Mona Lisa, it just further describes it This seems silly, because we already knew the Mona Lisa was pigment on canvas from the start.
But, imagine we didn't, like this:
"Every subjective experience, from smelling an apple to willing yourself to climb a mountain, has a material manifestation in the brain. There's no soul!"
If you let go of "eternal," and "immaterial," then we ~found~ the soul.
Are you familiar with Hume's "is-ought" problem (Hume's fork) ?
You go from demonstrations of what "is" to making a proposition of what "ought" to be without the intervening logic. How does the ought follow the is? What about the idea of determinism influences the physical world?
@C0nc0rdance There either is an agent which allows for free will, or there is not an agent for free will, which leads to determinism.
How is the above premise an "is-ought" problem?
Personally, I model the brain and agent to that of a car and its driver. The scientist claims that the observable front wheels are responsible for turns, while the believer asks what caused the front wheels to change direction.
You can partly create a non-dualist computer by disconnecting it from other computers by turning off the WiFi etc. A person can only deny or make efforts to disconnect from brain activated WiFi channels.
some studies on animals show they are self aware (elephants, chimps, even dogs). I don't think this answers the question, but it does indicate that it isn't exclusive to humans. If we create a self aware computer, would it have a soul (do androids dream of electric sheep? or I, Robot). That destroying component parts damages the whole does not mean that there is not a case of the whole equaling more than the sum of the parts. Medically, "bedside manner" counts.
Great video, thanks for posting. I very much like your brain / physical, mind / emergent, soul / spiritual classifications. I'd propose the soul is really a flawed egotistical projection from the mind.
that's a weird one about the liver, maybe the liver is self aware like the brain, from what I understand the liver is one of the only organs that regenerates itself, would it not have to be self aware to do this?
I can reason that by the action of chemical reactions of sufficient complexity, consciousness emerges. Without that complexity the person might not be able to think, like how one can remember nothing of their life as a newborn, the complexity required is not there. The soul in a spiritual sense is unlikely unless you think in the vitalist point of view. It is my belief that when we die our brains degrade to a point that it can no longer support the mind. All untestable.
Don't forget that Gilbert Ryle said, "Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine". Ryle was not a materialist mechanist either, as he made clear in his chapter 'The Bogey of Mechanism' (in 'The Concept of Mind').
I'd be interested on your thoughts on my video, 'Mind transcends Brain' which is not advocating the soul.
Great video - although right at the end I think it falls way off course. By dragging in the record of 'faith based healing' it changes the question from that of the existence of the soul that that of the existence of a 'super-soul' or 'god' that can be entreated to intervene in the natural order of things. That record is strong evidence that no such super-soul or 'god' exists, but I don't think it addresses the issue of the soul.
@HeatherSpoonheim I think that section of the video was intended not as evidence against the existence of a God but as evidence as to why scientists are so heavily biased towards viewing the world only objectively. The reason obviously being that it has served the human race well and greatly pioneered the advancement of society to where it is today eg modern medicine. Conc0rdance is saying that this doesn't seem to hold well as the mind appears to be greater than the physical subunits.
I am currently in the same boat in terms of the mind body problem. Firstly I am an athiest but I have recently opened myself up to alternative concepts, instead of having a purely reductionist and objective view of the word. I did for quite awhile believe myself that the brain produced the mind through purely physical means and by extension I was a deterministic organic computer.
The brain is not yet fully understood. Mind does SEEM to be more than the brain. There is cause to SUSPECT it is. That it actually is or is not is far from proven & to a truly open minded logical thinker, it is yet unknown.
If it is ever proven humans have souls, that will still say nothing of whether any gods exist.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that atheism and the possibility of a 'soul' have a directly connected relationship. I just wanted to separate myself from being instantly assumed by other readers as believing in a God if I believed in the possibility of a soul. I've found in past talks and debates that the two are strongly connected with one another in many people's minds. Regardless, thanks for the response
I now believe perhaps that the mind is emergent from or connected to the brain but that the mind is obviously limited to the brains physical capacity. I myself have come to feel a little upset that such a void has evolved between the thiests and athiests. It seems that these views now come with 'uncompromising' attitudes as standard with both sides unwilling to budge.
Though many claim that the notion of God's is outlandish science pushes forward finding ever increasingly weird elements to the universe. (eg black holes, 'holes' being made in the very universe, matter and energy disappearing and reappearing within the universe and the idea of more than 3 dimensions ( All this has evidence to support itself like an good scientific theory)) I cannot but feel that to hold a view that is to one end of the extremes of the spectrum is irresponsible.
. I also have a side thought that figured I'd add to my comments. While thinking of how a connection could exist between the mind and the brain, while seemingly undetectable, I was reminded of a Carl Sagan video. What if the mind existed within another dimension? Lets say the 4th. Take a cube for example. If a light is shone on it a shadow is formed. However the shadow is only a 2D copy of the cube.
... Within the 2D world the shadow would morph and change dimensions as the cube was rotated yet the cube would always be constant. Even though the cube is connected with the 2D shadow how would a 2D person be able to fathom that the morphing object in their world (the shadow) was the result of three dimensional activity and thus be able to 'see' that very connection? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as would anyone else's.
I don't think I would agree with your list of characteristics of the "soul". I think that IF we have a sort of "ghost in the machine", that it would be totally impersonal consciousness. The thinking, the personality the skills, knowledge likes dislikes decisions etc can all be accounted for by the brain. The only bit that doesn't really make sense is the consciousness part.
If certain entities (such as the visual input of a predator) or ideologies (such as the notion "two and two make four") are able to be "logged" by amazingly complex yet relatively finite populations of neurons, is consciousness not simply the acknowledgment of self through these means? Therefore, would it be safe to state that the self-aware aspect of humans often displayed as one of superiority is nothing more than an increasingly complicated neuron system relative to animal counterparts?
@uriituw It's more like they desperately want souls to exist. Most people fear death and belief that a part of us is eternal gives them emotional comfort.
Yes, modern medicine is the better way to heal people as it saves many more lives.. however in some situations people really need change. they live lives in which they are slaves to temptations. Only having a faith can change the person.. I myself have battled numerous demons of my past and when i found true Christian faith that is when i truly changed. I tried numerous other methods but none were successful.
The basic problem is that you have allowed Descartes, who was ignorant of the philosophical tradition, to define your idea of the soul. In the Aristotelian/Thomistic traditions, he mind as an integral effect of body and soul. Aquinas knew that brain trauma inhibited or prevented rational thought. Aristotle understood what we now call the binding problem. Both saw that there is a physical processing of sense data, but that processing data still leaves it intelligible, not known. Peace, DP.
@dfpolis Philosophical tradition is mostly useless, we have moved WAY beyond the greek philosophers contemporary 1800 century philosophers are much more relevant.
@slitor This is a typical view among those who have not studied Aristotle. In order to make the point stick, you need to make an informed comparison. When I compare Aristotle's understanding of the mind to that in the 1800s, it is obvious that Aristotle was by far the more insightful. The same holds when I compare him to contemporaries like Dennett. Peace, DP
Saying neural complexity makes intelligence begs the question. Is processing data intelligence, or supporting intelligence? The defs of subjective and objective are unhelpful. Every act of knowing has a known object and a knowing subject. Being a subject is being aware, not beyond logic. Immaterial is not eternal. Immorality is a separate issue. So also containing morality. Free will helps form vices, but they are neurally encoded habits. Personality has a physical basis, e.g gender in brains.
Did you even read Ryle's book? I'd suggest reading Philosophical Investigations if you haven't already in order to get a slight twist (a prior twist) to Ryle's behaviorist views. The problem of mind and body is one of category AND language. When you talk about "Free Will", "Consciousness" and "Self"....what are you even referring to! Examine your language and you'll see that the mind has been miscontrued heavily in philosophy....
Why is the idea of a soul/divinity so pervasive? How do we account for the fact that every culture on the globe has a foundational or elemental component of spirituality? Can this idea have had a single common origin as some ancient oral tradition that travelled with the human diaspora or did it occur to many groups separately? Is it an artifact of cognition like a side effect? Is there an evolutionary explanation - does mysticism confer some advantage? Or is there something more going on here?
If one can do a lobotomy to change someone's personality and moral objectives therefor either the soul is directly connected to the frontal lobe (which would mean souls cannot live after death) or there is no soul.
Life exists without a god; a god cannot exist without life. This means that the "soul" is only a construct of humans, driven by a desire for eternal life. There is no such thing as eternal life, unless you look forward to the Singularity, which is really not life, at all.
The Singularity only proves that the concept of eternal life, possessing a soul, is not based on any physical evidence, other than the machine thinks it has a soul. How is that different from a human? "Soul" does not exist.
yes there is a soul,i saw a shadow person it looked familiar,i knew it wasn't the person i knew same head shape and body shape,but it was a shadow person,i should have screamed but i didn't,the only thing that i would say it was my inner spirit that did not fear it,
It is clear that the body and the brain are designed through natural selection too navigate our way around our enviroment on earth. There also seems to be a evolutional growth in consiousness, the idea that there is a creator is a man made one but something may have given birth to us following somekind of cosmic nature like we do our own.
There is a old belief that soul is seperate from the body and comes from the sun like the body come from the earth, and influences it in much the same way.
life through evolution may be the soul or the sun trying to physically manifest itself on earth. life may well be the offspring of the earth and the sun and they may both have there own form of consciousness.
Well, there are cases with brain dead people coming back to life telling of stories of the afterlife.
And I also think Carl Ljungs work on consciousness is important that there is a dissconnect to the brain and time etc...
Also, when I go to the gym I have something called muscle memory which means that the body remembers what I have done before and will either resist or help my muscular development. I would call it biological intelligence.
There is a soul but you have to find it yourself...
I really like your perspective on this matter. As for me, I am as yet undecided as to which perspective carries the most weight. Whatever answer science comes to discover, it will surely change the way people all over the world perceive themselves and others. With a materialistic view, perhaps people will treasure and preserve life even more. With a dualistic view, perhaps people will learn to have more hope as to what a separation between mind/brain implies. Thanks for your thoughts!
mind/body duality is no longer a key question in metaphysics. descartes is studied mainly because his thinking ushered in a new era of metaphysics, so his work is very important historically. as you pointed out, many of the properties and explanations of the soul seem incorrect in our world, especially in medicine and psych. its becoming increasingly difficult to find a place for the soul in a modern, secular, humanist society. the soul is a romantic idea but it's likely just a fantasy.
Intelligence is emergent from the much larger central nervous system that humans enjoy. Because the CNS interacts with other body chemical systems, the "mind" is not easily separable from the body. The mind-brain duality is a common sense (and wrong) artifact we impose on a continuum.
As for soul, there is a continual retreat of the definition of soul and no physical entity to which we can point. We are allowed to dismiss it without evidence.
scientific community has formed too far out that a scientist might afraid to come up with new ideas. if a new idea is too far out from the textbooks he will risk being kicked out, lose their titles and jobs.
a simple question could be asked what is making this machine(body) work? think of everything your body does automatically without even being concious of it. think of death, it's a trippy thing, the body looks exactly the same yet something is missing. how is that one minute the body is moving and the next minute it's not? if the body is simply material matter then theoretically scientist should be able to bring people back form the dead, but they can't. why? there has to be an energy source
To me, it seems like positing the Mind/body dualism would actually fall into the category of the problem of ignorance. Is there evidence that there is a dualism? no. Is there evidence that there isn't a dualism? That all depends on how you interpret the given data. Does positing the mind as a separate entity from the body sound like speculation in light of the lack of evidence? I would say so. A favorite movie of mine, Ghost in the Shell, explores what it means to have an identity.
I think mind/body is overplayed. Do certain monkeys and apes have empathy? yes. and at least one species has language. don't animals plan ahead? Recently, scientists found an octopus that uses coconuts to build a home in the ocean. Crows have amazing problem solving abilities as well as the ability to remember faces. If it is the case that we can find similar cognitive faculties in the animals that surround us, then it can be deduced that our "mind" is simply a product of our natural brain.
Sam Harris has a good 4 min clip on stem cell research here on YouTube about the soul. The fact a 4 day old embryo can split into two identical twins, does this mean they share the same soul? or the reverse two embryos can fuse into one. What happens to the left over soul?
The more we understand, the more reasonable it seems that the "soul" is a construct of the human mind, just another extension of a "God" complex.
The brain it seems is no different then any other biological system.
@C0nc0rdance The fact that it aware of itself does that mean it has a soul? Not sure about that. It just reflects that it is an extremely developed complex system. There are about 100 trillion neurons in the brain, and each neuron can connect to one another 100 trillion ways. We are talking mind boggling figures, but measurable figures nether the less.
The fact that our brain is developed to the point where we can rationalize our own mortality is just a product of evolutionary systems.
I suspect identity would transfer with the brain. The donor identity would be looking out through another person's eyes. It would feel, I imagine, very alien, like a passenger driving a car. When that person eventually died, I think we would mourn the donor, not the recipient.
I just find it interesting to think that while our consciousness is dependent on the physicality of the brain, it's an emergent property not possessed by any other kinds of matter.
@C0nc0rdance It is why I suggested it would be both especially in the primal Triune brain (reptilian) which deals with physical environment motor functions (having to create new connections). This is also the area which feels fear in most cases.
No wonder Frankensteins monsters was always in fear lol
love is also a chemical reaction but is that to say the emotions are not real,, no its a sign that the bio body and emotional soul are connected,, i see many wondering souls so i guess our souls are immortal,, i have noticed that nice souls are more beautiful than angry souls,, that everything has a 'cause and effect' on our souls,, that the soul is made up of many chakras,, but not all souls are aware of chakras,, like being in a bio body but not knowing your organs functions
@6no1fear6 It's called the Limbic region of the brain, emotions are very real. They are just that, no need to link it to an imaginary concept of a soul.
Your argument has as much logic as to try to explain any other myth based on faith
@TheChipsnbeer66 we only know what we experience,, the rest is shared info,, i have never believed in blind faith so i only talk from experience,, yes we all have an eternal soul,, the lightbody is all u,, it is not separate from u,, its not like u can hold the mind in one hand and emotions in another,, its all u,, the bio body is like a car,, its u that drives it,, if and when it breaks down u don't stay wit it u step out, out the body,, i don't believe in faith i am a scientist, a researcher
@C0nc0rdance think it really depends on what previous connections could be kept, to theoretically create the smoothest transplant would be to create a brain through stem cells and download the existing neural connections (ala Ray Kurzweil)
"Soul" is a type of music. It's a cuisine. It's just a word. It means what we want it to mean. If you start adding adjectives, like immortal, that's a different issue.
I think we both agree that the mind has properties arising from, but not contained within the subunits of the brain. A neuron has no awareness, but 10 billion neurons do. There are new properties there and we could call those properties mind, or supermind... or soul.
@C0nc0rdance To answer your question about a brain transplant would be whether the neural connections stayed in tact. If science could do this where they could, logic would tell me that the brain being implanted would see it as both. dominated by as the donor (existing connections) while forming new ones (conforming to its new physical environment)
@C0nc0rdance Well I do believe that Soul is a construction of the mind which is a product of our brain and this is the result of an evolution process, beyond that there is no single scientific probe of any ethereal being. We are aware of our existence that is not unique in the animal kingdom but we are the only ones that talk and wonder about it with others from our specie...I recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
@C0nc0rdance We can all play word games, sure, BUT, that's why we nail down definitions before the discussion begins. In order for the discussion to be useful, the soul must be defined as a supernatural, non-physical entity, or an entity non-resultant from matter. If it is defined as such, then there is nearly certainly no debate over its existence.
@C0nc0rdance Neuroscientists (psycho-physiologists) are entirely unable to satisfactorily account for the subjective, “phenomenological” experience of seeing color, hearing sound and music, and feeling emotional states such as “love,” “happiness,” “sadness”—merely in terms of neuronal processes in the brain. Again, there may be neuronal correlates for these mental events, but it is foolish to claim that the brain matter itself launches the efferent impulses. Our presence has a purpose...
@C0nc0rdance I agree with you 100%. awareness and consciousness of one's own existence and laws of physics mean something. maybe we should start thinking "sum ergo cogito." maybe look beyond every atoms, and maybe reflect on our existence of conscious to question the consciousness of the universe, and possibly the concept of 'eternal consciousness.'
@C0nc0rdance Explain, "But the brain is aware of itself, isn't it?" Because if you mean the fact it generates thought, then I don't understand your argument. Your liver processes blood, but your brain does not. Similar statement, yet it also appears to hold no valid points, as yours didn't. Considering a brain transplant, as far as I know, has never happened It's hard to determine what would take place, but I assume that unless there is a way to transfer memories, it would more be a donation of
@C0nc0rdance (cont) a body, rather than a brain. If you mean that the brain has a consciousness, by the term 'soul,' then I would have to agree. I see the mind as more of a complex system developed in and by the brain to comprehend day to day activities. A neuron may have an 'awareness' however 10 billion have a larger awareness and comprehension. A rat has 21 million neurons, and has an awareness, we have about 100 billion, and are slightly more aware than they. In fact, elephants have twice
@C0nc0rdance (cont again) as many neurons as humans, and display very similar characteristics to human behavior, as do a lot of animals. A fruit fly has only 100 thousand neurons in its brain and appears to me, to have quite a well established awareness as to be able to perform just fine. Whether it is self aware is another story, although some dogs, I have heard, can recognize themselves, as well as parrots, while others cannot. So you should go a bit more into detail so I can understand your
@TheChipsnbeer66 science is a research into discovering answers to questions and theories... its is as continues as time... yeh u could say time is a 'man' mind thing but it is a measurement used to understand. i know about the chemical reactions of the bio body as an 'explanation' to what happens to us when the bio body dies. when the bio body dies the soul leaves the body. many ppl report that they have outer body experiences and can see their body, the soul is intelligent energy in a bio bod
@TheChipsnbeer66 My idea of the "soul", is that of a field. This field could be perceived as "God". The field would manifest through consciousness or life. Therefore, a four day old embryo becoming a twin, or re-absorbing a twin would not affect the "soul" in any way. In one case, there's one brain interacting with the "God Field", in the other case, there are two.
Then what do you define as the very word you use-- What is MIND?! And quantum-physics proves that the matter of our brain though used to interpret chemical reactions, is quite un-conscious in itself.
When I go, all what remains is the impression I made on people as tiny it may be, and wormfood. Though I find it strangely comforting picturing a tree on my grave feeding on my remains.
The soul is the driver behind the wheel of a car. If the car is high performance and well maintained then all is well. If the car is a lemon that barely moves, then that's what the soul is suck with. An inoperative car doesn't prove that there's no driver. In the scope of things, our time on earth is so short- like a split second. Perhaps we get to try life over and over again. Seems to make little sense to exist if we can't forever benefit from our experiences from life. I'm an old man.
"The soul is the driver behind the wheel of a car. If the car is high performance and well maintained then all is well. If the car is a lemon that barely moves, then that's what the soul is suck with."
An interesting analogy. Can you now test for the existence of that driver?
Your "An inoperative car doesn't prove that there's no driver." is not a valid argument for the existence of a driver. That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
@1RadicalOne ignorance? Gosh, thanks. My statement doesn't state it proves a driver- it states that it doesn't prove there isn't one. It is, of course, wishful thinking. I'm hoping there is one. Because we can't test for one (yet) doesn't mean it isn't there. I remember in school when the atom was the smallest there was.
@1RadicalOne Of course your point is very valid. I ponder this all the time. I'm not convinced either way. Religious I'm not. To exist is strange by itself. Conscientiousness and self-awareness is mind blowing. We understand how the senses are transmitted to the brain, yet no one really understands the self-aware receiver. Perhaps just more electrical impulses- perhaps something else. Theories are abundant, and over the years what was thought to be facts are altered. Or perhaps you're right.
@1RadicalOne I can further support your argument by asking where in the animal kingdom does the soul take hold? How 'bout cats or dogs? A turtle? A gnat? What about cavemen or that first missing link? Everything on the surface points to support your stand. Yet I find existence and self-awareness strange enough for me to think that "just maybe" there's more to it than what we can understand in our limited abilities as humans.
Just because there is a gap in the knowledge does not justify the substitution of ad hoc answers.
I use "soul" to mean the same thing as sentience, that is, self-awareness, the understanding of "I". That trait is only possessed by four groups/species on this planet - humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants.
@RickIncrocci i had an outer body experience and since it can see souls,, i can chat to them,, if u take the soul out of a bio body the body starts to decompose,, anything we call life has an eternal soul,, there is no such thing as a 'human' soul and a 'dog' soul,, all souls are made from the same stuff,, all have emotions and minds,, most don't like this so blinker themselves,, but look into their eyes,, more ppl get born on earth than die everyday so as to a human soul i say look at the math
I do not think the soul exists, but I do think the brain stores what could be called one. The only issue is that it needs a body or a medium to be placed on, and after the brain dies it is gone.
The philosopher Daniel Dennett explores this question and sketches out a materialistic and empirical theory of consciousness in his book "Consciousness Explained."
I find it interesting to note here that the buddhists have long held sentient beings to exist as an aggregate of dependent parts, rather than an inherently existing self, independent of all else. Daniel Dennett empirically sketches out a view that describes consciousness as a "narrative center of gravity."
There is a slight distinction between the mind and the brain in my opinion. The brain is the substrate or the infrastructure for neural activity, and the mind is made of the particular patterns in which groups of neurons fire as well as changes in the synapses between neurons. A convienient example is that a piano is like the brain, and the mind is like the music played on that piano, and perhaps the pianist could be the environment.
Good topic. I am an atheist, i believe i have a soul, is that weird much?
And religious exercism doesnt belong in the hospital.. You want to go to a church and get treated, thats ur own decision.. And that preacher at the end is a scam artist!
The problem is no matter what side people stand on it takes an open mind to recognize and admit they might be wrong. As a believer I would just say that science itself is way too flawed to conclude that God and the soul do not exist. The more you study science from a critical perspective the more ridiculous some old scientific theories appear.
@ENGUNI But that's the difference between science and non-science. When new data conflicts with a pre-existing theory, and scientists will rework the theory to fit all available data. Science is self-correcting. There is no such correction mechanism in faith. This is why science gives us internet, antibiotics, glow in the dark mice, and space travel. These technologies are all proof of principle in science. In faith, one may believe something is true, but there's no way to demonstrate it.
We don't have much of a clue as to just how complex the brain really is. If you listen to anyone with any type of dementia they sound like they are accessing the subconscious as if in a dream. Meditation causes a physical shift in the brain away from the region where our inner narration is generated. And the brain seems to function much like the internet; i.e., without a specific processing center. We seem to have many separate brains all working - or not working, together to create the mind.
I know EXACTLY what will happen when I die. I will get eaten by worms until all the remains is the skeleton and in time that will decompose too. I will turn into DIRT. There is no fucking HEAVEN.
I bet people will mourn you, too. They will wail over your coffin, and go home with a hole in their hearts. You will have touched their lives, affected how they live. The ripples of that will echo for decades. Ultimately, you have contributed to the way the human drama plays out. Your atoms will be rejoined in endless combination to other people and other things.
You actions and your physical being are brief; and also abiding.
@Zurround100 there might not be a "heaven" in the clouds and harps kind of thing but to say that there is nothing after this is foolish and for you to be satisfied in your reasoning that lead to that belief says more about yourself and your emotional state than about the afterlife
@Zurround100 u don't know,, u know what will happen to your bio body,, so many ppl guess and then say they know,, to know something is to have studied and experienced something,, lots of ppl have an outer body experience and can astral travel,, this is when the soul/lightbody leaves the bio body and u can explore your light body before u die,, but saying that most jus go wit the flow and don't even understand their bio bodies while in physical living,, knowing is not exactly guessing is it ? ; )
i guess we will all find out eventually since death is the great equalizer. I wonder if we will be self-aware after death or will we be just nothingness with no thought, sight, or any other senses for all eternity. If there is no god and soul then an eternal nothing sleep awaits us all its kind of a scary thought but i guess it wont matter after we die. I hope sincerely hope there is a God.
PotentialSeffectS 2 days ago
We're born, we live, and then we die. End of story
alqammd 5 days ago
Proving the soul (in the sense of public evidence) probably isnt possible, non the less, I think it would be possible to seek out *private* evidence for its existence. in practice this would mean pursuing mystic practice or drugs to induce an NDE. Assuming you did achieve your goal of experiencing yourself as an eternal soul however, the question then would be; "how do I know I wasnt hallucinating?" You wouldnt.
olywood9 1 month ago
.. But since you dont know youre not hallucinating right now, it would probably be little more than common prejudice against the uncommon experience to deny full transcendence on these grounds alone.
olywood9 1 month ago
Just as religion held science back for centuries for considering any studies that went against their dogmas as hierarchy. Right now the reason there is no scientific proof of a soul is because no one wants to go down that line of study and become ridiculed by the scientific community.
ramik81 2 months ago
@ramik81
or maybe because there are no scientific proof?
A big problem lies in the belief that the a soul is non-material, and the belief that this also means that it's non-physical. We can scan a brain, and simulate it. If this responds to stimuli just like a real person, then we can say that all our actions, thinking, decisions and so on is caused by the neuron network, and not because of a soul's intervention. Consciousness can be seen as a "phenomena".
Robin90modell 2 days ago
Honestly, I don't think we live in the right era to really understand and explore this topic. We have scientist today that like to think they have solved all of the universes mysteries, and there is also what I like to call a cold war going on between science and religion. Science blaming religion for irrational ideas having held humanity back for centuries (Dark Ages). So any hypothesis into matters of metaphysics is quickly denied and considered absurd.
ramik81 2 months ago
Soul is what I dont know...
ebertlike 3 months ago
My thought is that the potential for life has always existed, and always will exist, and if this is true then there is always the chance that you will exist. If your consciousness only exists as an emergent property of your brain, then once that brain has gone, you will be conscious of nothing. But since the potential for life always exists, eventually you will become conscious again. It may take trillions of years, but you will experience none of this passing of time without consciousness.
1simonmatthews 3 months ago
Faith healing is nothing more than a placebo effect used to "cure" someone who is "afflicted" by "demons" (in other words mental disorders) or they will think that they can be cured of a disease if they just "believe". Also there is no reason to believe in demons for there is no proof that demons exists. Physicians are not priests or exorcists leave the religious mumbo jumbo to the priest and exorcist. Besides, a doctor using "faith healing" is unethical.
trueChaos23 4 months ago
Comment removed
trueChaos23 4 months ago
You do realize that if the soul is tied to the mind then it cannot be eternal. That is unless you think the mind is the soul and our thoughts and feeling do in fact last beyond our physical bodies. However, your break down of “Brain, Mind, Soul” is similar to my understanding of being made image of GOD. I say it Mind, Body, and soul. A singular three part being as the Trinity. Just a though…
nicodemous52 4 months ago
Consider: Why is your mind "located" physically within your brain, and not in mine? That is, how is your "youness" your own? And what does it mean to "have an experience"? If we could build an android which would respond to its environment exactly as humans do (a-la-Data from Star Trek) would that android actually "experience" life, or would it just run its programs? I don't think even Data himself would know the answer.
So, although I am an atheist who denies a God, I do not deny the soul.
pburto 4 months ago
@pburto said "Why is your mind "located" physically within your brain, and not in mine?"
Since my mind is a product of my brain function, why and how would it physically be anywhere else?
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
"...should he treat the patient with material medicine, or faith based prayer?"
I see that more intelligent beings than I have already been hashing out whether God exists or not, and all sorts of other questions.
So, although it's probably already been answered somewhere in the previous umptyclutch dozen answers and I haven't found it, I would like to humbly submit my answer to the question: He should treat with both, according to the patient's wishes. Simple. As the patient believes.
elsiebea 4 months ago
@elsiebea So by your own take on the matter, whether the patient gets actually treated is inconsequential as long as the procedure meets the patient's beliefs.
Maybe burn some nearby witch who might be the cause?
eatshitgoogle 1 month ago
I'll say there's probably no soul, in the same way that there's probably no God.
- As a mystical vehicle for self, I have no use for it. As much as I'd like to be immortal, the truth is I'm not.
- If it's defined as "what we don't understand yet", then it's a "soul of the gaps" and I see no point in treating it as an independent entity instead of doing more research to fill said gaps.
StrikaAmaru 5 months ago
Saying something immaterial isn't an answer! It tells me what is not ,not what is.
OpenAirAtheist 5 months ago
what keeps you alive? soul? electricity?
gogolplex74 5 months ago
@gogolplex74
Respiration. Metabolism. Neural activity. Chemical potentials. Oxygen, food, water, a beating heart.
Perhaps a will to live?
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance so human is nothing more than a machine?
gogolplex74 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Do you think you are some kind of a "fluke" in a Fully-Automatic Universe, as some kind of bacteria, virus?
SincereCreature 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to google , type thirteen horrors , download the magic , do exactly what it tells you , be scarred for life ...
FiguringOutSecrets 5 months ago
The correct answer will probably elude us for a while.
But perhaps the 'operator' (soul) can only use the 'machine' (brain) only to its limits, like the computer-users can only use the computer to a limited degree and cannot go further unless they learn more (er, meditation? Self-discovery?) or improve the machine (umm... in terms of brain may it be any further evolution?). That's of course a pure speculation.
MidnightTea7 5 months ago
Unscientific vid here
Neueregel 5 months ago
no soul - thats all. soul dont make any sense in nature...
Latvian4ever 6 months ago
"It's my goal to show through the use of solid evidence and rational argument what is junk science, and what is real." COncOrdance .
Is there any 'solid evidence' for the soul? Is it real? No and no.
GARETHARLO 6 months ago
@GARETHARLO What are you trying to say?
yhallotharlol 5 months ago
Nice video ! (: I like your explanation and how you're open-minded.
FiguringOutSecrets 6 months ago
Hi,
A very nice video and good argument on your behalf.
But certains words will have to be made clear like defining self-awareness, as the meaning of the words can be confusing and each one has one's own definition of it. Will make the argument very simple with simple words
If it is accepted that knower and known are completely different from each other then we can conclude that what is known is not the knower and what knows is not known.
Testandverify 6 months ago
After watching 'why evolution is wrong' videos, this is an orgasm to my brain lol. Thank you for the great video, good job!
MrTerrifyer 6 months ago
This IS interesting. I went to YouTube in an attempt to explain the ghost in the machine to my daughter after finding wikipedia's article to be a sorry hash. I tend to consider the whole question to be more about body and spirit rather than about mind and soul. I'm a nurse familiar with evidence-based medicine and find myself with no answers. I've seen many die, even died myself at one point, and have come away with no answers. Are souls the personality, the ability to think?
nokomarie1963 6 months ago
@nokomarie1963
I'm working on a video on emergent properties, which I think is key to understanding this. The colony does not reside in the ant, but emerges from the behavior of many ants. You will not FULLY understand a colony by studying a single ant. Likewise, the mind does not reside in a single neuron, but it emerges from the full complexity of the physical brain. The soul, the qualia of experiences, emerges from complex minds, which are themselves made of units of agency.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
A better Wikipedia article to start on would be "Sense of agency" or SA. This leads to "Sense of Ownership", SO. Not all animals with well-developed brains have SA and SO, but those that do could be said to be aware of their own ghost in the machine. They would be aware of external interference in their internal thoughts or outward movements or sensations.
These agencies are sometimes "localized", but you can't reduce their function to a single brain region. Fascinating, no?
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Absolutely fascinating! I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a soul. Most of my friends find the concept of being constantly at the mercy of the mechanics of their nervous system a gloomy proposition, but it's the only one that makes sense, and I don't think it's particularly depressing. It's sad that we lose our ability to think and feel at death, and it's sad that life is short, but lack of free will doesn't disturb me that much.
falstocat 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Seems pretty sound. And yet are we applying soul to a certain level of complexity of neurons? I once drove my very quiet car up close behind a dog standing in the middle of an empty street. I just stopped and waited. The dog eventually turned and saw my car and reacted with all the fear one could expect from a being about to be hit by a car even though I wasn't moving. Thus he demonstrated a knowledge of consequences and anticipated events in a complex manner. sigh (part 1)
nokomarie1963 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance (part 2) Thus we would have to admit the idea of animals as having souls if souls are a portion of the totality of the being including intelligence as we always define humanity. Or is the soul self-aware intelligence alone? The dog certainly seemed self aware, some of my patients aren't. I mean, they were at one point but physical incapacity has robbed them of that. Science would say that the neuron exchanges are gone no matter what the family would like to believe. Complex.
nokomarie1963 6 months ago
@nokomarie1963
Yes, some, but not all, animals would have "souls", depending on the functional definition (SA and SO are popular criteria). Worms would not have mind. Birds have mind, but little or no SA. Dogs have a less robust SA than humans, but they have it. They perceive themselves as the ghost in the machine, but they don't have the "meta" awareness of it. They don't have the same complexity of self-agency detection that we do.
Where we draw the line is arbitrary, I think.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
Yes, some patients are no longer self-aware in the classical sense. They would not recognize themselves in the mirror. Damage to the physical brain has limited the functions of the mind.
The practical outcome of these types of definitions is hospice/end of life care, so it's not an abstract, intellectual exercise in medicine. You are better prepared to make these judgements than I am... and I'm grateful for that, and for your profession.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Prepared, maybe, able to juggle these questions in the face of the fears and mores of others? Not so much. The only thing I have to show is lack of evidence. Being dead for a few minutes granted me no insights that weren't probably the side effects of lack of oxygen or the drugs used to keep me in a medical coma. My mother tells me that would be because it wasn't truly my time. I do think that anybody who found the seat of the soul would be in for a lot of trouble or a lynching
nokomarie1963 6 months ago
8.
He can however sense the Paramatma as his conscience, depending on how covered he is, if he is extremely ignorant he wont have much of a concsience and so on. A saintly person is not one who runs around doing miracles, hitting peoples foreheads and so on, rather a saintly person is one who has overcome this material condition and is situated in his original spiritual eternal nature.
True saintly persons are very rare and likely will be unknown by the general public.
Cheers
hjmann 6 months ago
7
To get off the wheel of birth and death (Samsara) this is not easily achieved as many snake oil salvationists and the like would have us believe, its not achieved by declaration of allegiance or changing ones faith etc...its achieved by the practice of devotion.
The soul when "conditioned" that is covered by the laws of material nature, he cannot see or respect other souls, and he cant see or feel the presence of the partial expansion of the Paramatma) ( Lord within the heart).
(contd)
hjmann 6 months ago
6.
Too much to go into detail here, but the law of Karma is not some little thing as most people imagine, it is a vast law that controls your destiny, type of body etc...according to your actions and consciousness.
Anyway I dont want to take up anymore space, but to conclude the vedas teaches that there are 8 million 400 thousand species of life and each one of those species is inhabited by an individual soul, when he achieves the human form he has self awareness and the opportunity. (contd)
hjmann 6 months ago
5
However he becomes subject to the laws of karma, duality and the threefold miseries (depending on his actions), essentially he is put into illusion because his real position is he is not the body, not the mind or any other designation, he leaves the body at the time of death and according to his conciousness takes on another body.
That is why some people are born with a chip on their shoulder, some are born talented, some rich etc...etc...all of this is the law of karma.
hjmann 6 months ago
4.
There is another soul Paramatma, the supreme Lord who is also eternal and remains completely unknown to the Jiva atma from time immemorial.
Why is this? it is because the Jiva Atma (individual soul) desires to enjoy the material energy through the agency of the senses, he has minute independence and the Lord does not interfere with that independence so he allows the jiva atma to completely forget him life after life (there are hints of this in the bible).
(Contd)
hjmann 6 months ago
3.
Then perhaps one may consider the vedic literatures to get some reference.
For example its described in the "Katha Upanishad" that the individual soul (jiva atma) is atomic, that is he is minute, but eternal, and because of this minuteness he is overthrown by the material energy and the laws of karma (cause and effect).
He is subject to the material laws and especially the subtle material energy (the mind) because of his minuteness, even tho he is eternal and indestructible.
(contd)
hjmann 6 months ago
2.
So the latter for example if born in the middle east would become a "Muslim" and if born the "west" would become a Christian, these however are designations and dont necessarily help us to achieve a deeper understanding of our true identity and in fact often create even further problems because of sectarianism and so on, although if the second category aspirant is sincere he wont fall into these traps. If one wants to know more about the soul, which is your true identity and eternal (cont)
hjmann 6 months ago
Hello C0nc0rdance this is a very interesting video.
Most of your observations are very accurate.
However unfortunately most of the major religions in the world today have a very limited source of information as to what the soul actually is, so there is a lot of confusion in this area.
First of all (in regards to religion) there is a gulf of difference between seeking the truth or meaning of life, as compared to simply joining a religion and declaring allegiance to that faith. (contd)
hjmann 6 months ago
If a computer system could be constructed that duplicated the mapping and complexities of a human brain I find it highly unlikely that anyone would believe that it harbored a consciousness. Strangely enough, when the neuronetwork is biological, and not mechanical, it is able to produce a consciousness. There must be something indetectable to us that distinguishes these two "machines" from each other.
Keysteeze 7 months ago
the only adjective i could use to describe the soul is eternal. the interaction i make that affects another human being, whether good or bad, is some size of data that other human being will store in its physical brain which will affect his opinions, and furthermore his actions, which may have been different had you had a different interaction with that individual. ones soul, to me, is a subject of his brain...but also a subject of his time.....
ronniereagansboys 7 months ago
what a curious subject to investigate. should we really even try to take the individuality from our souls excuse them as the resolve of a simple mathmatical equation? i do agree that the efficiency and physical condition of one's brain directly affect one's awareness of himself which, in turn, affects his choices. we can only live and learn. monkey see, monkey do. this to me is the soul. it is not a physical state of ourselves. rather its the "carbon footprint"of the interactions we have made w/
ronniereagansboys 7 months ago
Science is merely what we know we can understand, and philosophy, what we can't
chernobleman 7 months ago
Even moreover, a computer can't do anything illogical, where as our souls can command our brain to embellish our manners through acts that defy logic, meaning we as beings control our brains and can even override the brains failsafes that are in place to keep us breathing; suicide is perhaps the most grandiose and extreme proof of this. Therefore it can be established that being and breathing are two different things.
chernobleman 7 months ago
the brain, like a heart, like lungs, like all of the organs of the body, is just hardware. And elaborated on the fact that we're not computers, because computers don't actuate terms that are not understandable to them, they just use 0s and 1s, where as humans think about things that their brains cannot actualize, such as the mystery of the flow of time, the scale of the universe, and especially, trying to comprehend nothingness.
chernobleman 7 months ago
If the brain is thought of more as an interface between that which the soul desires and that which we do, instead of the impetus for those things, some of the questions about brain damage (or any changes made to the physical function of the brain) become clearer. If we rewire a light switch to turn on the stereo, anyone looking for light will get music, regardless of their intention.
FatSlappyHappyPappy 7 months ago
"The Mona Lisa isn't a beautiful painting! It's just pigment on canvas!" This doesn't disprove the Mona Lisa, it just further describes it This seems silly, because we already knew the Mona Lisa was pigment on canvas from the start.
But, imagine we didn't, like this:
"Every subjective experience, from smelling an apple to willing yourself to climb a mountain, has a material manifestation in the brain. There's no soul!"
If you let go of "eternal," and "immaterial," then we ~found~ the soul.
Quizoid 7 months ago
What if you were to deduce the existence of a soul by rejecting the alternative?
If you are a brain, and your brain is an object, then you and others are simply objects. That sounds dangerous.
If your brain is an object, it is only capable of carrying out cause and effect reactions = determinism.
If we are slaves to determinism, it makes no sense to be self aware since consciousness would serve no purpose.
You can recognize your soul, or you can give objects qualities of a soul.
dlucas90 7 months ago
@dlucas90
Are you familiar with Hume's "is-ought" problem (Hume's fork) ?
You go from demonstrations of what "is" to making a proposition of what "ought" to be without the intervening logic. How does the ought follow the is? What about the idea of determinism influences the physical world?
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance There either is an agent which allows for free will, or there is not an agent for free will, which leads to determinism.
How is the above premise an "is-ought" problem?
Personally, I model the brain and agent to that of a car and its driver. The scientist claims that the observable front wheels are responsible for turns, while the believer asks what caused the front wheels to change direction.
dlucas90 7 months ago
The more you know about neuroscience, the less faith you'll have in souls:
watch?v=77XBZHJcoK4
watch?v=gcEV_HsIdBI
zarkoff45 7 months ago
why the hell am I not subscribed to you yet
debnadaviebna 7 months ago
"the soul is the idea that the body develops of itself"
- Baruch de Spinoza
xknowledgeisfreex 7 months ago
You can partly create a non-dualist computer by disconnecting it from other computers by turning off the WiFi etc. A person can only deny or make efforts to disconnect from brain activated WiFi channels.
curesriches 7 months ago
some studies on animals show they are self aware (elephants, chimps, even dogs). I don't think this answers the question, but it does indicate that it isn't exclusive to humans. If we create a self aware computer, would it have a soul (do androids dream of electric sheep? or I, Robot). That destroying component parts damages the whole does not mean that there is not a case of the whole equaling more than the sum of the parts. Medically, "bedside manner" counts.
Kuymal 7 months ago
Great video, thanks for posting. I very much like your brain / physical, mind / emergent, soul / spiritual classifications. I'd propose the soul is really a flawed egotistical projection from the mind.
Benjuthula 7 months ago
6:56 simple he's turning into a zombie kill me
javalavadingdonglolz 7 months ago
that's a weird one about the liver, maybe the liver is self aware like the brain, from what I understand the liver is one of the only organs that regenerates itself, would it not have to be self aware to do this?
hitcan79 7 months ago
In my subjective opinion,
I can reason that by the action of chemical reactions of sufficient complexity, consciousness emerges. Without that complexity the person might not be able to think, like how one can remember nothing of their life as a newborn, the complexity required is not there. The soul in a spiritual sense is unlikely unless you think in the vitalist point of view. It is my belief that when we die our brains degrade to a point that it can no longer support the mind. All untestable.
wyvernlord23 8 months ago
Don't forget that Gilbert Ryle said, "Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine". Ryle was not a materialist mechanist either, as he made clear in his chapter 'The Bogey of Mechanism' (in 'The Concept of Mind').
I'd be interested on your thoughts on my video, 'Mind transcends Brain' which is not advocating the soul.
Also, though your video is logical, it does not
Ontologistics 8 months ago
Great video - although right at the end I think it falls way off course. By dragging in the record of 'faith based healing' it changes the question from that of the existence of the soul that that of the existence of a 'super-soul' or 'god' that can be entreated to intervene in the natural order of things. That record is strong evidence that no such super-soul or 'god' exists, but I don't think it addresses the issue of the soul.
HeatherSpoonheim 8 months ago
@HeatherSpoonheim I think that section of the video was intended not as evidence against the existence of a God but as evidence as to why scientists are so heavily biased towards viewing the world only objectively. The reason obviously being that it has served the human race well and greatly pioneered the advancement of society to where it is today eg modern medicine. Conc0rdance is saying that this doesn't seem to hold well as the mind appears to be greater than the physical subunits.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
Very nice video Concord,
I am currently in the same boat in terms of the mind body problem. Firstly I am an athiest but I have recently opened myself up to alternative concepts, instead of having a purely reductionist and objective view of the word. I did for quite awhile believe myself that the brain produced the mind through purely physical means and by extension I was a deterministic organic computer.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
The brain is not yet fully understood. Mind does SEEM to be more than the brain. There is cause to SUSPECT it is. That it actually is or is not is far from proven & to a truly open minded logical thinker, it is yet unknown.
If it is ever proven humans have souls, that will still say nothing of whether any gods exist.
Strangerinasland 7 months ago
@Strangerinasland
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that atheism and the possibility of a 'soul' have a directly connected relationship. I just wanted to separate myself from being instantly assumed by other readers as believing in a God if I believed in the possibility of a soul. I've found in past talks and debates that the two are strongly connected with one another in many people's minds. Regardless, thanks for the response
Russian2Kangaroo 7 months ago
. However after much thought on the subject I found myself at odds with the purely objective view held on the minds existence.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
I now believe perhaps that the mind is emergent from or connected to the brain but that the mind is obviously limited to the brains physical capacity. I myself have come to feel a little upset that such a void has evolved between the thiests and athiests. It seems that these views now come with 'uncompromising' attitudes as standard with both sides unwilling to budge.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
Though many claim that the notion of God's is outlandish science pushes forward finding ever increasingly weird elements to the universe. (eg black holes, 'holes' being made in the very universe, matter and energy disappearing and reappearing within the universe and the idea of more than 3 dimensions ( All this has evidence to support itself like an good scientific theory)) I cannot but feel that to hold a view that is to one end of the extremes of the spectrum is irresponsible.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
. I also have a side thought that figured I'd add to my comments. While thinking of how a connection could exist between the mind and the brain, while seemingly undetectable, I was reminded of a Carl Sagan video. What if the mind existed within another dimension? Lets say the 4th. Take a cube for example. If a light is shone on it a shadow is formed. However the shadow is only a 2D copy of the cube.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
... Within the 2D world the shadow would morph and change dimensions as the cube was rotated yet the cube would always be constant. Even though the cube is connected with the 2D shadow how would a 2D person be able to fathom that the morphing object in their world (the shadow) was the result of three dimensional activity and thus be able to 'see' that very connection? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated, as would anyone else's.
Russian2Kangaroo 8 months ago
I don't think I would agree with your list of characteristics of the "soul". I think that IF we have a sort of "ghost in the machine", that it would be totally impersonal consciousness. The thinking, the personality the skills, knowledge likes dislikes decisions etc can all be accounted for by the brain. The only bit that doesn't really make sense is the consciousness part.
beckfiddler 9 months ago
If certain entities (such as the visual input of a predator) or ideologies (such as the notion "two and two make four") are able to be "logged" by amazingly complex yet relatively finite populations of neurons, is consciousness not simply the acknowledgment of self through these means? Therefore, would it be safe to state that the self-aware aspect of humans often displayed as one of superiority is nothing more than an increasingly complicated neuron system relative to animal counterparts?
sciencefarid97 9 months ago
I still don't understand why people believe in a soul.
uriituw 9 months ago
@uriituw It's more like they desperately want souls to exist. Most people fear death and belief that a part of us is eternal gives them emotional comfort.
Miranox2 9 months ago
@C0nc0rdance My debate is on the modern medicine:
Yes, modern medicine is the better way to heal people as it saves many more lives.. however in some situations people really need change. they live lives in which they are slaves to temptations. Only having a faith can change the person.. I myself have battled numerous demons of my past and when i found true Christian faith that is when i truly changed. I tried numerous other methods but none were successful.
tommyq91 10 months ago
The basic problem is that you have allowed Descartes, who was ignorant of the philosophical tradition, to define your idea of the soul. In the Aristotelian/Thomistic traditions, he mind as an integral effect of body and soul. Aquinas knew that brain trauma inhibited or prevented rational thought. Aristotle understood what we now call the binding problem. Both saw that there is a physical processing of sense data, but that processing data still leaves it intelligible, not known. Peace, DP.
dfpolis 10 months ago
@dfpolis Philosophical tradition is mostly useless, we have moved WAY beyond the greek philosophers contemporary 1800 century philosophers are much more relevant.
slitor 10 months ago
@slitor This is a typical view among those who have not studied Aristotle. In order to make the point stick, you need to make an informed comparison. When I compare Aristotle's understanding of the mind to that in the 1800s, it is obvious that Aristotle was by far the more insightful. The same holds when I compare him to contemporaries like Dennett. Peace, DP
dfpolis 10 months ago
Saying neural complexity makes intelligence begs the question. Is processing data intelligence, or supporting intelligence? The defs of subjective and objective are unhelpful. Every act of knowing has a known object and a knowing subject. Being a subject is being aware, not beyond logic. Immaterial is not eternal. Immorality is a separate issue. So also containing morality. Free will helps form vices, but they are neurally encoded habits. Personality has a physical basis, e.g gender in brains.
dfpolis 10 months ago
Did you even read Ryle's book? I'd suggest reading Philosophical Investigations if you haven't already in order to get a slight twist (a prior twist) to Ryle's behaviorist views. The problem of mind and body is one of category AND language. When you talk about "Free Will", "Consciousness" and "Self"....what are you even referring to! Examine your language and you'll see that the mind has been miscontrued heavily in philosophy....
Yanirakarola 10 months ago
Why is the idea of a soul/divinity so pervasive? How do we account for the fact that every culture on the globe has a foundational or elemental component of spirituality? Can this idea have had a single common origin as some ancient oral tradition that travelled with the human diaspora or did it occur to many groups separately? Is it an artifact of cognition like a side effect? Is there an evolutionary explanation - does mysticism confer some advantage? Or is there something more going on here?
doireallyneed1 10 months ago
One word, Lobotomy.
If one can do a lobotomy to change someone's personality and moral objectives therefor either the soul is directly connected to the frontal lobe (which would mean souls cannot live after death) or there is no soul.
sohltofang 11 months ago
Life exists without a god; a god cannot exist without life. This means that the "soul" is only a construct of humans, driven by a desire for eternal life. There is no such thing as eternal life, unless you look forward to the Singularity, which is really not life, at all.
The Singularity only proves that the concept of eternal life, possessing a soul, is not based on any physical evidence, other than the machine thinks it has a soul. How is that different from a human? "Soul" does not exist.
Empedocles44 11 months ago
If a person gets brain damage and can't think clearly, does that mean the soul is damaged too?
gupsphoo 11 months ago
yes there is a soul,i saw a shadow person it looked familiar,i knew it wasn't the person i knew same head shape and body shape,but it was a shadow person,i should have screamed but i didn't,the only thing that i would say it was my inner spirit that did not fear it,
1980vince 11 months ago
I know this all sounds mad but could there be a link between the electro-magnetic energy from the sun and that of the brain?
Could that be driving part of our consciousness?
If so maybe that is why we have to sleep at night.
roysanjuro 1 year ago
It is clear that the body and the brain are designed through natural selection too navigate our way around our enviroment on earth. There also seems to be a evolutional growth in consiousness, the idea that there is a creator is a man made one but something may have given birth to us following somekind of cosmic nature like we do our own.
roysanjuro 1 year ago
There is a old belief that soul is seperate from the body and comes from the sun like the body come from the earth, and influences it in much the same way.
life through evolution may be the soul or the sun trying to physically manifest itself on earth. life may well be the offspring of the earth and the sun and they may both have there own form of consciousness.
roysanjuro 1 year ago
Well, there are cases with brain dead people coming back to life telling of stories of the afterlife.
And I also think Carl Ljungs work on consciousness is important that there is a dissconnect to the brain and time etc...
Also, when I go to the gym I have something called muscle memory which means that the body remembers what I have done before and will either resist or help my muscular development. I would call it biological intelligence.
There is a soul but you have to find it yourself...
dannywizz 1 year ago
I really like your perspective on this matter. As for me, I am as yet undecided as to which perspective carries the most weight. Whatever answer science comes to discover, it will surely change the way people all over the world perceive themselves and others. With a materialistic view, perhaps people will treasure and preserve life even more. With a dualistic view, perhaps people will learn to have more hope as to what a separation between mind/brain implies. Thanks for your thoughts!
iMaKeUsHoOk 1 year ago
the blood cells seems to know where they are going in your body.
wergrethe 1 year ago
if the brain can do every thing by it self and there is no free will
why does consciousness exists then?
----
I am always thinking that the brain isn't creating consciousness
he just summons or recieving it
it's like the brain is a computer and the consciousness is the internet
abumefak2 1 year ago
That's a great example with the frothing mouth guy. Nice vid!
sinistar99 1 year ago
mind/body duality is no longer a key question in metaphysics. descartes is studied mainly because his thinking ushered in a new era of metaphysics, so his work is very important historically. as you pointed out, many of the properties and explanations of the soul seem incorrect in our world, especially in medicine and psych. its becoming increasingly difficult to find a place for the soul in a modern, secular, humanist society. the soul is a romantic idea but it's likely just a fantasy.
playadominical 1 year ago
0:58
God is shaped like a brain
trunksss5 1 year ago
Intelligence is emergent from the much larger central nervous system that humans enjoy. Because the CNS interacts with other body chemical systems, the "mind" is not easily separable from the body. The mind-brain duality is a common sense (and wrong) artifact we impose on a continuum.
As for soul, there is a continual retreat of the definition of soul and no physical entity to which we can point. We are allowed to dismiss it without evidence.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
scientific community has formed too far out that a scientist might afraid to come up with new ideas. if a new idea is too far out from the textbooks he will risk being kicked out, lose their titles and jobs.
wergrethe 1 year ago
Fuck the Brain! , FUCK HIM!! LETS KILL THE BRAIN!
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
Gingers have no soul
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
a simple question could be asked what is making this machine(body) work? think of everything your body does automatically without even being concious of it. think of death, it's a trippy thing, the body looks exactly the same yet something is missing. how is that one minute the body is moving and the next minute it's not? if the body is simply material matter then theoretically scientist should be able to bring people back form the dead, but they can't. why? there has to be an energy source
guitarhero666759 1 year ago
To me, it seems like positing the Mind/body dualism would actually fall into the category of the problem of ignorance. Is there evidence that there is a dualism? no. Is there evidence that there isn't a dualism? That all depends on how you interpret the given data. Does positing the mind as a separate entity from the body sound like speculation in light of the lack of evidence? I would say so. A favorite movie of mine, Ghost in the Shell, explores what it means to have an identity.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
I think mind/body is overplayed. Do certain monkeys and apes have empathy? yes. and at least one species has language. don't animals plan ahead? Recently, scientists found an octopus that uses coconuts to build a home in the ocean. Crows have amazing problem solving abilities as well as the ability to remember faces. If it is the case that we can find similar cognitive faculties in the animals that surround us, then it can be deduced that our "mind" is simply a product of our natural brain.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
Sam Harris has a good 4 min clip on stem cell research here on YouTube about the soul. The fact a 4 day old embryo can split into two identical twins, does this mean they share the same soul? or the reverse two embryos can fuse into one. What happens to the left over soul?
The more we understand, the more reasonable it seems that the "soul" is a construct of the human mind, just another extension of a "God" complex.
The brain it seems is no different then any other biological system.
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66
But the brain is aware of itself, isn't it? Your liver isn't, so far as I know.
What would someone with a brain transplant see themselves as: the donor or recipient? Don't you think that carries a certain privilege, or mystery?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 9
@C0nc0rdance The fact that it aware of itself does that mean it has a soul? Not sure about that. It just reflects that it is an extremely developed complex system. There are about 100 trillion neurons in the brain, and each neuron can connect to one another 100 trillion ways. We are talking mind boggling figures, but measurable figures nether the less.
The fact that our brain is developed to the point where we can rationalize our own mortality is just a product of evolutionary systems.
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66
I suspect identity would transfer with the brain. The donor identity would be looking out through another person's eyes. It would feel, I imagine, very alien, like a passenger driving a car. When that person eventually died, I think we would mourn the donor, not the recipient.
I just find it interesting to think that while our consciousness is dependent on the physicality of the brain, it's an emergent property not possessed by any other kinds of matter.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance It is why I suggested it would be both especially in the primal Triune brain (reptilian) which deals with physical environment motor functions (having to create new connections). This is also the area which feels fear in most cases.
No wonder Frankensteins monsters was always in fear lol
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66
love is also a chemical reaction but is that to say the emotions are not real,, no its a sign that the bio body and emotional soul are connected,, i see many wondering souls so i guess our souls are immortal,, i have noticed that nice souls are more beautiful than angry souls,, that everything has a 'cause and effect' on our souls,, that the soul is made up of many chakras,, but not all souls are aware of chakras,, like being in a bio body but not knowing your organs functions
6no1fear6 1 year ago
@6no1fear6 It's called the Limbic region of the brain, emotions are very real. They are just that, no need to link it to an imaginary concept of a soul.
Your argument has as much logic as to try to explain any other myth based on faith
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66 we only know what we experience,, the rest is shared info,, i have never believed in blind faith so i only talk from experience,, yes we all have an eternal soul,, the lightbody is all u,, it is not separate from u,, its not like u can hold the mind in one hand and emotions in another,, its all u,, the bio body is like a car,, its u that drives it,, if and when it breaks down u don't stay wit it u step out, out the body,, i don't believe in faith i am a scientist, a researcher
6no1fear6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance think it really depends on what previous connections could be kept, to theoretically create the smoothest transplant would be to create a brain through stem cells and download the existing neural connections (ala Ray Kurzweil)
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66
"Soul" is a type of music. It's a cuisine. It's just a word. It means what we want it to mean. If you start adding adjectives, like immortal, that's a different issue.
I think we both agree that the mind has properties arising from, but not contained within the subunits of the brain. A neuron has no awareness, but 10 billion neurons do. There are new properties there and we could call those properties mind, or supermind... or soul.
It's just a matter of definitions.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance To answer your question about a brain transplant would be whether the neural connections stayed in tact. If science could do this where they could, logic would tell me that the brain being implanted would see it as both. dominated by as the donor (existing connections) while forming new ones (conforming to its new physical environment)
TheChipsnbeer66 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Well I do believe that Soul is a construction of the mind which is a product of our brain and this is the result of an evolution process, beyond that there is no single scientific probe of any ethereal being. We are aware of our existence that is not unique in the animal kingdom but we are the only ones that talk and wonder about it with others from our specie...I recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
intestinomedicino 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance We can all play word games, sure, BUT, that's why we nail down definitions before the discussion begins. In order for the discussion to be useful, the soul must be defined as a supernatural, non-physical entity, or an entity non-resultant from matter. If it is defined as such, then there is nearly certainly no debate over its existence.
stardust005 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Neuroscientists (psycho-physiologists) are entirely unable to satisfactorily account for the subjective, “phenomenological” experience of seeing color, hearing sound and music, and feeling emotional states such as “love,” “happiness,” “sadness”—merely in terms of neuronal processes in the brain. Again, there may be neuronal correlates for these mental events, but it is foolish to claim that the brain matter itself launches the efferent impulses. Our presence has a purpose...
VRWil 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
And at this point it is nothing more than a semantics argument.
A solid definition of what a 'soul' is would be required to say whether or not it exists.
dmgirl3000 11 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I agree with you 100%. awareness and consciousness of one's own existence and laws of physics mean something. maybe we should start thinking "sum ergo cogito." maybe look beyond every atoms, and maybe reflect on our existence of conscious to question the consciousness of the universe, and possibly the concept of 'eternal consciousness.'
dkdjhh 9 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Explain, "But the brain is aware of itself, isn't it?" Because if you mean the fact it generates thought, then I don't understand your argument. Your liver processes blood, but your brain does not. Similar statement, yet it also appears to hold no valid points, as yours didn't. Considering a brain transplant, as far as I know, has never happened It's hard to determine what would take place, but I assume that unless there is a way to transfer memories, it would more be a donation of
burninmunkeys 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance (cont) a body, rather than a brain. If you mean that the brain has a consciousness, by the term 'soul,' then I would have to agree. I see the mind as more of a complex system developed in and by the brain to comprehend day to day activities. A neuron may have an 'awareness' however 10 billion have a larger awareness and comprehension. A rat has 21 million neurons, and has an awareness, we have about 100 billion, and are slightly more aware than they. In fact, elephants have twice
burninmunkeys 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance (cont again) as many neurons as humans, and display very similar characteristics to human behavior, as do a lot of animals. A fruit fly has only 100 thousand neurons in its brain and appears to me, to have quite a well established awareness as to be able to perform just fine. Whether it is self aware is another story, although some dogs, I have heard, can recognize themselves, as well as parrots, while others cannot. So you should go a bit more into detail so I can understand your
burninmunkeys 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance (cont again, again) point better.
burninmunkeys 8 months ago
@TheChipsnbeer66 and all that evolved did it :( , ur reasoning is very contradictory
wild0hawk 11 months ago
@TheChipsnbeer66 100 billion neurons, and each has connections with tens of thousands of other neurons.
AllUserNamesTaken111 11 months ago
@C0nc0rdance last time i checked your liver doesnt have neurons.
mathdude28 11 months ago
@C0nc0rdance ever heard of the term "connectome"? very interesting talk that is relevant to your discussion on dualism.
mebe84 11 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Have you read chemical basis for morphogenesis by Turing?
Mitche23 9 months ago
@TheChipsnbeer66 science is a research into discovering answers to questions and theories... its is as continues as time... yeh u could say time is a 'man' mind thing but it is a measurement used to understand. i know about the chemical reactions of the bio body as an 'explanation' to what happens to us when the bio body dies. when the bio body dies the soul leaves the body. many ppl report that they have outer body experiences and can see their body, the soul is intelligent energy in a bio bod
6no1fear6 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66 My idea of the "soul", is that of a field. This field could be perceived as "God". The field would manifest through consciousness or life. Therefore, a four day old embryo becoming a twin, or re-absorbing a twin would not affect the "soul" in any way. In one case, there's one brain interacting with the "God Field", in the other case, there are two.
seeqer66 1 year ago
@TheChipsnbeer66 smoke DMT you will understand that your a piece of shit for thinking like this
sdots212 10 months ago
@TheChipsnbeer66
Then what do you define as the very word you use-- What is MIND?! And quantum-physics proves that the matter of our brain though used to interpret chemical reactions, is quite un-conscious in itself.
NDPofNovaScotia 8 months ago
When I go, all what remains is the impression I made on people as tiny it may be, and wormfood. Though I find it strangely comforting picturing a tree on my grave feeding on my remains.
0x8x0 1 year ago
The soul is the driver behind the wheel of a car. If the car is high performance and well maintained then all is well. If the car is a lemon that barely moves, then that's what the soul is suck with. An inoperative car doesn't prove that there's no driver. In the scope of things, our time on earth is so short- like a split second. Perhaps we get to try life over and over again. Seems to make little sense to exist if we can't forever benefit from our experiences from life. I'm an old man.
RickIncrocci 1 year ago
"The soul is the driver behind the wheel of a car. If the car is high performance and well maintained then all is well. If the car is a lemon that barely moves, then that's what the soul is suck with."
An interesting analogy. Can you now test for the existence of that driver?
Your "An inoperative car doesn't prove that there's no driver." is not a valid argument for the existence of a driver. That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne ignorance? Gosh, thanks. My statement doesn't state it proves a driver- it states that it doesn't prove there isn't one. It is, of course, wishful thinking. I'm hoping there is one. Because we can't test for one (yet) doesn't mean it isn't there. I remember in school when the atom was the smallest there was.
RickIncrocci 1 year ago
"My statement doesn't state it proves a driver- it states that it doesn't prove there isn't one."
You are missing the point. Saying that it does not prove there is not one accomplishes nothing, and worse, it implies that the converse is true.
It is akin to saying "I may not be able to prove God, but you can't prove he doesn't exist!"
Or "I may be unable to prove my product cures the common cold, but you can't prove that it doesn't!"
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne Of course your point is very valid. I ponder this all the time. I'm not convinced either way. Religious I'm not. To exist is strange by itself. Conscientiousness and self-awareness is mind blowing. We understand how the senses are transmitted to the brain, yet no one really understands the self-aware receiver. Perhaps just more electrical impulses- perhaps something else. Theories are abundant, and over the years what was thought to be facts are altered. Or perhaps you're right.
RickIncrocci 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne I can further support your argument by asking where in the animal kingdom does the soul take hold? How 'bout cats or dogs? A turtle? A gnat? What about cavemen or that first missing link? Everything on the surface points to support your stand. Yet I find existence and self-awareness strange enough for me to think that "just maybe" there's more to it than what we can understand in our limited abilities as humans.
RickIncrocci 1 year ago
Just because there is a gap in the knowledge does not justify the substitution of ad hoc answers.
I use "soul" to mean the same thing as sentience, that is, self-awareness, the understanding of "I". That trait is only possessed by four groups/species on this planet - humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@RickIncrocci i had an outer body experience and since it can see souls,, i can chat to them,, if u take the soul out of a bio body the body starts to decompose,, anything we call life has an eternal soul,, there is no such thing as a 'human' soul and a 'dog' soul,, all souls are made from the same stuff,, all have emotions and minds,, most don't like this so blinker themselves,, but look into their eyes,, more ppl get born on earth than die everyday so as to a human soul i say look at the math
6no1fear6 1 year ago
I do not think the soul exists, but I do think the brain stores what could be called one. The only issue is that it needs a body or a medium to be placed on, and after the brain dies it is gone.
jacewolf301 1 year ago
Split brain research would do a lot to undermine the concept of the soul:
watch?v=gcEV_HsIdBI
zarkoff45 1 year ago
The philosopher Daniel Dennett explores this question and sketches out a materialistic and empirical theory of consciousness in his book "Consciousness Explained."
I find it interesting to note here that the buddhists have long held sentient beings to exist as an aggregate of dependent parts, rather than an inherently existing self, independent of all else. Daniel Dennett empirically sketches out a view that describes consciousness as a "narrative center of gravity."
prestonashworth 1 year ago
There is a slight distinction between the mind and the brain in my opinion. The brain is the substrate or the infrastructure for neural activity, and the mind is made of the particular patterns in which groups of neurons fire as well as changes in the synapses between neurons. A convienient example is that a piano is like the brain, and the mind is like the music played on that piano, and perhaps the pianist could be the environment.
gavinplaysbass 1 year ago
Good topic. I am an atheist, i believe i have a soul, is that weird much?
And religious exercism doesnt belong in the hospital.. You want to go to a church and get treated, thats ur own decision.. And that preacher at the end is a scam artist!
Hillsillverr 1 year ago
Thanks for all your videos
shankz25 1 year ago
The problem is no matter what side people stand on it takes an open mind to recognize and admit they might be wrong. As a believer I would just say that science itself is way too flawed to conclude that God and the soul do not exist. The more you study science from a critical perspective the more ridiculous some old scientific theories appear.
ENGUNI 1 year ago
@ENGUNI But that's the difference between science and non-science. When new data conflicts with a pre-existing theory, and scientists will rework the theory to fit all available data. Science is self-correcting. There is no such correction mechanism in faith. This is why science gives us internet, antibiotics, glow in the dark mice, and space travel. These technologies are all proof of principle in science. In faith, one may believe something is true, but there's no way to demonstrate it.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
We don't have much of a clue as to just how complex the brain really is. If you listen to anyone with any type of dementia they sound like they are accessing the subconscious as if in a dream. Meditation causes a physical shift in the brain away from the region where our inner narration is generated. And the brain seems to function much like the internet; i.e., without a specific processing center. We seem to have many separate brains all working - or not working, together to create the mind.
deepashtray 1 year ago 2
The end of this video: a classical rhetorical "I youtube, you decide" moment.
prophetchannel 1 year ago
I know EXACTLY what will happen when I die. I will get eaten by worms until all the remains is the skeleton and in time that will decompose too. I will turn into DIRT. There is no fucking HEAVEN.
Zurround100 1 year ago 7
@Zurround100
I bet people will mourn you, too. They will wail over your coffin, and go home with a hole in their hearts. You will have touched their lives, affected how they live. The ripples of that will echo for decades. Ultimately, you have contributed to the way the human drama plays out. Your atoms will be rejoined in endless combination to other people and other things.
You actions and your physical being are brief; and also abiding.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 16
Amen to that. :)
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Can you give me the link to the wallpaper @1:03
Mitche23 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance FAIRIES DISPROVE MODERN SCIENCE.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
This was one of the most atheistic, but spiritually uplifting things I have ever heard. I'm gonna put this in my siggy somewhere.
Stiletto42069 10 months ago
@Zurround100 there might not be a "heaven" in the clouds and harps kind of thing but to say that there is nothing after this is foolish and for you to be satisfied in your reasoning that lead to that belief says more about yourself and your emotional state than about the afterlife
Overkill303 1 year ago
@Zurround100 u don't know,, u know what will happen to your bio body,, so many ppl guess and then say they know,, to know something is to have studied and experienced something,, lots of ppl have an outer body experience and can astral travel,, this is when the soul/lightbody leaves the bio body and u can explore your light body before u die,, but saying that most jus go wit the flow and don't even understand their bio bodies while in physical living,, knowing is not exactly guessing is it ? ; )
6no1fear6