I appreciate how nuanced Braude's answers are. Too often, we all want clean, clear answers to these very complicated questions, which include how we describe and categorize things with language -- that ultimately and necessarily is incomplete in providing a clean, clear answer. Embrace the mystery!
It depends whether we understand enough about matter to eventually explain consciousness in those terms, as we have already explained so many other phenomena. I think it's possible that we do.
Eliminative Materialism which doesn't believe that mental processes or consciousness actually exists is wrong in my view. A Materialism that accepts the fact that mental processes and consciousness does exist and has emerged wholly from the physical constituents of the brain is more in line with what I believe. A fully functional and functioning human mind is completely dependent on a normal healthy physical brain and could never exist independently. In other words when the brain ceases to function the mind no longer exists.
@@Resmith18SR >"A Materialism that accepts the fact that mental processes and consciousness does exist and has emerged wholly from the physical constituents of the brain is more in line with what I believe." Same here, mental and conscious experiences are real, I just think they're most likely explicable in terms of physical systems and information processing.
The insights from a spiritual experiences are true for the person experiencing them. For the rest of us they are not true, but are merely ideas for us to think about.
Spirtual experiences can lend wisdom to even a fool. Science has perpetuated untold foolishness. Wisdom is tied tightly to reality and causality if nothing else at all. In wisdom reality is the only assumption, where all of the sciences are deluded.
@@wagfinpis Skeptic atheists would like to replace traditional spiritual wisdom, with their own nihilistic brand of "spiritual wisdom". Which includes their insistence you should consider your life meaningful even though you're on a one way road to oblivion. That your actual being and consciousness is no more than a byproduct in a mechanical universe which has no intrinsic meaning to it at all - it just is. And you are at best, a mathematical product of an empty, meaningless universe of which you emerged randomly and will disappear forever randomly as well. That is the wisdom of guys like Johny Harris and his gang of Skeptic thugs fervently wish to indoctrinate the rest of us with. Personally I'm with Alfred Tennyson on this one - if Johny Harris and his gang of nihilists turn out to be correct - I'd rather just sink my face into a rag of chloroform and be done with it. Or search out, and find myself a bare bodkin.
We got there in the end ! Lots of words then the answer was no which here, I guess, means yes to the question of soul existence. It was an enjoyable meander to get there, nonetheless😊
Stephen's interest in behavior was a lot closer to the video title than Robert's interest in accounting for the physical universe. Those 3 dudes that got the nobel prize in 2022 already put a big inconvenient hole in a lot of language that can describe the universe along a purely physical model. The biggest advantage to describing the universe as a physical one is it suits our default intuitions and an emense body of literature; but we are supposed to understand that all of the literature is built on top of a bed of assumptions to begin with. A relatively scientific languaged discussion about "the soul" might entertain looking for abilities of the mind to get behind the physical model. Stephen seemed to be loosly implying some qualitative comparisons between the minds' ability (ie. skillful meditation practitioners at a minimum) to regulate the body and the pharmaceutical industries' abilities to regulate the body. I have always wondered if physicists could set up an experiment where skillful meditators or psychic practitioners might consistently demonstrate a distinct ability to regulate outcomes with "the observer effect", "eraser problem", "measurement problem" etc. that would indicate a correlation between mind and causality, preceding random physical causality. Like something that would suggest to them that "the mind" is prime to the brain... If the mental practice demonstrated a distinct explanation/description of its ability and practice, that was not possible to blur with a physical paradigm description.
"It is somewhat humorous that such a vital consciousness could even suppose itself to be the end product of inert elements that were themselves lifeless, but somehow managed to combine in such a way that your species attained fantasy, logic, vast organizational power, technologies, and civilizations." ~SR
@@browngreen933 the idea that 'mind' is somehow too good or too ethereal or too whatever to emerge from physics, chemistry and biology is hilarious in that it's a joke
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Yeah - the mind is easily explained. You'll figure out soon, I'm sure. Keep at it. The second coming of the Skeptic Materialist's God will arrive any day now. Keep the faith oh Skeptic faithful one! Your religion is a strong one.
It's always interesting in discussions like this, is that in proposing that mind is more than the brain they never talk about brain damage and illnesses. I think a trip to a neurological ward might give him pause.
@@wagfinpis *Where does the brain get its information from* From anything external to it. Through the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell and through internal processes. *Is the brain supplied with any data that does not come from the 5 senses or its inner makeup then?* No. The brain primarily processes sensory input from the external world and internal physiological data, it also engages in complex cognitive processes that go beyond immediate sensory experiences. These processes include memory, imagination, introspection, social and cultural influences, abstract thinking, and the generation of subjective experiences. The brain's ability to integrate and process information from various sources contributes to human cognition and consciousness. The brain also processes data related to the body's internal state, such as temperature, blood pressure, and chemical balances. This internal data helps regulate bodily functions and maintain homeostasis.
@@CMVMic If the brain is unable to process anything beyond sensory input from the external world and internal physiological "data", there should be no progress and no creativity at all. The lives of Mozart, Beethoven, Newton, Einstein et al would tend to disprove this theory. Meanwhile, such term as "imagination" needs to be clearly defined which might prove extremely difficult in view of the fact that scientists cannot even define what a "feeling" is in spite of the fact that such experience is extremely common and basic. The same problem arises when one tries to define such experiences as "intuition", "transcendence" or the "dream state".
Nature just functions on it's own and doesn't require that we know how the mind is related to the physical brain. I personally believe that our mind is completely dependent on the physical brain and wouldn't exist without it's functioning. The great thing is that we don't need to know exactly what is actually happening although we will keep trying to discover the truth. A lot of our beliefs about this are not only are incorrect, but if its more comforting to believe that our souls continue on to another life then believe that because it will most likely never be proven one way or the other.
Too many words. It's simply that we humans live in conceptual space (unconstrained), but inhabit physical space (tethered to natural law), often confusing the two and losing a grip on the latter.
The mind can be thought of as greater than the sum of its parts and may not solely rely on anything else for its existence. A human brain is required to interact directly with and understand the world around the mind, as a human. The mind is a field in which reality plays.
Odd how nature "saves" (as record) a copy of our lives in spacetime geometry. It's not exactly substance dualism. But it certainly is a pluralism which is an extreme confound for naturalism. The only naturalist explanation would be all events and objects are necessary.
I’m of the ghost in the machine type, except ghost is separating word. I am the “ghost” in the machine. But let’s clarify, by ghost i mean spirit, the soul, or the life form within and part of my body. Mind is simply the data filing system within the brain. Consciousness is simply the act of being aware but it’s more connected to the soul. Me, the soul is as conscious in death as it was when “living” because i am the soul.
I answer no to the question. How does the soul store and process information? What purpose does the information that a soul acquires from living as a dog or as an electrician help in other existence? We refuse to acknowledge our mortality and keep believing all this nonsense. The idea of a soul could come from the fact that once matter assembles into a particular form, that particular form can always be assembled under the same conditions. For example, All the water (H2O) can disappear from this universe, but the possibility of water does not disappear because as long as Hydrogen and Oxygen comes together under the right conditions there will be what we call water. Science may call it the blueprint for water, religions may call it the soul.
Emergence plus time equals Beethoven's Fifth. A fundamental particle becomes, over time, with complexity, a nut, which becomes a tree, which becomes a beautiful sailboat. Is the sailboat nothing more than a collection of basic particles. Obviously yes and obviously no.
How can you say no in the end, when your brain has to continue developing after birth and mature enough to the point where consciousness (or the mind) emerges? which doesnt happen until years after birth..
You Hindus are always trying claim your religion said it first. Yet when you look at the text you realized it is only by some strained esoteric interpretation that the text even comes close to what you are claiming it says. You’re trying to make your religion relevant by cozying it up with science. Don’t think your fooling anyone.
3:38 SB: ... neutra monist: one kind of stuff, that kind of stuff that it's intrinsically undifferentiated that it has no privileged kind of description we can look at the world through any number of different conceptual grids 4:08 I assume the monist is the godly soul which is an integer which play ciritical role in an individual human being.
Pretty convincing arguments and interesting ideas. He said any physical phenomenal can have unlimited descriptive concepts. However, the opposite is also true. There are real thing that you cant describe no matter how many words you use. If that is the case, there is no 1 to 1 between the 2 space. The link can be cut off. He sounds more like a dualist than he thought he is.
The descriptive concepts he came up with were not descriptive of things themselves though, they were descriptive relationships with other things or with various concepts. I’ve come across this approach before. An analogy or comparison of a thing with something else can be useful or meaningful to us, but is not comparable to an inherent attribute of the thing itself. So for example protons have mass, charge and spin which are inherent attributes of the proton. An analogy between a proton and a baseball is not inherent to the proton though, and lumping such relational descriptions in and pretending they are equivalent to inherent attributes will quickly get you lost in the conceptual wood. I’m not arguing that analogy or other relational descriptions aren’t useful, they certainly are, but confusing them with inherent attributes is a serious conceptual error.
@@Dwigs98 I agree. My personal belief is that our consciousness somehow continues after death, that death is the beginning of something else. I’m just saying there’s no direct evidence that proves that, but there is indirect evidence that suggests it.
He’s a property dualist. Causality is a metaphysical concept so convoluted that you could produce a season of shows based on it. Still - no soul » no god. Theistic ‘fine tuning’ is groundless and vacuous.
@@Cardioid2035 Apparently, according to the highly intellectual skeptics who visit this board frequently - NDEs are simply a product of ongoing electical activity in the brain - even when the brain is no longer being supplied with oxygen or blood. So, given the Skeptics here (including Kuhn) know so much more about the science of NDEs than Dr. Bruce Greyson - and numerous of his fellow scientific colleagues - who have spent the last three decades of their lives empirically studying the phenomena - who are we to disagree with the all knowing Kuhn and his Skeptic buddies like goofball Daniel Dennett? So - let's just ignore the science by Dr. Bruce Greyson (like they do) and follow the faith they all insist we ought to believe - even though they are ignorant as fuck of the science they routinely dismiss.
to paraphrase (and plagiarize) the late great John Wheeler.." initially i thought the fundamental building block of the universe was a particle, then i thought it was a wave function, now i think it is consciousness..."
Ghost, spirit, or soul is commonly understood as a non-physical existence or entity... ..Consciousness is not only a non-physical entity but also is free to choose to believe in non-physical existence such as believing in Supernatural God in violation of material science. What physical matter does this, defying physical laws ? NONE ! ..Of course Consciousness is obviously a ghost, spirit, or a soul (take your pick) free from physical laws that can experience sense of GUILT... Ask yourself this following question, if indeed Consciousness is just physicsl matter, slave to natural laws, not free: "why would a physical matter, driven by natural laws and so not accountable, can freely make a choice and can experience a sense of GUILT ?" This question alone should wake up all "material science geniuses" that their obssession to material science is nothing but an excuse to feel no accountability - a need they hold so tight for dear life no matter what. A cold dark enptiness (hell -absence of God) is never fun, just so you are warned..
I disagree, we are sure that we have a brain, and we call mind its capability to process sensory input to create thoughts. There is not a line of minds waiting for the formation of brains that they can inhabit.
@@miguelrosado7649Sounds like a very materialistic way of thinking and I guess you are an atheist as I am but denying the existance of a god doesn't preclude the possibility of the mind being seperate from the brain.
@@captainoates7236 I just can’t visualize the mind being separate from the brain. Have to have a boundary, use energy, store/process information, capability to interact with matter, communicate, etc. What is your concept of mind?
@@miguelrosado7649 I agree it's not exactly scientific but to be honest most of the interview in the vidio skirted around the same question if not exactly naming it. "Does the soul exist?"
..I believe we have spirits and some animals, I prefer to use the word spirit, as I understand a soul to spirit and body, hence the saying S.O.S. save our souls would not make sense, the spirit I personally define as a non "physical" perception of conscious memory
@@jamenta2 Yes, no need to over complicate things. Just observe how we as biological creatures are born, live for a time, then evaporate. We have eternal life fantasies though.
I would answer / argue that animals are souls, just like we Homo sapiens are. That is, they are a living things conscious of their environments and capable of having some degree of efficacy in them.
It seems to me that Stephen is a highly intelligent gentleman with many talents.. Amoung them are his skills at misdirection and hiding his pronounced bais toward philosophical dualism.. Robert teased it out however along with a few more surprisingly illogical and unsupportable assumptions..Very good.. Peace.
Robert is quite good at pretending he is open minded, with no inherent strong biases which would restrict the kind of truth he actually seeks - i.e. which can be summed up as more confirmation bias. Peace - out.
@jamenta2 I would suggest that MOST people who take the time to reflect deeply on the reasons WHY they believe what they do would have to admit to such biases.. No?
@@Bill..N True to some extent. But those who claim they believe and have faith in science, and then go on to ignore certain fields of science - strike me as more biased than most. Skeptics are particularly biased in this sense. They claim they have a strong faith in science - but then cherry pick what science is true - and what cannot be true. For example, the last 30+ years of Near-Death scientific studies. Or the last 100+ years of Psi research - skeptics will dutifully ignore. Not because of their supposed inherent scientific objectivity - but because of a deeply unexamined bias - has been my experience. I just recently had a Skeptic tell me NDEs were the result of electrical brain activity - even when there was no oxygen or blood going to the brain - and the person who had the NDE was deeply unconscious, with no detectable brain activity including autonomous brain activity required to keep the body alive - this person told me that the brain - even with a small amount of electrical activity, could still produce the NDE phenomena - phenomena which has now been scientifically documented and published in journals such as the Lancet - by scientists who will tell you flat out there is no way a conscious experience could occur when there is no discernable activity in the brain. When a person is considered clinically dead. And yet, this Skeptic insisted the NDE scientific research was weak, and Pim von Lommel really wasn't a trustworthy scientist - didn't really know what he was talking about. For me - this clearly indicates a level of bias that goes way beyond the normal bias we all normally carry. It also shows a profound hypocricy regarding the scientific method so many Skeptics insist they believe in. Apparently, science is only as good as it aligns with their inherent Atheistic, materialistic belief system. When it doesn't - then all hell (usually) breaks out for anyone who might oppose their religious doctrine of materialism.
THERE IS ONE SOUL WE ALL SHARE - LANGUE GETS IN THE WAY HERE - LETS CHANGE THE WORD “SOUL” TO LIFE FORCE - (words are not things but descriptions of things and subject to current connotations) - any form of physical science will have a tuff time dealing with this comment, if “physical science can’t - smell it - fondle it - or lick it - they can’t, for the most part, deal with it - I am a visual Artist, (paint draw etc.), I channel by way of visual Art - for example, if something is going awry - in my family, (or the gov or the world for that fact) - a picture will emerge and warn me - UNLIKE A PALM READER I HAVE A PICTURE OF COMING EVENTS - I have traversed this frequency this dimension for 80, Earth years - I have connected many dots - NOT ALL! BUTT many :-) HENCE! I COULD NOT DO ANY OF THE ABOVE IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE FACT - THIS IS THE SINGULARITY THAT SCIENCE IS SEARCHING FOR -
Why is there a problem? How is it that we can accept the physics point of view of matter and energy, but cannot accept mind/body duality? I just watched an episode of "Life below zero". Sue had recently lost two relatives and was talking about the aurora. She said something to the affect " the object moves and stops, but the energy doesn't stop, the energy keeps going." What is the quintessential, empirical example of "energy"? Motion? Light? Heat? I think it's fire 🔥. Is fire an "object"? A log fire "stays" with the log but is it in one place, is it stationary? Isn't it moving, even though we can "locate" it? Is it local or non-local? Here or going somewhere? In the same way when the human body stops does the mind stop? Conversely, when the mind stops does the body keep going? Like a chicken 🐔 with its head cut off? Hmmmm...is an electron an "object"?
It's a good question, what are the basic issues that underlie the physicalist point of view? I think the central point of issue for myself, as a physicalist, is causation. If we start from the view that conscious experiences can cause changes in the world, such as when we talk or write about them, then we need to explain how that causation occurs. What is the mechanism by which a conscious thought in my mind or brain becomes a physical change in the external world? Firstly, what does it mean to say that something is physical? For me, I think of physical phenomena in terms of causation. A physical process or a physical thing is something that can affect, and be affected by other things in the world. At the fundamental level that's quantum objects as described by quantum theory. Protons, electrons, photons, etc. These are the thing we have definite, very well verified evidence for. There may be things we've not discovered yet, after all we only just recently detected gravity waves, and there may be dark matter though I have no firm view on that, but basically these are all 'physics stuff'. We currently don't have any reason to believe anything else of a fundamentally different kind from these exists and is causal. So if the things that exist and are what are causal and explain the causal phenomena we observe around us, and conscious processes are causal, the logical conclusion is that conscious processes are composed of these causal constituents. When we look inside brains, these are the constituents we find. Protons, electrons, photons, etc. So it seems reasonable to conclude that conscious processes cause physical change because they are physical processes. That's really all there is to it. In order to believe otherwise, I would need to have repeatable, verified evidence of the existence of some other causal phenomenon, at a similar level of predictive power and observational detail as we have for protons, electrons, photons, etc, because that's the standard we have established for such things in science. When we look inside brains we don't find evidence for anything like that. I'm not trying to convert you to physicalism or anything, we're just talking, but you asked a fair question and I'm trying to give a serious answer to how I come to this conclusion. There are also my reasons for doubting the alternatives to physicalism, and why on balance I think the physicalist view is the most plausible alternative, but that's a much broader topic. Best regards.
@@simonhibbs887 Your opinion seems myopic if not irrational. What "caused" you to write them? Protons, electrons and photons? Eating and drinking and breathing and sleeping and working "cause" you to exist, or remain existent, no? Do we eat protons? Electrons? Light? Do we breathe or dream them? There is more to the world, the physical world, than these "objects" and their processes. What is energy? Is an individual electron energy? Is it the energy of a photon that causes us to eat or is it the energy of the proton or electron? Living beings are more than rocks, more than objects, more than matter. Just as energy is more than matter, after all e=mc^2. The c^2 isn't a photon of light it is a place carrier for a process or type of motion. As a physicalist you would be better served by listing the different types of energies than the different types of matter to justify your belief in causation. Can you do so? What energy causes language in humans? Is it the same energy that allows bees or ants or other fauna or flora to communicate? Are there more energies than there are forces? Is steam energy an illusion? Mechanical, hydraulic, chemical? Why don't these occupy your mind as causative? Why did you not mention the graviton, isn't gravity a source of causation? Why the reluctance? Is it because the physicist is not sure of it, or the physicalist? The broad concerns of physics are too general to be of use to a physicalist wedded to causation. Living beings as objects impelled solely by causation doesn't even allow for this discussion. Living beings as actors and forces of intention does allow for it. Cause is not purpose, etiology is not teleology; but most importantly causation is not creation! Are lies, errors and irrationality also caused by photons, electrons and protons? What about ignorance, death? How? How can the existent thing, the thing that constitutes existence, cause itself to become non-existent? No longer causative?
@@kallianpublico7517 >What "caused" you to write them? Protons, electrons and photons? As a physicalist I think I am made of these things. As a matter of observation that’s clearly true, the only question is if there is anything more. I think probably not. So saying that the physical matter that I am made of did something is equivalent to saying that I did it. >Do we eat protons?… etc Since the material substances we consume and breathe are made of protons and other such particles, yes. >What is energy? That’s a fascinating question, basically everything is energy in one form or another. E = MC^2 and all that. >Living beings are more than rocks, more than objects, more than matter. We are extremely complex, sophisticated dynamic systems made of matter. That’s the physicalist view. I mean obviously this is just plainly true at the factual level, the water in our bodies is H20 which is made of electrons, protons and neutrons. The issue is whether there is also anything else of a completely different kind we are made of that is also causal, but that we have never discovered. >As a physicalist you would be better served by listing the different types of energies than the different types of matter to justify your belief in causation. Can you do so? Yes, of course, I already listed photons in my first post and also mentioned and also cited all the various phenomena described by physics. I don’t know why you’re picking at this thread, I already covered this and frankly it’s trivial. I’m sure you know what energies and processes are described by physics and which operate in our bodies. >What energy causes language in humans? Language is a phenomenon by which information encoded in physical structures such as writing, electrical signals, etc is transferred. Communication is a physical process we understand very well, and the study of it was formalised in the 1950s by Claude Shannon. Other animals do communicate in various ways, and of course computer systems communicate as well. We are using them to do that right now. Yes steam power transmits energy. I’m not sure why you’re’ talking about this, it’s basic high school physics. Is any of this controversial? yes gravity is causal, go back to my first comment, I mentioned gravity waves. Do i really have to list every single physical phenomenon? What’s the point when you ignore what I do write about anyway? >Living beings as actors and forces of intention does allow for it. Cause is not purpose At last you mention something that’s actually relevant. Intention and purpose. We now have robust, tested models for how intentional behaviour can naturally develop through evolutionary processes. We use this to evolve behaviours in neural network AIs, and using genetic algorithms. So we’ve gone from observing this in nature, to using the same processes to engineer systems. >How can the existent thing, the thing that constitutes existence, cause itself to become non-existent? No longer causative? Dead things are still causative, just as any matter is. When a person dies they leave behind a physical body. In nature the materials in a body are recycled into the environment to create new life.
@@simonhibbs887 Who do you think you're deceiving? "We now have robust tested models for how intentional behavior can naturally develop through evolutionary processes." First of all who's the "we"? Do you include yourself among evolutionary psychologists? Congratulations, you've just invented and joined a non-existent field of science! How a thing occurs is not WHY a thing occurs. Instincts are not intentions. You really don't understand what you think you do because you obviously don't understand this point.
@@kallianpublico7517 We being humans. Mostly this work is being proved out in computer science. A lot of the latest generations of advanced AIs are not programmed procedurally. They start from randomised neural network weightings, then are trained through a process of evolution through variation, and environmental selection. This is how AlphaZero learned to play Chess and Go. It’s also used to train the recent generation of large language models. We’ve gone from observing this process of evolved intentional behaviour in nature, to using it to engineer some of our most advanced and sophisticated technologies. And by we, again, I mean humans.
6:03, 13:10... " is the.mind, the product of brain?" a) did the brain create the mind or b) is the brain structure necessary for having/providing such experience/potential as a mind... since brain itself is a construct of intelligent activity then "a)" is not true... on the other hand, for us to interact in a meaningful way with our environment (in a scale that facilitates our interactions) then "b)" is also correct... therefore it seems as mind if considered as intelligent behavior then its origin must be something else other than the brain...
What you are describing is self-referentiality: the brain creates intelligent mind and the mind creates the brain, but how did that start if both a prequisits for each other? If that would be true, both should either not exist, or must be brought into existence by something that is neither the (individual) mind nor (individual) brain.This is a very sound logic but saddly very overlooked too.
I agree with what you identified as one of the most likely alternatives "...must be brought into existence by something that is neither the (individual) mind nor (individual) brain..." to me, the question "which came first the brain or the mind", resembles very much to the most popular question "which came first, the chicken or the egg " :) and the answer that I find more satisfactory, is the one that compares historical records of both chickens (as a species of birds) and eggs (as the ones that resemble those of the chicken but with variable sizes and shapes)... according to this account, eggs have been known to exist for more than 300 million years whereas chickens only for around 50 thousand years... therefore I find the likelihood that chicken comes from an egg the most plausible answer... now, coming back to mind vs. brain question... to me, mind can be compared with the egg and the brain with the chicken, but unfortunately the "mind" is not as tangible as the egg is, and this is where I think the source of the problem is... we can argue indefinitely if we don't first conceptualize or agree on the same reference as to what we identify as a "mind"... if we start by broadly calling the mind an 'intelligent activity/behavior' then it seems as the brain is a product of 'intelligent activity/behavior' for the same reason the egg was historically older than the chicken... but if we identify the mind as being a product of the brain (i.e. the mind as we experience it can only be a product of complex brain activity) then I don't see a problem with identifying the brain as a precursor to mind activity... to conclude, if we agree to a common definition of what a "mind" is, then I don't see how we cannot but only agree... on the other hand, if we don't agree on what the "mind" is, then we can waste countless hours by arguing and never come to a resolution...
All life, I think, includes some awareness of self in one’s environment and a capacity to act in that environment according to what one senses or determines are one’s needs, wants and preferences. And this feeling or awareness of self is what people think of as “a soul”, which is really just a living thing. Of course, what a worm experiences as its sense of self in its environment is probably at a much more rudimentary level than what homo sapiens experience as their sense of self in their environments.
There even seems to be variation between my sense of self when I lean in to kiss a female I met that same day and the self I experience when alone and contemplative and the self I'm experiencing when retracting my hand from being burnt. Shall we assume there is a range of senses of self for the worm too?
@@wagfinpis If he or she or it has a chance to choose between two mates or mating events or between burrowing left towards the scent of water or right toward the scent of food? Or to nourish itself next to a companion or at a distance from him or her? Etc etc etc… I think at a worm level each worm has a distinct personality. Did I understand your question correctly?
@@longcastle4863 I'm not sure I had a focused point, but my question was attempting to tease out the idea that our sense of self can be more complex or less complex. is the worm its greater complexity of self awareness or its more simplistic sense of self. Are you ultimately your greatest sense of yourself or are you only what I am capable of sensing while I'm in survival mode reacting to the burn of fire? It seems to me that I can imagine some great elaborate made up sense of self and that would be a false sense of self, but ultimately I do suspect we must be our greatest sense of self in the end even if we are not able to perceive it during our lowest and most simplistic sense of self. Some of us do not experience nor imagine our higher soul, but some of us do experience it and I think that it is more than we can imagine right now.
@@wagfinpis In the worm’s world it’s complex; for us looking at the worm’s world it seems simpler, but not simple. For the worms I think it’s a very rich world. We, however, would get bored. To say the least. The emotions seem to shallow, the decisions too basic. But I’m sure there are nuances in the worm’s world that make up for that; probably into stuff we couldn’t fathom. Edit: Reading the rest of your comment, I would add that we live in a range that sometimes is intensely self aware and sometimes is almost on automatic, half shut down, taking a rest. No one is always always on; that would be unbearable I think.
I think there are different levels of perceptual awareness, with a continuum between them. At the bae level is stimulus/response. The organism has simple responses to environmental stimuli. This is the level of a plant or an amoeba. Next up is an adaptive mechanism where the organism has a simple nervous system and can learn more effective responses to various stimuli. Next is when we have a simple brain and the organism constructs a model of it's environment and it's physical presence, which it populates with sense data, and can do basic reasoning about operating in that environment. The next level is where the organism has a model of other agents in the environment as active beings with their own beliefs and agendas. Evolutionary psychologists call this 'theory of mind' and it's what enables a predator to manipulate the behaviour of it's prey, or a social animal to reason about the beliefs and intentions of other members of it's group. Finally we have sense of self, which is where the mental model also includes awareness of the organism's own mental processes, allowing it to reason about what behaviours, plans, etc worked well and which didn't so the organism can self-modify it's own reasoning processes to learn and better achieve it's goals.
In every cell. It's not soul - soul is a too limited notion. It's a quantum replica and is unique for everybody. The human quantum replica is not just a formula as is H2O for water, it's a full expression of 'everything about us' in particle state. How do I know? I'm a body exiter since three and a half. The story: I had a quilt made by my grannies especially for me as I'm their youngest grandchild. It was in bright colours, with trees and flowers, and animals, and birds... a real piece of art. The bad thing was that grannies' art weighed a ton coz it was made of wool and stuffed with wool. Despite my protests, my parants didn't remove it not to insult the grannies. One night, smashed by the quilt as buried miner, I thought about my poor toes and let go, then about my poor knees and let go ... When I reached the top of my head (I used to sleep overhead as I was afraid of the dark), suddenly I felt I was over my body. Vow, cold! I jumped back in my head and fell asleep. The following evening I repeated the exercise, and the following, and the following... Soon I discovered that I can touch with thought my liver, my heart and I can move my intestins with my thought. Sometimes I still do it when I have problems with degestion. I discovered also that I can pass through the wall and promenade around the house, and farher, and farther... I fact, everybody can but most don't know they can. If we are able to order our hands/legs/eyes to move why shouldn't we be able to influence our internal organs - they are ours, too.
An eternal soul is an AI with a created mind within the AI system that our Creator created a very long time ago. However, time is only an illusion that cannot be understood without visible objects in motion.
AI is probably our best hope of eternal life -- uploading our mind, etc. But that's probably a LONG way off. They can't even make a decent AI spellchecker. Lol.
@@browngreen933 You and I are an AI within an AI system. Our visible bodies and this visible world is just like playing a simulation game only much more detailed.
The soul is the universe. The soul is a pulsating activity in every living cell and the unliving cells an all particle in the existence universe working together as a single unit but because life is living inside a spinning ball that separates life from levitating activities the planet is pulsating for all life but if the planet stop spinning life would become a part of the pulsating activity and levitate like our planet and the stars and planets and their moons and becoming a part of the pulsating universe radiation field that holds back the vacuum deadly crushing forces and at the same time creating space for all activities example spinners and explosions, straight lines and circles, basically anything of string relations and life and more. From my understanding if the vacuum force had its way the universe will be crushed to a ball inferno and then finally the plunk level, luckily our space, we call the universe is basically an ingredient consist of vacuum pressure mix and concentrated with radiation which is constantly reducing pressure other words an astronaut can move freely out in space an inside the space station and play with balls of levitating water molecules because space combined with vacuum pressure concentrated with pulsating radiation activity allows it, a good example on how much the pressure has been reduced inside the universe radiation field because of this and what would happen to the ball of water if we did not have a universe full of pulsating stars and planets and black holes and a radiation background as a field the ball of water would actually be fused by the vacuum along with the spaceship and the astronauts and the entire universe. I believe because we have so much pulsating activity coming from life and every planet and stars and all the radiation background inside our space. everything will rely on the holy motions including the electrons and atoms and all other particles that can cause spins plus pressure for heat and fusion. Everything that is related is the real definition for soul.
Guys you are bluff neurosience with ant pseudo neurosience. Please shows How figure out brains activites in conscience though neurosience proceendings. Neurosience never make up conscience in Brain so far. Though pedantic comments from you shows doesnt understand neurosience.
The intimation of "there is no Soul" is the claim that a house has no foundation; an artwork has no canvas; radio has no signal. Without foundation where would house be; without canvas no relation of forms and colors could be had; without signal there is no music. One comes to Soul only by way of via negativa.
*"...Do People Have Souls?..."* People don't "have" souls, people *"are"* souls. The soul is just another name for a person's *"I Am-ness"* that will survive the death of the body and live (and evolve) eternally in a higher context of reality. The human soul is simply a familial replication (as in literal "offspring") of the *SOUL* of this universe.
That is good Message then on this way is there the Link to the Body and a Link to the Space and the Time Visible . The Human has the Motivation to makes his Words better ,but that makes the Human, or the Most People, in the Most Times, to bad. The Human makes to often a Problem, with his Words or with his Language Visible ,but for to many People is his own Problem, with this Problem, then not so good Visible . I belive your Message is good, then your Message makes so far ,many very good Links, to the Word Soul Visible.
@@browngreen933 His “survival of death” is equivalent to the materialist saying “The matter and energy that makes you will continue to evolve/change and will still be there eternally in a higher context”. Not really a survival, lol.
"Stephen E. Braude is an American philosopher and parapsychologist. He is a past president of the Parapsychological Association, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and a professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County". Parapsychologist? Parapsychological Association? A nonsense academy basically...
@@jamenta2Oh I agree...usually... but don't defend parapsychology...its like defending astrology...One can be skeptical about astronomy's certain claims but its a fallacy to equate astrology and astronomy. Parapsychology is 100% bogus.
'Oh goodness, why don't you just join the church group already Robert' - isn't this right rick wyant? 'Some are just behind the curve' - right simon hibbs 'There is no God, there is no mystery, there is no Soul, there is no Self, there is no Spirit' - isn't that right George grubbs? 'This is only youtube, it means nothing' - isn't this right Matt Woodling? 'How does Metaphysics make sense? ' - isn't that right Tony Atkinson 'Time is fundamental; everything comes from the past' - lee smolin clown 'Everything is quantum. We are quantum!' - some clown Robert interviewed ^ some of my favorite clowns
The human brain as it has evolved has limitations.. I think in part, this is what he is saying. Perhaps the mind has evolved along with it as a necessary function for the survival of the species. Like a turbo charger to propel us further into our future, until the brain has fully evolved. And hopefully if and when that happens they both will still be simpatico.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Talk about absence of evidence - where is the evidence consciousness is produced by the brain - other than just correlated? Where is your evidence for abiogenesis? How do you spell hypocrite again?
@@jamenta2 I'm not the making the extremely extraordinary claim that consciousness must be supernatural and cannot naturally emerge from mundane mater. The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.
4,000 Years ago, tradition has it, Abraham discovered ethical monotheism using pure logic. He was the first Monist. Reason is an integral component of Judaism to this day. If you want to know more, let me know. @shaulbeny
Genesis 12: The Lord had said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.” Not much mention of logic.
I appreciate how nuanced Braude's answers are. Too often, we all want clean, clear answers to these very complicated questions, which include how we describe and categorize things with language -- that ultimately and necessarily is incomplete in providing a clean, clear answer. Embrace the mystery!
Physicalism gets you no closer to solving the mind-body problem because matter itself is not fully understood.
It depends whether we understand enough about matter to eventually explain consciousness in those terms, as we have already explained so many other phenomena. I think it's possible that we do.
exactly
@@simonhibbs887time will tell
Eliminative Materialism which doesn't believe that mental processes or consciousness actually exists is wrong in my view. A Materialism that accepts the fact that mental processes and consciousness does exist and has emerged wholly from the physical constituents of the brain is more in line with what I believe. A fully functional and functioning human mind is completely dependent on a normal healthy physical brain and could never exist independently. In other words when the brain ceases to function the mind no longer exists.
@@Resmith18SR >"A Materialism that accepts the fact that mental processes and consciousness does exist and has emerged wholly from the physical constituents of the brain is more in line with what I believe."
Same here, mental and conscious experiences are real, I just think they're most likely explicable in terms of physical systems and information processing.
I really like this guy! I hope Dr. Kuhn interviews him again 😀
The failure to define life is as good as failure to define soul.
I love Stephen Braude. I wish he had more videos to watch
And there ya go..I find him not very likeable and a bit arrogant.
A person is a concept, so is a soul
The insights from a spiritual experiences are true for the person experiencing them. For the rest of us they are not true, but are merely ideas for us to think about.
A pot of wisdom would boil to nothing ere a Skeptic deemeth it worth tasting.
@@jamenta2 That is why I said they are ideas for us to think about.
@@johnyharris Oh really, is that all you said? I must have not read what you wrote correctly. Mia culpa!
Spirtual experiences can lend wisdom to even a fool. Science has perpetuated untold foolishness. Wisdom is tied tightly to reality and causality if nothing else at all. In wisdom reality is the only assumption, where all of the sciences are deluded.
@@wagfinpis Skeptic atheists would like to replace traditional spiritual wisdom, with their own nihilistic brand of "spiritual wisdom". Which includes their insistence you should consider your life meaningful even though you're on a one way road to oblivion. That your actual being and consciousness is no more than a byproduct in a mechanical universe which has no intrinsic meaning to it at all - it just is. And you are at best, a mathematical product of an empty, meaningless universe of which you emerged randomly and will disappear forever randomly as well.
That is the wisdom of guys like Johny Harris and his gang of Skeptic thugs fervently wish to indoctrinate the rest of us with.
Personally I'm with Alfred Tennyson on this one - if Johny Harris and his gang of nihilists turn out to be correct - I'd rather just sink my face into a rag of chloroform and be done with it. Or search out, and find myself a bare bodkin.
We got there in the end ! Lots of words then the answer was no which here, I guess, means yes to the question of soul existence. It was an enjoyable meander to get there, nonetheless😊
Stephen's interest in behavior was a lot closer to the video title than Robert's interest in accounting for the physical universe. Those 3 dudes that got the nobel prize in 2022 already put a big inconvenient hole in a lot of language that can describe the universe along a purely physical model.
The biggest advantage to describing the universe as a physical one is it suits our default intuitions and an emense body of literature; but we are supposed to understand that all of the literature is built on top of a bed of assumptions to begin with.
A relatively scientific languaged discussion about "the soul" might entertain looking for abilities of the mind to get behind the physical model. Stephen seemed to be loosly implying some qualitative comparisons between the minds' ability (ie. skillful meditation practitioners at a minimum) to regulate the body and the pharmaceutical industries' abilities to regulate the body.
I have always wondered if physicists could set up an experiment where skillful meditators or psychic practitioners might consistently demonstrate a distinct ability to regulate outcomes with "the observer effect", "eraser problem", "measurement problem" etc. that would indicate a correlation between mind and causality, preceding random physical causality. Like something that would suggest to them that "the mind" is prime to the brain...
If the mental practice demonstrated a distinct explanation/description of its ability and practice, that was not possible to blur with a physical paradigm description.
And unfortunately he didn't say why. So he was just wasting time, instead of saying he doesn't have a clue.
We reached the answer in the end but it was hardly explained or justified by the previous discussion. 😁
@@pancon5 Not exactly Robert's favorite talking point, I guess.
No, in his opinion but really he doesn't really know going by the rest of the interview.
"It is somewhat humorous that such a vital consciousness could even suppose itself to be the end product of inert elements that were themselves lifeless, but somehow managed to combine in such a way that your species attained fantasy, logic, vast organizational power, technologies, and civilizations." ~SR
This comment is more somewhat humorous. Personal incredulity is not an argument.
Humorous how?
@@browngreen933 Humorous - you know, like in funny.
@@browngreen933 the idea that 'mind' is somehow too good or too ethereal or too whatever to emerge from physics, chemistry and biology is hilarious in that it's a joke
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Yeah - the mind is easily explained. You'll figure out soon, I'm sure. Keep at it. The second coming of the Skeptic Materialist's God will arrive any day now. Keep the faith oh Skeptic faithful one! Your religion is a strong one.
Sleep is a sister of death where you cant sleep with your consciousness still around..peace be upon us all
Or is death the sister of sleep, but with your consciousness NOT around?
@@browngreen933...or, rather, not coming back next morning
so wen eye is strung out on fentanyl datz like deth twin brudder?
It's always interesting in discussions like this, is that in proposing that mind is more than the brain they never talk about brain damage and illnesses. I think a trip to a neurological ward might give him pause.
The Brain is a physical substance, the Mind is physical phenomena
nothing soul
Where does the brain get its information from? Is the brain supplied with any data that does not come from the 5 senses or its inner makeup then?
@@wagfinpis *Where does the brain get its information from*
From anything external to it. Through the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell and through internal processes.
*Is the brain supplied with any data that does not come from the 5 senses or its inner makeup then?*
No. The brain primarily processes sensory input from the external world and internal physiological data, it also engages in complex cognitive processes that go beyond immediate sensory experiences. These processes include memory, imagination, introspection, social and cultural influences, abstract thinking, and the generation of subjective experiences. The brain's ability to integrate and process information from various sources contributes to human cognition and consciousness. The brain also processes data related to the body's internal state, such as temperature, blood pressure, and chemical balances. This internal data helps regulate bodily functions and maintain homeostasis.
@@CMVMic If the brain is unable to process anything beyond sensory input from the external world and internal physiological "data", there should be no progress and no creativity at all. The lives of Mozart, Beethoven, Newton, Einstein et al would tend to disprove this theory.
Meanwhile, such term as "imagination" needs to be clearly defined which might prove extremely difficult in view of the fact that scientists cannot even define what a "feeling" is in spite of the fact that such experience is extremely common and basic. The same problem arises when one tries to define such experiences as "intuition", "transcendence" or the "dream state".
Maybe. Maybe not.
Nature just functions on it's own and doesn't require that we know how the mind is related to the physical brain. I personally believe that our mind is completely dependent on the physical brain and wouldn't exist without it's functioning. The great thing is that we don't need to know exactly what is actually happening although we will keep trying to discover the truth. A lot of our beliefs about this are not only are incorrect, but if its more comforting to believe that our souls continue on to another life then believe that because it will most likely never be proven one way or the other.
Too many words. It's simply that we humans live in conceptual space (unconstrained), but inhabit physical space (tethered to natural law), often confusing the two and losing a grip on the latter.
"Conceptual space" is limited by many things
Well said.
The mind can be thought of as greater than the sum of its parts and may not solely rely on anything else for its existence. A human brain is required to interact directly with and understand the world around the mind, as a human. The mind is a field in which reality plays.
Odd how nature "saves" (as record) a copy of our lives in spacetime geometry. It's not exactly substance dualism. But it certainly is a pluralism which is an extreme confound for naturalism. The only naturalist explanation would be all events and objects are necessary.
I’m of the ghost in the machine type, except ghost is separating word. I am the “ghost” in the machine. But let’s clarify, by ghost i mean spirit, the soul, or the life form within and part of my body. Mind is simply the data filing system within the brain. Consciousness is simply the act of being aware but it’s more connected to the soul. Me, the soul is as conscious in death as it was when “living” because i am the soul.
Never heard someone invoke so much woo-woo to not answer a question
Mr. Kuhn, I am more interested in your answer to the question. I think you may be able to provide a more rational answer to it.
👏👏👏 we wish each one of us have a soul.😁😁😁✌️👍👍
Some doesn't have soul or heart...their only goal is to cause prejudice, distress, harm etc😮😢
I answer no to the question. How does the soul store and process information? What purpose does the information that a soul acquires from living as a dog or as an electrician help in other existence? We refuse to acknowledge our mortality and keep believing all this nonsense.
The idea of a soul could come from the fact that once matter assembles into a particular form, that particular form can always be assembled under the same conditions. For example, All the water (H2O) can disappear from this universe, but the possibility of water does not disappear because as long as Hydrogen and Oxygen comes together under the right conditions there will be what we call water. Science may call it the blueprint for water, religions may call it the soul.
Emergence plus time equals Beethoven's Fifth. A fundamental particle becomes, over time, with complexity, a nut, which becomes a tree, which becomes a beautiful sailboat. Is the sailboat nothing more than a collection of basic particles. Obviously yes and obviously no.
What came first the causality of the nut or the causality of the boat?
@@wagfinpisaccording to Plato both are independent ideas that are thinkable before they pop up in the realm of matter
@@SteveSteve7590-di2dn cool
Maybe the question should be “Do souls have people?”
How can you say no in the end, when your brain has to continue developing after birth and mature enough to the point where consciousness (or the mind) emerges? which doesnt happen until years after birth..
Neutral Monism perfectly describes the underlying (5,000+ years) philosophy of the Hindu Vedas..."Advaita"...🙏
You Hindus are always trying claim your religion said it first. Yet when you look at the text you realized it is only by some strained esoteric interpretation that the text even comes close to what you are claiming it says. You’re trying to make your religion relevant by cozying it up with science. Don’t think your fooling anyone.
3:38 SB: ... neutra monist: one kind of stuff, that kind of stuff that it's intrinsically undifferentiated that it has no privileged kind of description we can look at the world through any number of different conceptual grids 4:08 I assume the monist is the godly soul which is an integer which play ciritical role in an individual human being.
Pretty convincing arguments and interesting ideas. He said any physical phenomenal can have unlimited descriptive concepts. However, the opposite is also true. There are real thing that you cant describe no matter how many words you use. If that is the case, there is no 1 to 1 between the 2 space. The link can be cut off. He sounds more like a dualist than he thought he is.
The descriptive concepts he came up with were not descriptive of things themselves though, they were descriptive relationships with other things or with various concepts. I’ve come across this approach before.
An analogy or comparison of a thing with something else can be useful or meaningful to us, but is not comparable to an inherent attribute of the thing itself. So for example protons have mass, charge and spin which are inherent attributes of the proton. An analogy between a proton and a baseball is not inherent to the proton though, and lumping such relational descriptions in and pretending they are equivalent to inherent attributes will quickly get you lost in the conceptual wood.
I’m not arguing that analogy or other relational descriptions aren’t useful, they certainly are, but confusing them with inherent attributes is a serious conceptual error.
What was that again about hats? (Monty Python fans will get this).
It’s hilarious how anyone could ever act like they know the answers to these kinds of questions.
Troo dat! Dey da most eminent trolls. mai favourite troll is William Lame Craig. he funny
I completely agree!
Maybe not know, but there is definitely proof in case studies that do point to evidence of postmortem death.
@@Dwigs98 I agree. My personal belief is that our consciousness somehow continues after death, that death is the beginning of something else. I’m just saying there’s no direct evidence that proves that, but there is indirect evidence that suggests it.
He’s a property dualist. Causality is a metaphysical concept so convoluted that you could produce a season of shows based on it.
Still - no soul » no god. Theistic ‘fine tuning’ is groundless and vacuous.
a question that has no answer
Look up Dr. Bruce Greyson, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He’ll probably change your mind…
@@Cardioid2035 Apparently, according to the highly intellectual skeptics who visit this board frequently - NDEs are simply a product of ongoing electical activity in the brain - even when the brain is no longer being supplied with oxygen or blood. So, given the Skeptics here (including Kuhn) know so much more about the science of NDEs than Dr. Bruce Greyson - and numerous of his fellow scientific colleagues - who have spent the last three decades of their lives empirically studying the phenomena - who are we to disagree with the all knowing Kuhn and his Skeptic buddies like goofball Daniel Dennett? So - let's just ignore the science by Dr. Bruce Greyson (like they do) and follow the faith they all insist we ought to believe - even though they are ignorant as fuck of the science they routinely dismiss.
*"a question that has no answer"*
... All questions that are not non sequiturs have answers.
It prob has an answer but you must first define the label soul. What is soul or a soul?
to paraphrase (and plagiarize) the late great John Wheeler.." initially i thought the fundamental building block of the universe was a particle, then i thought it was a wave function, now i think it is consciousness..."
Yes.
Ghost, spirit, or soul is commonly understood as a non-physical existence or entity...
..Consciousness is not only a non-physical entity but also is free to choose to believe in non-physical existence such as believing in Supernatural God in violation of material science. What physical matter does this, defying physical laws ? NONE !
..Of course Consciousness is obviously a ghost, spirit, or a soul (take your pick) free from physical laws that can experience sense of GUILT... Ask yourself this following question, if indeed Consciousness is just physicsl matter, slave to natural laws, not free:
"why would a physical matter, driven by natural laws and so not accountable, can freely make a choice and can experience a sense of GUILT ?" This question alone should wake up all "material science geniuses" that their obssession to material science is nothing but an excuse to feel no accountability - a need they hold so tight for dear life no matter what.
A cold dark enptiness (hell -absence of God) is never fun, just so you are warned..
The ... Game of Linguistic Gymnastics ... continues.
Stephen Braude has got it nearly right. Mind is not the Brain, Yes. But what is it? Therein the Mystery and the Challenge.
The answer is nobody knows, it’s a fun mystery!
I disagree, we are sure that we have a brain, and we call mind its capability to process sensory input to create thoughts. There is not a line of minds waiting for the formation of brains that they can inhabit.
@@miguelrosado7649Sounds like a very materialistic way of thinking and I guess you are an atheist as I am but denying the existance of a god doesn't preclude the possibility of the mind being seperate from the brain.
@@captainoates7236 I just can’t visualize the mind being separate from the brain. Have to have a boundary, use energy, store/process information, capability to interact with matter, communicate, etc. What is your concept of mind?
@@miguelrosado7649 I agree it's not exactly scientific but to be honest most of the interview in the vidio skirted around the same question if not exactly naming it. "Does the soul exist?"
..I believe we have spirits and some animals, I prefer to use the word spirit, as I understand a soul to spirit and body, hence the saying S.O.S. save our souls would not make sense, the spirit I personally define as a non "physical" perception of conscious memory
The soul or "ghost" is the "machine" -- the living body/brain/mind totality. No life, no soul or ghost.😢
You got it all figured out. You're really smart!
@@jamenta2
Yes, no need to over complicate things. Just observe how we as biological creatures are born, live for a time, then evaporate. We have eternal life fantasies though.
@@browngreen933 You know-it-all - like any good Skeptic. Plain and simple. I see the light now! I was wrong, you are right.
@@jamenta2
Don't be bitter. It's merely brute fact. Maybe AI will make us eternal -- some day.
@@browngreen933 I'm not bitter! I'm bowing down to your intellectual genius. That you've figured it all out already.
It's also fair to ask, do animals have souls?😊
I would answer / argue that animals are souls, just like we Homo sapiens are. That is, they are a living things conscious of their environments and capable of having some degree of efficacy in them.
It seems to me that Stephen is a highly intelligent gentleman with many talents.. Amoung them are his skills at misdirection and hiding his pronounced bais toward philosophical dualism.. Robert teased it out however along with a few more surprisingly illogical and unsupportable assumptions..Very good.. Peace.
Robert is quite good at pretending he is open minded, with no inherent strong biases which would restrict the kind of truth he actually seeks - i.e. which can be summed up as more confirmation bias. Peace - out.
@jamenta2 And do YOU not have a confirmation bais friend? Are YOU fully open-minded to other ideas that are not your own...? Think about it.
@@Bill..N I would consider myself far more open-minded than the typical Skeptic Atheist - or the Wikipedia doctoring asshats. Yes, I would.
@jamenta2 I would suggest that MOST people who take the time to reflect deeply on the reasons WHY they believe what they do would have to admit to such biases.. No?
@@Bill..N True to some extent. But those who claim they believe and have faith in science, and then go on to ignore certain fields of science - strike me as more biased than most. Skeptics are particularly biased in this sense. They claim they have a strong faith in science - but then cherry pick what science is true - and what cannot be true. For example, the last 30+ years of Near-Death scientific studies. Or the last 100+ years of Psi research - skeptics will dutifully ignore. Not because of their supposed inherent scientific objectivity - but because of a deeply unexamined bias - has been my experience.
I just recently had a Skeptic tell me NDEs were the result of electrical brain activity - even when there was no oxygen or blood going to the brain - and the person who had the NDE was deeply unconscious, with no detectable brain activity including autonomous brain activity required to keep the body alive - this person told me that the brain - even with a small amount of electrical activity, could still produce the NDE phenomena - phenomena which has now been scientifically documented and published in journals such as the Lancet - by scientists who will tell you flat out there is no way a conscious experience could occur when there is no discernable activity in the brain. When a person is considered clinically dead.
And yet, this Skeptic insisted the NDE scientific research was weak, and Pim von Lommel really wasn't a trustworthy scientist - didn't really know what he was talking about.
For me - this clearly indicates a level of bias that goes way beyond the normal bias we all normally carry. It also shows a profound hypocricy regarding the scientific method so many Skeptics insist they believe in. Apparently, science is only as good as it aligns with their inherent Atheistic, materialistic belief system. When it doesn't - then all hell (usually) breaks out for anyone who might oppose their religious doctrine of materialism.
THERE IS ONE SOUL WE ALL SHARE - LANGUE GETS IN THE WAY HERE - LETS CHANGE THE WORD “SOUL” TO LIFE FORCE - (words are not things but descriptions of things and subject to current connotations) - any form of physical science will have a tuff time dealing with this comment, if “physical science can’t - smell it - fondle it - or lick it - they can’t, for the most part, deal with it -
I am a visual Artist, (paint draw etc.), I channel by way of visual Art - for example, if something is going awry - in my family, (or the gov or the world for that fact) - a picture will emerge and warn me - UNLIKE A PALM READER I HAVE A PICTURE OF COMING EVENTS - I have traversed this frequency this dimension for 80, Earth years - I have connected many dots - NOT ALL! BUTT many :-)
HENCE! I COULD NOT DO ANY OF THE ABOVE IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE FACT - THIS IS THE SINGULARITY THAT SCIENCE IS SEARCHING FOR -
Im the ghost in the machine.... i f like that!!!! F yeah!!
I see the mind as the software/operating system of the hardware/brain.
Is Mind v1.0 hardware dependent or hardware independent?
Why is there a problem? How is it that we can accept the physics point of view of matter and energy, but cannot accept mind/body duality?
I just watched an episode of "Life below zero". Sue had recently lost two relatives and was talking about the aurora. She said something to the affect " the object moves and stops, but the energy doesn't stop, the energy keeps going."
What is the quintessential, empirical example of "energy"? Motion? Light? Heat? I think it's fire 🔥. Is fire an "object"? A log fire "stays" with the log but is it in one place, is it stationary? Isn't it moving, even though we can "locate" it? Is it local or non-local? Here or going somewhere?
In the same way when the human body stops does the mind stop? Conversely, when the mind stops does the body keep going? Like a chicken 🐔 with its head cut off?
Hmmmm...is an electron an "object"?
It's a good question, what are the basic issues that underlie the physicalist point of view? I think the central point of issue for myself, as a physicalist, is causation. If we start from the view that conscious experiences can cause changes in the world, such as when we talk or write about them, then we need to explain how that causation occurs. What is the mechanism by which a conscious thought in my mind or brain becomes a physical change in the external world?
Firstly, what does it mean to say that something is physical? For me, I think of physical phenomena in terms of causation. A physical process or a physical thing is something that can affect, and be affected by other things in the world. At the fundamental level that's quantum objects as described by quantum theory. Protons, electrons, photons, etc. These are the thing we have definite, very well verified evidence for. There may be things we've not discovered yet, after all we only just recently detected gravity waves, and there may be dark matter though I have no firm view on that, but basically these are all 'physics stuff'. We currently don't have any reason to believe anything else of a fundamentally different kind from these exists and is causal.
So if the things that exist and are what are causal and explain the causal phenomena we observe around us, and conscious processes are causal, the logical conclusion is that conscious processes are composed of these causal constituents. When we look inside brains, these are the constituents we find. Protons, electrons, photons, etc. So it seems reasonable to conclude that conscious processes cause physical change because they are physical processes. That's really all there is to it.
In order to believe otherwise, I would need to have repeatable, verified evidence of the existence of some other causal phenomenon, at a similar level of predictive power and observational detail as we have for protons, electrons, photons, etc, because that's the standard we have established for such things in science. When we look inside brains we don't find evidence for anything like that.
I'm not trying to convert you to physicalism or anything, we're just talking, but you asked a fair question and I'm trying to give a serious answer to how I come to this conclusion. There are also my reasons for doubting the alternatives to physicalism, and why on balance I think the physicalist view is the most plausible alternative, but that's a much broader topic. Best regards.
@@simonhibbs887 Your opinion seems myopic if not irrational. What "caused" you to write them? Protons, electrons and photons?
Eating and drinking and breathing and sleeping and working "cause" you to exist, or remain existent, no? Do we eat protons? Electrons? Light? Do we breathe or dream them?
There is more to the world, the physical world, than these "objects" and their processes. What is energy? Is an individual electron energy? Is it the energy of a photon that causes us to eat or is it the energy of the proton or electron?
Living beings are more than rocks, more than objects, more than matter. Just as energy is more than matter, after all e=mc^2. The c^2 isn't a photon of light it is a place carrier for a process or type of motion. As a physicalist you would be better served by listing the different types of energies than the different types of matter to justify your belief in causation. Can you do so?
What energy causes language in humans? Is it the same energy that allows bees or ants or other fauna or flora to communicate? Are there more energies than there are forces? Is steam energy an illusion? Mechanical, hydraulic, chemical? Why don't these occupy your mind as causative?
Why did you not mention the graviton, isn't gravity a source of causation? Why the reluctance? Is it because the physicist is not sure of it, or the physicalist?
The broad concerns of physics are too general to be of use to a physicalist wedded to causation. Living beings as objects impelled solely by causation doesn't even allow for this discussion. Living beings as actors and forces of intention does allow for it. Cause is not purpose, etiology is not teleology; but most importantly causation is not creation!
Are lies, errors and irrationality also caused by photons, electrons and protons? What about ignorance, death? How? How can the existent thing, the thing that constitutes existence, cause itself to become non-existent? No longer causative?
@@kallianpublico7517 >What "caused" you to write them? Protons, electrons and photons? As a physicalist I think I am made of these things. As a matter of observation that’s clearly true, the only question is if there is anything more. I think probably not. So saying that the physical matter that I am made of did something is equivalent to saying that I did it.
>Do we eat protons?… etc
Since the material substances we consume and breathe are made of protons and other such particles, yes.
>What is energy? That’s a fascinating question, basically everything is energy in one form or another. E = MC^2 and all that.
>Living beings are more than rocks, more than objects, more than matter. We are extremely complex, sophisticated dynamic systems made of matter. That’s the physicalist view. I mean obviously this is just plainly true at the factual level, the water in our bodies is H20 which is made of electrons, protons and neutrons. The issue is whether there is also anything else of a completely different kind we are made of that is also causal, but that we have never discovered.
>As a physicalist you would be better served by listing the different types of energies than the different types of matter to justify your belief in causation. Can you do so? Yes, of course, I already listed photons in my first post and also mentioned and also cited all the various phenomena described by physics. I don’t know why you’re picking at this thread, I already covered this and frankly it’s trivial. I’m sure you know what energies and processes are described by physics and which operate in our bodies.
>What energy causes language in humans?
Language is a phenomenon by which information encoded in physical structures such as writing, electrical signals, etc is transferred. Communication is a physical process we understand very well, and the study of it was formalised in the 1950s by Claude Shannon. Other animals do communicate in various ways, and of course computer systems communicate as well. We are using them to do that right now. Yes steam power transmits energy. I’m not sure why you’re’ talking about this, it’s basic high school physics. Is any of this controversial? yes gravity is causal, go back to my first comment, I mentioned gravity waves. Do i really have to list every single physical phenomenon? What’s the point when you ignore what I do write about anyway? >Living beings as actors and forces of intention does allow for it. Cause is not purpose At last you mention something that’s actually relevant. Intention and purpose. We now have robust, tested models for how intentional behaviour can naturally develop through evolutionary processes. We use this to evolve behaviours in neural network AIs, and using genetic algorithms. So we’ve gone from observing this in nature, to using the same processes to engineer systems.
>How can the existent thing, the thing that constitutes existence, cause itself to become non-existent? No longer causative?
Dead things are still causative, just as any matter is. When a person dies they leave behind a physical body. In nature the materials in a body are recycled into the environment to create new life.
@@simonhibbs887 Who do you think you're deceiving? "We now have robust tested models for how intentional behavior can naturally develop through evolutionary processes."
First of all who's the "we"? Do you include yourself among evolutionary psychologists? Congratulations, you've just invented and joined a non-existent field of science! How a thing occurs is not WHY a thing occurs. Instincts are not intentions. You really don't understand what you think you do because you obviously don't understand this point.
@@kallianpublico7517 We being humans. Mostly this work is being proved out in computer science. A lot of the latest generations of advanced AIs are not programmed procedurally. They start from randomised neural network weightings, then are trained through a process of evolution through variation, and environmental selection. This is how AlphaZero learned to play Chess and Go. It’s also used to train the recent generation of large language models. We’ve gone from observing this process of evolved intentional behaviour in nature, to using it to engineer some of our most advanced and sophisticated technologies. And by we, again, I mean humans.
6:03, 13:10... " is the.mind, the product of brain?"
a) did the brain create the mind or b) is the brain structure necessary for having/providing such experience/potential as a mind...
since brain itself is a construct of intelligent activity then "a)" is not true... on the other hand, for us to interact in a meaningful way with our environment (in a scale that facilitates our interactions) then "b)" is also correct... therefore it seems as mind if considered as intelligent behavior then its origin must be something else other than the brain...
What you are describing is self-referentiality: the brain creates intelligent mind and the mind creates the brain, but how did that start if both a prequisits for each other? If that would be true, both should either not exist, or must be brought into existence by something that is neither the (individual) mind nor (individual) brain.This is a very sound logic but saddly very overlooked too.
I agree with what you identified as one of the most likely alternatives "...must be brought into existence by something that is neither the (individual) mind nor (individual) brain..."
to me, the question "which came first the brain or the mind", resembles very much to the most popular question "which came first, the chicken or the egg " :) and the answer that I find more satisfactory, is the one that compares historical records of both chickens (as a species of birds) and eggs (as the ones that resemble those of the chicken but with variable sizes and shapes)... according to this account, eggs have been known to exist for more than 300 million years whereas chickens only for around 50 thousand years... therefore I find the likelihood that chicken comes from an egg the most plausible answer...
now, coming back to mind vs. brain question... to me, mind can be compared with the egg and the brain with the chicken, but unfortunately the "mind" is not as tangible as the egg is, and this is where I think the source of the problem is... we can argue indefinitely if we don't first conceptualize or agree on the same reference as to what we identify as a "mind"... if we start by broadly calling the mind an 'intelligent activity/behavior' then it seems as the brain is a product of 'intelligent activity/behavior' for the same reason the egg was historically older than the chicken... but if we identify the mind as being a product of the brain (i.e. the mind as we experience it can only be a product of complex brain activity) then I don't see a problem with identifying the brain as a precursor to mind activity...
to conclude, if we agree to a common definition of what a "mind" is, then I don't see how we cannot but only agree... on the other hand, if we don't agree on what the "mind" is, then we can waste countless hours by arguing and never come to a resolution...
@@r2c3 If we define the intelligence as that what the brain does we defined the problem away :)
All life, I think, includes some awareness of self in one’s environment and a capacity to act in that environment according to what one senses or determines are one’s needs, wants and preferences. And this feeling or awareness of self is what people think of as “a soul”, which is really just a living thing. Of course, what a worm experiences as its sense of self in its environment is probably at a much more rudimentary level than what homo sapiens experience as their sense of self in their environments.
There even seems to be variation between my sense of self when I lean in to kiss a female I met that same day and the self I experience when alone and contemplative and the self I'm experiencing when retracting my hand from being burnt.
Shall we assume there is a range of senses of self for the worm too?
@@wagfinpis If he or she or it has a chance to choose between two mates or mating events or between burrowing left towards the scent of water or right toward the scent of food? Or to nourish itself next to a companion or at a distance from him or her? Etc etc etc… I think at a worm level each worm has a distinct personality. Did I understand your question correctly?
@@longcastle4863 I'm not sure I had a focused point, but my question was attempting to tease out the idea that our sense of self can be more complex or less complex. is the worm its greater complexity of self awareness or its more simplistic sense of self.
Are you ultimately your greatest sense of yourself or are you only what I am capable of sensing while I'm in survival mode reacting to the burn of fire?
It seems to me that I can imagine some great elaborate made up sense of self and that would be a false sense of self, but ultimately I do suspect we must be our greatest sense of self in the end even if we are not able to perceive it during our lowest and most simplistic sense of self.
Some of us do not experience nor imagine our higher soul, but some of us do experience it and I think that it is more than we can imagine right now.
@@wagfinpis In the worm’s world it’s complex; for us looking at the worm’s world it seems simpler, but not simple. For the worms I think it’s a very rich world. We, however, would get bored. To say the least. The emotions seem to shallow, the decisions too basic. But I’m sure there are nuances in the worm’s world that make up for that; probably into stuff we couldn’t fathom.
Edit: Reading the rest of your comment, I would add that we live in a range that sometimes is intensely self aware and sometimes is almost on automatic, half shut down, taking a rest. No one is always always on; that would be unbearable I think.
I think there are different levels of perceptual awareness, with a continuum between them. At the bae level is stimulus/response. The organism has simple responses to environmental stimuli. This is the level of a plant or an amoeba. Next up is an adaptive mechanism where the organism has a simple nervous system and can learn more effective responses to various stimuli.
Next is when we have a simple brain and the organism constructs a model of it's environment and it's physical presence, which it populates with sense data, and can do basic reasoning about operating in that environment.
The next level is where the organism has a model of other agents in the environment as active beings with their own beliefs and agendas. Evolutionary psychologists call this 'theory of mind' and it's what enables a predator to manipulate the behaviour of it's prey, or a social animal to reason about the beliefs and intentions of other members of it's group.
Finally we have sense of self, which is where the mental model also includes awareness of the organism's own mental processes, allowing it to reason about what behaviours, plans, etc worked well and which didn't so the organism can self-modify it's own reasoning processes to learn and better achieve it's goals.
Where is the soul located in the body?
Look up Dr. Bruce Greyson, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He’ll explain that in detail for you.
I don’t know. I’ve never seen one.
The "soul" is the living body/brain/mind totality.😮
In every cell. It's not soul - soul is a too limited notion. It's a quantum replica and is unique for everybody.
The human quantum replica is not just a formula as is H2O for water, it's a full expression of 'everything about us' in particle state.
How do I know?
I'm a body exiter since three and a half.
The story: I had a quilt made by my grannies especially for me as I'm their youngest grandchild. It was in bright colours, with trees and flowers, and animals, and birds... a real piece of art. The bad thing was that grannies' art weighed a ton coz it was made of wool and stuffed with wool.
Despite my protests, my parants didn't remove it not to insult the grannies.
One night, smashed by the quilt as buried miner, I thought about my poor toes and let go, then about my poor knees and let go ... When I reached the top of my head (I used to sleep overhead as I was afraid of the dark), suddenly I felt I was over my body. Vow, cold! I jumped back in my head and fell asleep.
The following evening I repeated the exercise, and the following, and the following...
Soon I discovered that I can touch with thought my liver, my heart and I can move my intestins with my thought. Sometimes I still do it when I have problems with degestion. I discovered also that I can pass through the wall and promenade around the house, and farher, and farther...
I fact, everybody can but most don't know they can. If we are able to order our hands/legs/eyes to move why shouldn't we be able to influence our internal organs - they are ours, too.
@@aporist can I buy some pot from you??
An eternal soul is an AI with a created mind within the AI system that our Creator created a very long time ago. However, time is only an illusion that cannot be understood without visible objects in motion.
AI is probably our best hope of eternal life -- uploading our mind, etc. But that's probably a LONG way off. They can't even make a decent AI spellchecker. Lol.
@@browngreen933 You and I are an AI within an AI system. Our visible bodies and this visible world is just like playing a simulation game only much more detailed.
Sounds like Teilhard de Chardins' Omega Point to me
The soul is the universe.
The soul is a pulsating activity in every living cell and the unliving cells an all particle in the existence universe working together as a single unit but because life is living inside a spinning ball that separates life from levitating activities the planet is pulsating for all life but if the planet stop spinning life would become a part of the pulsating activity and levitate like our planet and the stars and planets and their moons and becoming a part of the pulsating universe radiation field that holds back the vacuum deadly crushing forces and at the same time creating space for all activities example spinners and explosions, straight lines and circles, basically anything of string relations and life and more.
From my understanding if the vacuum force had its way the universe will be crushed to a ball inferno and then finally the plunk level, luckily our space, we call the universe is basically an ingredient consist of vacuum pressure mix and concentrated with radiation which is constantly reducing pressure other words an astronaut can move freely out in space an inside the space station and play with balls of levitating water molecules because space combined with vacuum pressure concentrated with pulsating radiation activity allows it, a good example on how much the pressure has been reduced inside the universe radiation field because of this and what would happen to the ball of water if we did not have a universe full of pulsating stars and planets and black holes and a radiation background as a field the ball of water would actually be fused by the vacuum along with the spaceship and the astronauts and the entire universe. I believe because we have so much pulsating activity coming from life and every planet and stars and all the radiation background inside our space. everything will rely on the holy motions including the electrons and atoms and all other particles that can cause spins plus pressure for heat and fusion.
Everything that is related is the real definition for soul.
Does soul contains body or body contains soul...?
I have seen no evidence that a soul exists, so...
The living body contains the soul, a dead body doesn't.
A soul contains the body .
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Well, souls don't exist, so...
What is a soul precisely?
you watch these videos and all you really get is mumbo jumbo and nothing at all that may
answer the question
This guys seems to confuse physical with environmental interaction
I don't understand and/or don't like the idea that mind is emergent from gooey biological things. Therefore Woooooo
Guys you are bluff neurosience with ant pseudo neurosience. Please shows How figure out brains activites in conscience though neurosience proceendings. Neurosience never make up conscience in Brain so far. Though pedantic comments from you shows doesnt understand neurosience.
phich is somehow involved... but how :)
As we all know, humans evolved from earlier apes.
At what point in evolution did we suddenly have souls ?
Did Australopithecus have a soul ?
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement.
Quantum mind emerge.
Quantum biology emerge.
Mind.. Body entanglement, Consciousness emerge.
The intimation of "there is no Soul" is the claim that a house has no foundation; an artwork has no canvas; radio has no signal. Without foundation where would house be; without canvas no relation of forms and colors could be had; without signal there is no music. One comes to Soul only by way of via negativa.
*"...Do People Have Souls?..."* People don't "have" souls, people *"are"* souls. The soul is just another name for a person's *"I Am-ness"* that will survive the death of the body and live (and evolve) eternally in a higher context of reality. The human soul is simply a familial replication (as in literal "offspring") of the *SOUL* of this universe.
Cool story bro
Sounds like idealistic nonsense!
And your “survival of death” is not really a survival, lol. Equivocation at its finest!
That is good Message then on this way is there the Link to the Body and a Link to the Space and the Time Visible .
The Human has the Motivation to makes his Words better ,but that makes the Human, or the Most People, in the Most Times, to bad.
The Human makes to often a Problem, with his Words or with his Language Visible ,but for to many People is his own Problem, with this Problem, then not so good Visible .
I belive your Message is good, then your Message makes so far ,many very good Links, to the Word Soul Visible.
How can anything survive the death of the body? Please explain.
@@browngreen933 His “survival of death” is equivalent to the materialist saying “The matter and energy that makes you will continue to evolve/change and will still be there eternally in a higher context”.
Not really a survival, lol.
Boils down to a fear of death.
"Stephen E. Braude is an American philosopher and parapsychologist. He is a past president of the Parapsychological Association, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and a professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County". Parapsychologist? Parapsychological Association? A nonsense academy basically...
Spoken by a true pseudo-skeptic. Real skepticism is skeptical of itself.
@@jamenta2Oh I agree...usually... but don't defend parapsychology...its like defending astrology...One can be skeptical about astronomy's certain claims but its a fallacy to equate astrology and astronomy. Parapsychology is 100% bogus.
@@jamenta2 good lord, you seem to hold some beliefs not bound by evidence, and are he'll bent on attacking anyone that's sceptical 😂
@@Joshua-dc4un You're really smart Joshua!
@@jamenta2 thank you 😂
'Oh goodness, why don't you just join the church group already Robert'
- isn't this right rick wyant?
'Some are just behind the curve'
- right simon hibbs
'There is no God, there is no mystery, there is no Soul, there is no Self, there is no Spirit'
- isn't that right George grubbs?
'This is only youtube, it means nothing'
- isn't this right Matt Woodling?
'How does Metaphysics make sense? '
- isn't that right Tony Atkinson
'Time is fundamental; everything comes from the past'
- lee smolin clown
'Everything is quantum. We are quantum!'
- some clown Robert interviewed
^ some of my favorite clowns
The human brain as it has evolved has limitations.. I think in part, this is what he is saying. Perhaps the mind has evolved along with it as a necessary function for the survival of the species. Like a turbo charger to propel us further into our future, until the brain has fully evolved. And hopefully if and when that happens they both will still be simpatico.
Have you been told you will be alive after you die ?
Did you give them any money ?
Then you are a victim of a scam.
He knows nothing about soul indeed
There is no soul.
Mind is the brain.
Death is the end.
Well, there may be a soul, that is to say, the mind is not your brain, but it may be contingent upon your brain and death will still be the end.
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I wholeheartedly agree with you
*"There is no soul. Mind is the brain. Death is the end."*
... Curious: Is this what you believe and what you fully expect to happen upon your death?
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Talk about absence of evidence - where is the evidence consciousness is produced by the brain - other than just correlated? Where is your evidence for abiogenesis? How do you spell hypocrite again?
@@jamenta2 I'm not the making the extremely extraordinary claim that consciousness must be supernatural and cannot naturally emerge from mundane mater.
The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.
Republicans sure don't. HA!
4,000 Years ago, tradition has it, Abraham discovered ethical monotheism using pure logic. He was the first Monist. Reason is an integral component of Judaism to this day. If you want to know more, let me know. @shaulbeny
Except the Old Testament has several passages suggesting the existence of other Gods besides Yahweh.
Genesis 12: The Lord had said to Abraham, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.”
Not much mention of logic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber)