Had a lifelong friend who had a moderate head injury in a car wreck at 33 years old... Went from the sweetest person I knew and fairly religious to death row inmate after some frontal lobe damage.. 💔 .. so I'm not sure about soul... or godliness.. I'm pretty sure it's genetic and avoiding brain damage.
@@Dion_MustardIf everything about how a person thinks and acts, interacts with the world, is dependent brain structure then what usefulness (outside of perhaps psychological comfort) do the ideas of a soul or divorcing consciousness from the mind possess? Proposing such supernatural concepts and taking them seriously as how anything works demands a strong justification for doing so and necessarily justification for the supernatural must be despite physical evidence not because of it, leaving only that the ideas are popular strictly due to their ability to allow people to believe that what they truly are is not a collection of particles/field excitations undergoing some deterministic or probabilistic dynamic evolution, but rather some ineffable eternal magic.
i tend not to use words like supernatural. that doesn't interest me, nor am i remotely religion. i have always been a seeker. i've done a lot of studies in out of body experiences and near death experiences, and they seem to indicate consciousness survives death. not sure how, but it's something to do with the non-locality of awareness, with the connection to quantum entanglement. there's a science behind it, if you want to say that. for instance, people who have had cardiac arrest with limited brain function and yet percieved their surroundings from outside their body and were able to see and witness things in a different location. it's intriguing, and fascinating to say the least.@@jyjjy7
The body is the soul in the gross form . And there is subtle bodies over and above the gross body. The body mind are not two things. It is one single unity.
brings to mind... behold the lillies if the field they worry not for the morrow... whatever this realm may be I cannot but be awed by the miracle of it being.
I think our (human) specific level of consciousness gives rise to this desire for a "soul", but no one seems to know what this "soul" is supposed to be and how it can manifest itself beyond the expiration of our physical form. I'm not sure of its' existence beyond just being a human conscious desire for some sense of immortality.
I think of the soul as being the essence of our being that causes us to care and feel love for others. It feels useful to attach something intangible as love to something as intangible as a soul but honestly, I don't have a clue.
This idea is not crazy, this concept is there in some schools of Vedanta. For example In suddhadvaita Vedanta(pure non dualism philosophy of Sanatana Dharma) it is believed that almighty Krishna who is non dual one supreme manifests himself as everything all souls, world everything only to play with himself. In Kevala Advaita Vedanta(non dualism of Shankaracharya) everything is just appearance of one ultimate reality which is formless attributeless, it's just his appearance like rope appears as snake in darkness. In Achintya bhedabheda(inconceivable duality and non duality) Krishna is said to be supreme truth whose parts and parcels are all souls and their goal is to establish ultimate loving relationship with Krishna. You should read Indian philosophies.
Incredible. Yes. That makes sense. Thank you for telling me about these schools. Suddhadvaita Vedanta seems to me very plausible. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area so I will see if there is a temple in this area or someone who understands this. If I have any further questions; I will reach out to you. Thank you again. @@gravity.inescapable
(4:05) *JH: **_"But no collection of neurons actually is that scene."_* ... Excellent way to phrase it! I get that it's difficult for many to accept the existence of nonphysical phenomenon, especially if you're dealing with the "phenomenon in question" during every moment of your existence. ... However, "Existence" isn't obligated to manifest itself based on our playbook. True, there are specific processes that orchestrate "Existence" such as patterns, logic, necessity, and conceivability, but these are preconditions that "Existence" established for itself, and which didn't come from us. Unless there is some type of *evolutionary barrier* set in place, "Existence" is perfectly free to evolve into nonphysical structure (or some other type of structure) in the same way that it evolved into physical structure.
Just posted this as a top level comment, but I'll repeat it here because it addresses exactly the same point you raised, sorry for the duplication: Let's parallel his example of a person visualising a scene, and no collection of neurons in their brain being that scene. Consider a computer generating a 3D simulation of a boat sailing across a lake with mountains in the background. Computers do this sort of thing for computer games all the time. Is any collection of transistors that scene? No, of course not, even though we all know and agree for a fact that everything going on in what I just described in completely physical. The scene isn't a collection of transistors or components. Rather it's a pattern of activation of circuits and components throughout the computer. It's a thing the system is doing as a process, not what anything in the system is. I'm surprised at a philosopher of Hick's stature not grasping this.
@@simonhibbs887 *"The scene isn't a collection of transistors or components. Rather it's a pattern of activation of circuits and components throughout the computer. It's a thing the system is doing as a process, not what anything in the system is."* ... You and I often end up in this same situation. Once again, computers didn't naturally evolve all on their own like humans did. And your entire computer-based comparison leaves out the part where an *outside source* (human intellect) punched in all of the data that the computer used to generate your 3D model. Based on your scenario, that human-based data input would serve as the consciousness for a computer, because it doesn't have one. A computer, all on its own, would never even "conceive" of generating a 3D model of anything let alone desire to depict it on a screen without human input. The whole purpose of depicting a 3D model on a computer screen is so that "we" can form a mental image of it within our consciousness. *"I'm surprised at a philosopher of Hick's stature not grasping this."* ... (See above).
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Does how a system came about determine what it is, or what it is doing? That seems absurd. A thing is what it is, it does what it does. Who made it, or whether it was made at all doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the intrinsic nature of what it is doing at a particular moment. I happen to think the Boltzman’s Brain argument is backwards, but basically it’s premise is the idea that complex objects could in theory be crated spontaneously by random quantum fluctuations in an infinite universe. Suppose such a fluctuation created a computer running such a simulation. Would the fact that it occurred naturally, with no human programming, mean the nature of what it is doing would be different?
@@simonhibbs887 *"Does how a system came about determine what it is, or what it is doing?"* ... Yes, it does! *"A thing is what it is, it does what it does. Who made it, or whether it was made at all doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the intrinsic nature of what it is doing at a particular moment."* ... Let's say Person (a) argues that consciousness is an intelligence-based phenomenon that exists outside of the human brain. In response, Person (b) argues that robots can perform most human-based tasks without any need for any intelligence-based consciousness. Then Person (a) points out (like I often do) that the robot is only doing what it was programmed to do by an "outside intelligence" (consciousness) thus Person (A) ends up using Person (b)'s counterargument in support of his own. You can't always operate based on prima facie. Sometimes you have to go all the way back as far as regression allows. Just like with the Wizard in "The Wizard of Oz," whoever is hiding behind the curtain is the one calling the shots. ... You can't just ignore him and accept the "simulation" prima facie. *"I happen to think the Boltzman’s Brain argument is backwards, but basically it’s premise is the idea that complex objects could in theory be crated spontaneously by random quantum fluctuations in an infinite universe."* ... There are a lot of things wrong with that, but I'll go along with your scenario. Your scenarios are always salient and fun! *"Suppose such a fluctuation created a computer running such a simulation. Would the fact that it occurred naturally, with no human programming, mean the nature of what it is doing would be different?"* ... When you say, _"running such a simulation"_ are you referring to your "sailboat on the ocean" simulation? If so, then if it can make something as complex as a computer, then why can't that same fluctuation generate a "real" sailboat and a "real" ocean? Whenever there is a simulation present, there must be something 'real" that necessitates the simulation, right? The only reason to generate a simulation of something is to gain greater insight about whatever that "something" is (that already exists). So, to directly answer your question, there would be no appreciable difference between a computer created by the fluctuation and a computer created by a human. ... The reason is because the fluctuation and the human share a common objective: _"create a simulation of something that already exists."_ ... At that point you'd have to figure out *why* either side (human or fluctuation) desired to create a simulation of something that already exists ... which begs the question, _"Why would a nonintelligent, naturally occurring fluctuation ever need to generate a simulation of anything at all?"_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I wouldn’t argue that any robot is the same as a person, how something works internally is relevant to what it is, not just what it does externally. I don’t see any actual argument in defence of the contention that regression matters. Whether a rock was split by being hit by a human wielding a hammer or the hammer falling off a shelf in an earthquake it’s still in the same two pieces, there’s nothing human-split or earthquake-split about them. It doesn’t have relevance to their nature. The idea is that purely random fluctuations can create arbitrary physical objects or systems. Another fluctuation might produce a sail boat as you say, another a bouncy castle. Most of them would produce a random scattering of particles, coherent objects would be extremely rare, but this is in an infinite universe so anything even remotely possible would happen. They have no reason or intention behind them, it’s just chance.
John Hick delves a little in to his Soul Making theodicy which was his modern take on Irenaeus' old position. If you're interested in Hick's work, it's definitely worth a search.
I think that the notion of “soul” - like a ghost of ourselves that is independent of the body - is just a construct to comfort us in our awareness that we are mortal.
Depends on how it’s defined. The fact of the matter is that nobody, not scientists or religious people, knows for certain whether or not something about us/our consciousness continues after death. There’s indirect evidence that supports both opinions.
@@surfingonmars8979 Optimist in what sense? All I’m saying is that we don’t know the answer, which is true. I’d say it’s slightly more intelligent than if I claimed I did know the answer without having any direct evidence that expels the other sides indirect evidence.
not a fantasy. firstly, remove the word "soul", which has religious connotations, and replace with "consciousness". Consciousness is the key here, and most likely infinite. Look up "non-local consciousness and quantum physics".
Would'n humanity show deep self knowledge when accepting that some questions simply have no answers? That there are phenomena that are not explainable. Unknowable.
Where was my or your consciousness or soul before you were born? Personally I don't remember anything about all the millions or more years before I was born. Our entrance, our exit and much of what happens in our very brief time here are beyond our control.
just because you have no memory of "pre-birth" doesn't mean you didn't exist. and indeed, many do have memories (look up past life regression, or past life memories), also look up Out of Body Experiences.
Yeah. When it comes to consciousness I got plenty of 'exprerience' with losing it completely, every night during deep sleep, and even more everytime I had anesthesia during an OP: it's a non-experience, a blank. 'Me' before birth is the same blank, and I expect it to be the same when I'm dead. Ppl can try to fill in whatever fancy talk and concepts, it's still a blank. I dont bother, I'm totally fine with it 😊
this is a flawed argument. firstly many people with anaesthesia, or for example, in comas have lucid awareness, and often beyond their body. there is also probably more than just one level of consciousness, for instance dreaming is another level of consciousness. i must also add i have had anaesthesia as a child, and had an amazing experience during anaesthesia, in which i was able to travel to a location and see my parents in a particular location, and saw what they were doing, and they confirmed this as accurate, so the theory that anaesthesia shuts down consciousness, is flawed. thats what the main stream science teaches you, but it's wrong. pre birth is a whole different debate as many people recall past life memories, or their consciousness pre-birth. just because you personally have no memory, does not mean you did not exist, it could simply mean your current waking consciousness is not aware of the memory, or essentially, the memory circuits are disrupted. you need to look deeper into this, such as non local consciousness, out of body states, near death experiences. a large percentage of NDEs occur during anaesthesia, when people have lucid perception outside their body.@@0The0Web0
i'd also recommend the book "consciousness beyond life" dr pim van lommel, which has a very scientific take on non-local consciousness and quantum physics.@@0The0Web0
@@Dion_MustardThanks, I already got my way of dealing with it, I am fine with and not afraid of me being gone completely when dead. If there's a bonus: hey cool. But I'm not holding my breath, and I don't need to cling to anything. As for you, that's up to you only. Everyone's got to find their own way to deal with it.
The body is nothing if it can't record information. Information is nothing without the body. Body and information are nothing without communication. Without the world there is no understanding of anything. Without space nothing will exist. Without me who would believe my soul and spirit..
"Soul" is the wrong terminology and tends to annoy the Atheists due to it's religious connotation. Replace "soul" with "consciousness", as consciousness is the thing that cannot be destroyed and is infinite, and survives the death of the physical body. I am not remotely religious, but I have a strong conviction that consciousness may be "non-local", in the sense that it can exist beyond the physical body (out of body experiences/near death experiences).
Hick's explanation is grounded in the logical fallacy of confirmation bias further supplemented with the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. So aside from being intellectually worthless, it is a marvellous defence of the existence of the soul.
I don’t see how a soul is any less plausible than saying a brain made of water, fat and protein can become self-aware with private thoughts and emotions.
A brain is observable and something we can tangibly study. A soul is not, nor is there evidence to conclude there is. It’s a pretty simple distinction between the two.
@@ScottlandTheWise There is plenty of evidence that we have souls. Look at NDEs. ( Near Death Experiences). Forty five years of scientific research there with hundreds of peer reviewed studies.
@ScottlandTheWise remote consciousness (soul) has been noted after the brain had stopped functioning, peer reviewed. ruclips.net/video/JL1oDuvQR08/видео.htmlfeature=shared
@@ScottlandTheWise A brain is observable but that's not the comparison OP made. They made the comparison between soul and the hard problem of consciousness. To restate it, why is claiming souls exist more crazy and than claiming subjective awareness is caused by matter?
We humans have dealt with our existential angst by creating beliefs that serve to help us cope with the unknowns of life. Our beliefs often do us a disservice by denying the fact that we are simply funky monkeys…We destroy one another because our beliefs differ. Let’s get real, lets become responsible for respecting our precious existence.
The Sanskrit word for the soul is Atman. The Sanskrit word for God is Brahman. Atman is Brahman. Brahman is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss. All else is mere speculation.
Oxygen is the breath of God which combine the both the body and live information about the world before we new it was the knowledge of God that compelled us.
Well that is just a darn shame because even though we need oxygen to live it is also killing us. That God sure is a rascal. Slowly killing us with his breath.
These are wonderful programmes with lots of fantastic and intelligent thoughts and theories in the comments. I used to be convinced that all existence is based on material attributes of the universe but I no longer do. After I read Tiplers omega point cismology I truly feel that in the very far future, with near infinite intelligence and technological know how widespread in the universe, that all beings will undego a universal resurrection that is brought about by an all knowing loving entity that reveals itself in the very far future! I think consciousness is one part of that 'being' but in the future a collective consciousness appears as a truly emergent property of all beings. I think Tipler's work suggests this but there are maybe parts of his thesis that I dont agree with too! Best wishes to you all my friends!
I don't buy it. Why? It is hubristic to restrict ourselves to humans alone when considering consciousness, especially given (a) evolution, and (b) that several species pass the mirror test. If we want to crack consciousness, to find it in its simplest form, and thus more amenable to scrutiny, means going lower in the animal kingdom toward less brain complexity. _That is whar she blows, Ahab._
Especially since you unquestionably, accept chance evolution, by faith. All you need is a giant unexplained miracle and you can make up the rest with special pleading.
JH said that an image in our head is non physical. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. But DLK gives JH a pass, and acts as though the claim is acceptable. I wish DLK would push back some of his guests' claims so we could get 'closer to truth.'
Nah... He talks to multiple people on every FULL episode and gets different perspectives THAT way. He lets established thinkers in their fields express their thinking, and he pries for clarification of THEIR outlook, rather than approaching the conversation as an argument. Also, he DOES "push back" quite often when it is appropriate, or when he thinks there is any point in pursuing the course considering the biases of the person in front of him. I've watched Kuhn for many years, and this comment is just an inaccurate nitpick of someone who is actually a Master at his craft.
@@MatthewCleerei don't know, sometimes he seems to let people flesh out word salad. Robust skepticism is necessary to move us closer to truth, getting lost in speculation is the opposite of that.
Soul and spirit are two different things. In the Bible, the word soul refers to the physical person. As in the story of Noah, at the end of the flood, the Bible says that only 8 souls survived, that is, 8 people. In the creation story of Genesis, the Bible says that the active force of God was in motion, and when he created man, he gave him the breath of life. This makes us understand that, in the case of the spirit, it is the force that gives life to the soul, or the body. In the same way that electricity gives power to an electrical device, the spirit gives strength to the soul, to the physical person. By the way, the Bible says that when one dies, he ceases to exist (Eccl. 9: 5, 6) Jesus, in the story of the death of his friend Lazarus, said that he was asleep in death. Likewise, when one sleeps, we are not aware of anything.'
Somehow I strongly believe in the presence of the soul. However, medical doctors and scientists can't comment on that simply because they are not experts in this aspect of the human body. It's beyond medical science at least presently.
This is the usual fallacy of assuming the supremacy of the human mind. The fact that we are conscious in no way, invites the idea of a soul. Instead, we are more likely a gestalt, a collection of information bits that have self assembled in a particular way, which can transcend time only by more information transmission, such as our ideas, or even our offspring,. Why should we only assume that humans have a soul, what about the mosquito I crushed yesterday or the lamb we ate this weekend? Should we assume that I have consumed souls? We need to free ourselves of the strictures of organized religion, and start to understand this on a much more fundamental and rational way.
Genesis defines " SOUL. " It's a synonym for " LIVING BEING. " SOUL = LIVING BEING = BODY (made of dust or chemicals) + BREATH OF LIFE. It's simple semantics. On the other hand Job says *THERE IS A SPIRIT IN MAN.* Therefore SOUL and SPIRIT are NOT synonyms. Or the soul has a spirit. And consciousness is another issue altogether. A verse says "THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANYTHING." To me that means the soul dies and is no longer conscious. The spirit is a mystery to me. What i think of myself is the Ego. The ego is embedded in the body or in the soul. When my body dies then my ego also dies. Apparently the spirit has a life of its own. The good book says *HE THAT CONTROLS HIS OWN SPIRIT IS BETTER THAN SOMEONE WHO CONQUERS A CITY.* Though spirit could mean simply emotions such as anger, sadness, joy, etc. You figure it out.🦓
Even if you had a soul and even if it was eternal your soul is not "you" since "you" are a biological organism and "you" as such cannot exist in any other form in any other context. The soul, if it existed, would relate to "you" in the same way water molecules relate to you. Water is essential to life but water isn't "you" and those molecules are regularly replaced and they are just as happy in a mouse or a blade of grass as they are inside you.
Soul is much too vague to define exactly what is meant. Is a soul conscious? Disembodied consciousness would be weird to say the least. Is the soul aware that it exists? Does a soul have the ability to control physical events in the world? Do souls communicate with each other? Does Aretha Franklin still have soul? Let’s have a seance!
He says it's much more Hindu or Buddhist than a Christian idea. This is only partially true. It is absolutely an idea originating in Hindu philosophy, but not Buddhist. Westerners like to heap anything Hindu and anything Buddhist into the same pile and call it "Eastern," when the two disagree so dramatically on so many key points. This is a product of Orientalism, an ignorant and ruinous Western myth. Most of Vedanta is centered around the idea of Atman and Brahman, as the fella tries to explain, but the Buddha thought these ideas were just stupid. That's why the early Buddhists thought the Hindu sages were morons and the Hindus mocked the Buddha and his followers for the same thing. We condescend to and disrespect both sides when we fail to distinguish between them. It's like thinking Africans are all the same, or that Africa is a monolith, while a guy in Senegal and one in Ethiopia, or one in Tunisia and one in Zambia, are like, What? What are you talking about?
If we truly live in a computer simulation. Then somewhere a conscious mind created all this. That is why we Catholics call the mystery of faith. I accept a soul for that reason. It will always be beyond your comprehension.
Well the creator could have been Super, Smelly, Farty, Monkey who got a d minus on his universe creation project in 3rd grade because most of his universe was inhospitable to carbon based life. That is quite a stretch to a Catholic God, and why would you even worship that smelly monkey who got a d minus?
The majority of people trained in neuroscience are unwilling to entertain the idea of a soul existing? I wonder if that's really true. If it is, that's really narrow-minded of them.
Neuroscience is based on the idea that our conscious experiences and mental activity are the result of activity in the brain. Hence they study the brain in order to understand these phenomena. Suppose that consciousness is not physical. We can talk and write about our conscious experiences, so that means our consciousness is physically causal, which means there is non physical causation of activity in our brains that leads to these actions. What would that look like in the brain? Maybe neurons firing for no physical reason. No electrical stimulation, chemical process, or any physical reason for the neuron to activate, the activity would just happen for no reason. To write a description of a conscious experience or thought, this would have to happen in co-ordination all across the motor cortex, it would be obvious. We just don’t see anything like that.
All Persons have a Name, when Persons gets born in new bodies, they get new names, but it is the Same Soul, as just Continiue. We, and our Consciousness is Eternal, our Day-Consciousness/Thinking, is always in Motion, motion is change, so, according to the ongoing development, the Soul is also taken' color, of the Life-performance and experiences.
Dude is talking reincarnation where the elements of the body return to the cycle of Nature while the "soul" goes to Umbo where it waits to be reborn. I see it differently. A "soul" is the living person. When you die that extra essence (soul) that is the whole being greater than the sum of the parts simply ceases. It doesn't go anywhere nor does it wait in Umbo. It just ends. 😢😢😢😢😢
The afterlife is not a waiting room. Time affects the body, not the soul. We are the intersection of Heaven and Earth, for a while. If you look at the evidence for telepathy (for instance) with an honest mind, some things are non-physical. Or at least in my life, though I have yet to meet anyone who has not had at least one remarkable event happen. It is too easy to assert that anything contradictory to expectations must be mistaken.
there's no such thing as 'evil' for such a state to exist you'd need an interventionist creator of the universe - and I don't think there is such a thing. there certainly isn't any evidence (good evidence) for such a being.
A baby doesn't yet have any real consciousness, knows nothing about itself, about God and the world - but who would say it doesn't have a soul because of that?
There was no consensus among religions as to what a "soul" would be. The Judeo Christian "soul" was simply a living creature, a living being. Animals are souls, people are souls. Theological lunacy.
How intellectuals like this can think there should be anything to a soul or something that continues dieep within us to the next life is beyond me. This is b.s.
Let's parallel his example of a person visualising a scene, and no collection of neurons in their brain being that scene. Consider a computer generating a 3D simulation of a boat sailing across a lake with mountains in the background. Computers do this sort of thing for computer games all the time. Is any collection of transistors that scene? No, of course not, even though we all know and agree for a fact that everything going on in what I just described in completely physical. The scene isn't a collection of transistors, it's a pattern of activation of circuits and components throughout the computer over a period of time. It's a thing the system is doing as a process, not what anything in the system is. I'm surprised at a philosopher of Hick's stature not grasping this.
Hmm... The transistors are real, the process is real and the scene, although an illusion projected onto the screen is also real to the minds eye. A mind in a brain... consciousness BUT where sits that I which is aware of it? AND from what is that I made?
I thought in the same way but thought of music CDs. There is a player( brain ) and the CD contains only readable zeros and ones...yet music is produced. Not magic but explainable science at work. With that said, I actually believe we have souls but left religion since age 20. There is evidence for souls in science. Souls yes, religious fables and myths, no. I just don't agree with Hick's hypothesis.
@@micronda Suppose the brain generates such a ‘screen’ internally and there is a separate self. Presumably that self is aware of its own state and perceives the scene. How does that self perceive scenes, what’s going on inside it? Does it have a ‘screen’ generated internally, and a self inside to be aware of its state? You see where this is going, if self awareness requires a separate self, you end up with an infinite regression of selfs to be aware. So what’s the solution? Self awareness does what it says on the tin. The self is what it is aware of. The thing that is aware is also the self. They are one and the same. It’s true self-referentiality. It’s a feedback loop, not a hierarchy. We have very simple, primitive versions of this in computer programming systems. It’s called reflective programming, where a computer program can inspect and modify its own runtime state and code. I think this is very early days, what we have now is to human consciousness as a single cell is to a human body, but it’s a start.
@@simonhibbs887 Say the minds eye, sees an image on its screen. Consciousness in the mind interprets the image, gives it meaning, modifies it, feeds it back into the loop and identifies itself as that process. Are you that process? I recall when I was an early infant, the light going out and family voices hushing. All that was left was my complete awareness, it was pitch black, deadly quiet and I was scared until I realised that the awareness was only me. I can do the same thing now, with the light off and totally quiet. Yet that feeling of awareness is always exactly the same. Not a process, nor a runtime modified in any way, totally separate from the loop.
“How can this be? Nicodemus asked. You are Israel’s teacher, said Jesus, and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony..." With all due respect to any perspectives, the answers are written in all of us just waiting for the right moment to become inevitable. Thanks for this interview.
The objectively correct answer is actually “we don’t know for certain”. I’m other words, there is no answer. Mainstream scientists and religious people are both arrogantly dogmatic when approaching the question of whether or not something about us continues after death.
@@ElephantWhisperer222Agreed we don't know for certain. The only reason this is discussed is pure wishfulment because the evidence is zero. If you think the evidence is not zero then go claim your Nobel prize.
@@TurinTuramber If you agree then why did you assert that the answer is no, when that’s not true? The answer is we don’t have the answer, it’s neither yes or no. To say the answer is yes or no is technically incorrect.
A lot of people act like they know for certain whether or not something continues after we die. The objectively correct, scientific answer is “we don’t know”. Don’t subject yourself to the same sort of dogma that religious people do when approaching this question. Indirect evidence supports both claims, we are not intelligent enough at the moment to prove either side.
@@markb3786 Sure! One piece of indirect evidence is that there are medically documented (and many that have no medical documentation) cases of patients being declared dead, and upon resuscitation tell of events which happened not just in the room their body was in, but in other rooms near where the body was. Patients who’s not only heart, but brains were not functioning at any level where something like that should be possible. It’s extremely rare that this happens. But the fact that it does and has, and currently has no explanation, means that until it’s potentially and scientifically explained away it would be dishonest for one to assert that there is absolutely nothing beyond the death of the body. Similar experiences have happened at scenes of accidents and other unfortunate events.
What a load of bull. So many words but saying nothing meaningful. Consciousness is not such a mystery based on the leading hypothesis that the brain is a simulation engine (a lot of evidence for that) and because we are embodied, we need to simulate self in our brain-simulated environment. This gives rise to the feeling of 'being inside yourself'. The simulation engine ends when you die.
I can come onboard with important aspects of these last two episodes (Phillip Clayton & John Hick). They resonate, more-or-less, with my thoughts about the nonlocal self & the creative void. Most importantly, they both steer clear of the notion of God-as-Creator, which, like Many-Worlds, in its efforts to "explain everything" explains nothing at all. One minor bug, though, at 3:43 - *he* is the widely assumed generic pronoun in the English language, *not she* (Finno-Ugric languages circumvent this gender-norming nonsense with the genderless pronoun).
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.
This is the same argument I had with my self just prior to surgery. “I’m going to trust in science and pray there’s a God” The sentiment of seeking longevity in a soul is born out of fear. We may merely be an experiment in this vast universe, a tiny piece of sentient information that is emergent from complexity. Sentience does not guarantee eternal existence. We will be nonexistent for trillions of years. The real mystery is the fine structure constant!😂
Aatmiya DIVINITY Be Blessed *HARE KRSNA* Experiencing satisfaction hearing the video please "Do Persons Have Souls? and able to share personal points of view about this topic. SOUL, spiritual entity - (Consciousness, Atman, Brahman, ISHAVAR, GOD, KRSNA) is basically Unmanifested in nature but have latent potential to manifest. This transformation of spiritual entity takes piace because of the presence of material energy along with the spiritual entity. The process of transformation is progresson from non- living to living to non- living is a cycle of birth/death/birth/death........................... Very respectfully Loving 💞 ING You One and All DIVINE ❤️ NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Dear God And Goddess of this beautiful planet Most of Your intellectual mathematics dont know the origin of numbers and most of the intellectuals of meta , pera, cognitive, Quantum and language specialist even don't know how mind understand any language, Hail To all lords🕉☯🙏
There is an entire field dedicated to explaining how mind understands language, it's called linguistics. Don't make sweeping claims about what we don't know, when you don't know the first thing about what we do know...
There is no proof of a soul at all. Belief is an opinion. This is not to be taken as a fact. People really need to let go of all this stupid wishful thinking, stop fearing a death that you can't avoid, live the life you have until it ends. Finally for fuck's sake stop thinking there's anything else after this life because there is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.
Do frogs have piano lessons ? See what I did there ? I caught your attention, which is the whole point of asking. I know you don't know, but that's of no concern of mine. Gotcha.
Hmmm. If consciousness is created by the brain then when the brain dies so dies consciousness with it. Humans just can't accept that this is all there is. BTW and I do really love these sessions; not one person has ever talked about the 'elephant in the room' which is evolution. There always seems to be an undercurrent of some mysterious deity or purpose to our existence. One might also post the question about dogs, cats, chickens, etc. I especially liked the episode about the Universe maybe being conscious, I mean really?! Of course to also contribute to random possibilities, maybe this is all a collective dream created by some unknown cosmic computer programmer who out of boredom created what we all see and call the Universe.
Even if what you're saying is true or we do continue on in some form, it doesn't matter because there's absolutely nothing we could do to change that fact. Akin to Pascal's Wager and with no evidence either way why not believe if it's comforting and makes your very brief time here on earth more enjoyable and gives you hope.
There is no sole there is no god there is only us and are conscious when we die are so called sole doesn't wing it's way to heaven u go back to where u came from an eternal void of nothingness. Let's just say you're going back home where u came from
No. Peer reviewed case of remote consciousness ( soul ) after the brain had stopped functioning. ruclips.net/video/JL1oDuvQR08/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Ghost, spirit, or soul is a word commonly understood as a non-physical entity... based on this simple information, Consciousness can be considered as a soul because, not only that consciousness is non-physical, it has supernatural qualities such as the free will to believe anything on its own even believing in Supernatural God that defies physics... So yes, people have souls.. ..and because Consciousness exhibits supernatural qualities, its origin can not possibly be material but, rather, originated from a Supernatural SOURCE... But if you continue to insist that Consciousness is a product of EXPLOSION OF NOTHING (Bigbang) then go ahead.. you are always free to believe anything for any reason.. God won't force you Home because He always respects your free choice to live a life without His grace, out there in a cold dark emptiness (hell)
Is this old? Is he aware that scientists are now able to see images produced by imaginations of test subjects through neural brain activity monitoring plus AI? Soon, we will be able to hear the thoughts of our pets. I have a feeling that's not going to go over well for our cats. Consciousness is an electromagnetic tidal pool, spinning, on the side of the river of existence. A high resolution feedback loop. I see no reason for us to ascribe to it any more than this.
The electrical field that is augmented by neurons firing seems like an obvious candidate for a conscious substrate to me, but the idea rarely gets mentioned.
More I watch these series more I realise no one has the slightest clue
You are correct.
Yes, but comparing ideas is interesting and useful for developing a philosophy of understanding
Seems like a good reason to not assume we have them
Had a lifelong friend who had a moderate head injury in a car wreck at 33 years old... Went from the sweetest person I knew and fairly religious to death row inmate after some frontal lobe damage.. 💔 .. so I'm not sure about soul... or godliness.. I'm pretty sure it's genetic and avoiding brain damage.
you're confusing soul with the mind or consciousness. mind can be damaged, but can consciousness?
@@Dion_MustardIf everything about how a person thinks and acts, interacts with the world, is dependent brain structure then what usefulness (outside of perhaps psychological comfort) do the ideas of a soul or divorcing consciousness from the mind possess? Proposing such supernatural concepts and taking them seriously as how anything works demands a strong justification for doing so and necessarily justification for the supernatural must be despite physical evidence not because of it, leaving only that the ideas are popular strictly due to their ability to allow people to believe that what they truly are is not a collection of particles/field excitations undergoing some deterministic or probabilistic dynamic evolution, but rather some ineffable eternal magic.
i tend not to use words like supernatural. that doesn't interest me, nor am i remotely religion. i have always been a seeker. i've done a lot of studies in out of body experiences and near death experiences, and they seem to indicate consciousness survives death. not sure how, but it's something to do with the non-locality of awareness, with the connection to quantum entanglement. there's a science behind it, if you want to say that. for instance, people who have had cardiac arrest with limited brain function and yet percieved their surroundings from outside their body and were able to see and witness things in a different location. it's intriguing, and fascinating to say the least.@@jyjjy7
The body is the soul in the gross form . And there is subtle bodies over and above the gross body. The body mind are not two things. It is one single unity.
brings to mind... behold the lillies if the field they worry not for the morrow... whatever this realm may be I cannot but be awed by the miracle of it being.
I think our (human) specific level of consciousness gives rise to this desire for a "soul", but no one seems to know what this "soul" is supposed to be and how it can manifest itself beyond the expiration of our physical form. I'm not sure of its' existence beyond just being a human conscious desire for some sense of immortality.
We are spirits in human form , not humans with a spirit, just because a brain injury changes perception... doesn't mean the soul is non existent
there's been millennia of research n this topic untill present and yet we're struggling to conceptualize the difference between mind and matter...
I think of the soul as being the essence of our being that causes us to care and feel love for others. It feels useful to attach something intangible as love to something as intangible as a soul but honestly, I don't have a clue.
I'm afraid evil is just an evolutionary construct that helped us survive as a tribe.
Animals cannot be wicked, humans have the capacity to be utterly wicked and find pleasure in it. Evil exists
I had a crazy idea. What if there is only one soul which incarnates itself as seemingly separate souls so to be able to love and be loved in return? 😍
This idea is not crazy, this concept is there in some schools of Vedanta.
For example In suddhadvaita Vedanta(pure non dualism philosophy of Sanatana Dharma) it is believed that almighty Krishna who is non dual one supreme manifests himself as everything all souls, world everything only to play with himself.
In Kevala Advaita Vedanta(non dualism of Shankaracharya) everything is just appearance of one ultimate reality which is formless attributeless, it's just his appearance like rope appears as snake in darkness.
In Achintya bhedabheda(inconceivable duality and non duality) Krishna is said to be supreme truth whose parts and parcels are all souls and their goal is to establish ultimate loving relationship with Krishna.
You should read Indian philosophies.
Incredible. Yes. That makes sense. Thank you for telling me about these schools. Suddhadvaita Vedanta seems to me very plausible. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area so I will see if there is a temple in this area or someone who understands this. If I have any further questions; I will reach out to you. Thank you again. @@gravity.inescapable
In the spirit of Advaita Vedanta " Who is asking if people have souls ? "
(4:05) *JH: **_"But no collection of neurons actually is that scene."_* ... Excellent way to phrase it! I get that it's difficult for many to accept the existence of nonphysical phenomenon, especially if you're dealing with the "phenomenon in question" during every moment of your existence. ... However, "Existence" isn't obligated to manifest itself based on our playbook.
True, there are specific processes that orchestrate "Existence" such as patterns, logic, necessity, and conceivability, but these are preconditions that "Existence" established for itself, and which didn't come from us.
Unless there is some type of *evolutionary barrier* set in place, "Existence" is perfectly free to evolve into nonphysical structure (or some other type of structure) in the same way that it evolved into physical structure.
Just posted this as a top level comment, but I'll repeat it here because it addresses exactly the same point you raised, sorry for the duplication:
Let's parallel his example of a person visualising a scene, and no collection of neurons in their brain being that scene. Consider a computer generating a 3D simulation of a boat sailing across a lake with mountains in the background. Computers do this sort of thing for computer games all the time. Is any collection of transistors that scene? No, of course not, even though we all know and agree for a fact that everything going on in what I just described in completely physical. The scene isn't a collection of transistors or components. Rather it's a pattern of activation of circuits and components throughout the computer. It's a thing the system is doing as a process, not what anything in the system is. I'm surprised at a philosopher of Hick's stature not grasping this.
@@simonhibbs887 *"The scene isn't a collection of transistors or components. Rather it's a pattern of activation of circuits and components throughout the computer. It's a thing the system is doing as a process, not what anything in the system is."*
... You and I often end up in this same situation. Once again, computers didn't naturally evolve all on their own like humans did. And your entire computer-based comparison leaves out the part where an *outside source* (human intellect) punched in all of the data that the computer used to generate your 3D model.
Based on your scenario, that human-based data input would serve as the consciousness for a computer, because it doesn't have one. A computer, all on its own, would never even "conceive" of generating a 3D model of anything let alone desire to depict it on a screen without human input.
The whole purpose of depicting a 3D model on a computer screen is so that "we" can form a mental image of it within our consciousness.
*"I'm surprised at a philosopher of Hick's stature not grasping this."*
... (See above).
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Does how a system came about determine what it is, or what it is doing? That seems absurd. A thing is what it is, it does what it does. Who made it, or whether it was made at all doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the intrinsic nature of what it is doing at a particular moment.
I happen to think the Boltzman’s Brain argument is backwards, but basically it’s premise is the idea that complex objects could in theory be crated spontaneously by random quantum fluctuations in an infinite universe. Suppose such a fluctuation created a computer running such a simulation. Would the fact that it occurred naturally, with no human programming, mean the nature of what it is doing would be different?
@@simonhibbs887 *"Does how a system came about determine what it is, or what it is doing?"*
... Yes, it does!
*"A thing is what it is, it does what it does. Who made it, or whether it was made at all doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the intrinsic nature of what it is doing at a particular moment."*
... Let's say Person (a) argues that consciousness is an intelligence-based phenomenon that exists outside of the human brain. In response, Person (b) argues that robots can perform most human-based tasks without any need for any intelligence-based consciousness. Then Person (a) points out (like I often do) that the robot is only doing what it was programmed to do by an "outside intelligence" (consciousness) thus Person (A) ends up using Person (b)'s counterargument in support of his own.
You can't always operate based on prima facie. Sometimes you have to go all the way back as far as regression allows. Just like with the Wizard in "The Wizard of Oz," whoever is hiding behind the curtain is the one calling the shots. ... You can't just ignore him and accept the "simulation" prima facie.
*"I happen to think the Boltzman’s Brain argument is backwards, but basically it’s premise is the idea that complex objects could in theory be crated spontaneously by random quantum fluctuations in an infinite universe."*
... There are a lot of things wrong with that, but I'll go along with your scenario. Your scenarios are always salient and fun!
*"Suppose such a fluctuation created a computer running such a simulation. Would the fact that it occurred naturally, with no human programming, mean the nature of what it is doing would be different?"*
... When you say, _"running such a simulation"_ are you referring to your "sailboat on the ocean" simulation? If so, then if it can make something as complex as a computer, then why can't that same fluctuation generate a "real" sailboat and a "real" ocean?
Whenever there is a simulation present, there must be something 'real" that necessitates the simulation, right?
The only reason to generate a simulation of something is to gain greater insight about whatever that "something" is (that already exists). So, to directly answer your question, there would be no appreciable difference between a computer created by the fluctuation and a computer created by a human. ... The reason is because the fluctuation and the human share a common objective: _"create a simulation of something that already exists."_
... At that point you'd have to figure out *why* either side (human or fluctuation) desired to create a simulation of something that already exists ... which begs the question, _"Why would a nonintelligent, naturally occurring fluctuation ever need to generate a simulation of anything at all?"_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I wouldn’t argue that any robot is the same as a person, how something works internally is relevant to what it is, not just what it does externally. I don’t see any actual argument in defence of the contention that regression matters. Whether a rock was split by being hit by a human wielding a hammer or the hammer falling off a shelf in an earthquake it’s still in the same two pieces, there’s nothing human-split or earthquake-split about them. It doesn’t have relevance to their nature.
The idea is that purely random fluctuations can create arbitrary physical objects or systems. Another fluctuation might produce a sail boat as you say, another a bouncy castle. Most of them would produce a random scattering of particles, coherent objects would be extremely rare, but this is in an infinite universe so anything even remotely possible would happen. They have no reason or intention behind them, it’s just chance.
He is honest and recognizes he does not have a clue and instead of applying the art of keeping his mouth shut he keeps on talking.
We don't have souls, we have bodies.
John Hick delves a little in to his Soul Making theodicy which was his modern take on Irenaeus' old position. If you're interested in Hick's work, it's definitely worth a search.
I think that the notion of “soul” - like a ghost of ourselves that is independent of the body - is just a construct to comfort us in our awareness that we are mortal.
Depends on how it’s defined. The fact of the matter is that nobody, not scientists or religious people, knows for certain whether or not something about us/our consciousness continues after death. There’s indirect evidence that supports both opinions.
@@ElephantWhisperer222 You are an optimist! I see no evidence for intelligent life on earth!
@@surfingonmars8979 Optimist in what sense? All I’m saying is that we don’t know the answer, which is true. I’d say it’s slightly more intelligent than if I claimed I did know the answer without having any direct evidence that expels the other sides indirect evidence.
@@ElephantWhisperer222 If there is evidence for the existence of a soul, I would love to hear it.
@@surfingonmars8979 So would I. Guess we’ll have to accept once again that we don’t know whether or not something continues after death hahah.
The question is wrong. It is souls having bodies
Amusing that anyone could believe they know for sure. Whether you say yes or no, youre both expressing certainty about a fantasy.
If you do not know something for sure, how else do you know it? You are confusing your self
not a fantasy. firstly, remove the word "soul", which has religious connotations, and replace with "consciousness". Consciousness is the key here, and most likely infinite. Look up "non-local consciousness and quantum physics".
Agree it is fantasy. That is a good reason to say no.
We are soft machines. Carbon machines. Biological devices, by natural selection. That is the materialist perspective.
Speak for yourself robot
@@deanodebobeep boop
thats the consciousness from nothingness by chance perspective.
@@francesco55812 billion years of increasing complexity though selection pressure isn't chance or from nothingness. What a ridiculous thing to say.
Это твоя вера
Would'n humanity show deep self knowledge when accepting that some questions simply have no answers? That there are phenomena that are not explainable. Unknowable.
Where was my or your consciousness or soul before you were born? Personally I don't remember anything about all the millions or more years before I was born. Our entrance, our exit and much of what happens in our very brief time here are beyond our control.
just because you have no memory of "pre-birth" doesn't mean you didn't exist. and indeed, many do have memories (look up past life regression, or past life memories), also look up Out of Body Experiences.
Yeah. When it comes to consciousness I got plenty of 'exprerience' with losing it completely, every night during deep sleep, and even more everytime I had anesthesia during an OP: it's a non-experience, a blank. 'Me' before birth is the same blank, and I expect it to be the same when I'm dead. Ppl can try to fill in whatever fancy talk and concepts, it's still a blank. I dont bother, I'm totally fine with it 😊
this is a flawed argument. firstly many people with anaesthesia, or for example, in comas have lucid awareness, and often beyond their body. there is also probably more than just one level of consciousness, for instance dreaming is another level of consciousness. i must also add i have had anaesthesia as a child, and had an amazing experience during anaesthesia, in which i was able to travel to a location and see my parents in a particular location, and saw what they were doing, and they confirmed this as accurate, so the theory that anaesthesia shuts down consciousness, is flawed. thats what the main stream science teaches you, but it's wrong. pre birth is a whole different debate as many people recall past life memories, or their consciousness pre-birth. just because you personally have no memory, does not mean you did not exist, it could simply mean your current waking consciousness is not aware of the memory, or essentially, the memory circuits are disrupted. you need to look deeper into this, such as non local consciousness, out of body states, near death experiences. a large percentage of NDEs occur during anaesthesia, when people have lucid perception outside their body.@@0The0Web0
i'd also recommend the book "consciousness beyond life" dr pim van lommel, which has a very scientific take on non-local consciousness and quantum physics.@@0The0Web0
@@Dion_MustardThanks, I already got my way of dealing with it, I am fine with and not afraid of me being gone completely when dead. If there's a bonus: hey cool. But I'm not holding my breath, and I don't need to cling to anything. As for you, that's up to you only. Everyone's got to find their own way to deal with it.
The body is nothing if it can't record information.
Information is nothing without the body.
Body and information are
nothing without communication.
Without the world there is no understanding of anything.
Without space nothing will exist.
Without me who would believe my soul and spirit..
"Soul" is the wrong terminology and tends to annoy the Atheists due to it's religious connotation.
Replace "soul" with "consciousness", as consciousness is the thing that cannot be destroyed and is infinite, and survives the death of the physical body.
I am not remotely religious, but I have a strong conviction that consciousness may be "non-local", in the sense that it can exist beyond the physical body (out of body experiences/near death experiences).
Reality is nonlocal. In 2022 the Nobel prize was handed out to three gentleman who proved it. You are not locally real.
Hick's explanation is grounded in the logical fallacy of confirmation bias further supplemented with the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. So aside from being intellectually worthless, it is a marvellous defence of the existence of the soul.
I don’t see how a soul is any less plausible than saying a brain made of water, fat and protein can become self-aware with private thoughts and emotions.
A brain is observable and something we can tangibly study. A soul is not, nor is there evidence to conclude there is. It’s a pretty simple distinction between the two.
@@ScottlandTheWise There is plenty of evidence that we have souls. Look at NDEs. ( Near Death Experiences). Forty five years of scientific research there with hundreds of peer reviewed studies.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts is all soul means. Not that it survives death.😢
@ScottlandTheWise remote consciousness (soul) has been noted after the brain had stopped functioning, peer reviewed.
ruclips.net/video/JL1oDuvQR08/видео.htmlfeature=shared
@@ScottlandTheWise A brain is observable but that's not the comparison OP made. They made the comparison between soul and the hard problem of consciousness. To restate it, why is claiming souls exist more crazy and than claiming subjective awareness is caused by matter?
We humans have dealt with our existential angst by creating beliefs that serve to help us cope with the unknowns of life. Our beliefs often do us a disservice by denying the fact that we are simply funky monkeys…We destroy one another because our beliefs differ. Let’s get real, lets become responsible for respecting our precious existence.
In the last 150 years your atheist and secular governments have murdered 1.86 billion innocent humans. What belief caused it?
Do you have any idea how sophomoric you sound?
The Sanskrit word for the soul is Atman. The Sanskrit word for God is Brahman. Atman is Brahman. Brahman is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss. All else is mere speculation.
Oxygen is the breath of God which combine the both the body and live information about the world before we new it was the knowledge of God that compelled us.
Well that is just a darn shame because even though we need oxygen to live it is also killing us. That God sure is a rascal. Slowly killing us with his breath.
This guy is good...
LOL, some people need to experience full anesthesia at least once. Just saying...
These are wonderful programmes with lots of fantastic and intelligent thoughts and theories in the comments. I used to be convinced that all existence is based on material attributes of the universe but I no longer do. After I read Tiplers omega point cismology I truly feel that in the very far future, with near infinite intelligence and technological know how widespread in the universe, that all beings will undego a universal resurrection that is brought about by an all knowing loving entity that reveals itself in the very far future! I think consciousness is one part of that 'being' but in the future a collective consciousness appears as a truly emergent property of all beings. I think Tipler's work suggests this but there are maybe parts of his thesis that I dont agree with too! Best wishes to you all my friends!
I don't buy it. Why? It is hubristic to restrict ourselves to humans alone when considering consciousness, especially given (a) evolution, and (b) that several species pass the mirror test. If we want to crack consciousness, to find it in its simplest form, and thus more amenable to scrutiny, means going lower in the animal kingdom toward less brain complexity. _That is whar she blows, Ahab._
Especially since you unquestionably, accept chance evolution, by faith.
All you need is a giant unexplained miracle and you can make up the rest with special pleading.
I do, you probably don't. Next question.
Soul is Chicago dancing 😊😊
Does anybody really know what time it is? ⌚🎵🎷🎺🎤🎶
JH said that an image in our head is non physical. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. But DLK gives JH a pass, and acts as though the claim is acceptable. I wish DLK would push back some of his guests' claims so we could get 'closer to truth.'
Nah... He talks to multiple people on every FULL episode and gets different perspectives THAT way. He lets established thinkers in their fields express their thinking, and he pries for clarification of THEIR outlook, rather than approaching the conversation as an argument. Also, he DOES "push back" quite often when it is appropriate, or when he thinks there is any point in pursuing the course considering the biases of the person in front of him. I've watched Kuhn for many years, and this comment is just an inaccurate nitpick of someone who is actually a Master at his craft.
@@MatthewCleerei don't know, sometimes he seems to let people flesh out word salad. Robust skepticism is necessary to move us closer to truth, getting lost in speculation is the opposite of that.
Soul and spirit are two different things. In the Bible, the word soul refers to the physical person. As in the story of Noah, at the end of the flood, the Bible says that only 8 souls survived, that is, 8 people. In the creation story of Genesis, the Bible says that the active force of God was in motion, and when he created man, he gave him the breath of life. This makes us understand that, in the case of the spirit, it is the force that gives life to the soul, or the body. In the same way that electricity gives power to an electrical device, the spirit gives strength to the soul, to the physical person. By the way, the Bible says that when one dies, he ceases to exist (Eccl. 9: 5, 6) Jesus, in the story of the death of his friend Lazarus, said that he was asleep in death. Likewise, when one sleeps, we are not aware of anything.'
Somehow I strongly believe in the presence of the soul. However, medical doctors and scientists can't comment on that simply because they are not experts in this aspect of the human body. It's beyond medical science at least presently.
I think if there is a soul, there is only one soul. God. Sentient beings partake of that soul while alive.
I agree 100%, good video, thanks!
This is the usual fallacy of assuming the supremacy of the human mind. The fact that we are conscious in no way, invites the idea of a soul. Instead, we are more likely a gestalt, a collection of information bits that have self assembled in a particular way, which can transcend time only by more information transmission, such as our ideas, or even our offspring,. Why should we only assume that humans have a soul, what about the mosquito I crushed yesterday or the lamb we ate this weekend? Should we assume that I have consumed souls? We need to free ourselves of the strictures of organized religion, and start to understand this on a much more fundamental and rational way.
soul is personal algorithm
Genesis defines " SOUL. " It's a synonym for " LIVING BEING. " SOUL = LIVING BEING = BODY (made of dust or chemicals) + BREATH OF LIFE. It's simple semantics. On the other hand Job says *THERE IS A SPIRIT IN MAN.* Therefore SOUL and SPIRIT are NOT synonyms. Or the soul has a spirit. And consciousness is another issue altogether. A verse says "THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANYTHING." To me that means the soul dies and is no longer conscious. The spirit is a mystery to me. What i think of myself is the Ego. The ego is embedded in the body or in the soul. When my body dies then my ego also dies. Apparently the spirit has a life of its own. The good book says *HE THAT CONTROLS HIS OWN SPIRIT IS BETTER THAN SOMEONE WHO CONQUERS A CITY.* Though spirit could mean simply emotions such as anger, sadness, joy, etc. You figure it out.🦓
Even if you had a soul and even if it was eternal your soul is not "you" since "you" are a biological organism and "you" as such cannot exist in any other form in any other context.
The soul, if it existed, would relate to "you" in the same way water molecules relate to you. Water is essential to life but water isn't "you" and those molecules are regularly replaced and they are just as happy in a mouse or a blade of grass as they are inside you.
If consciousness is the soul so we keep being ourselves. Maybe without an ego, but we do.
@@pedroroque829 consciousness is not the soul, nor does any religion define the soul as consciousness.
Soul is much too vague to define exactly what is meant. Is a soul conscious? Disembodied consciousness would be weird to say the least. Is the soul aware that it exists? Does a soul have the ability to control physical events in the world? Do souls communicate with each other? Does Aretha Franklin still have soul? Let’s have a seance!
soul definitely not but subtle body transcending yes!
Yes, definitely. Now, are most of us in touch with the real essence of it? Probably not.
Soul. Is that like Arthur as a ghost? Maybe I was a ghost walking around before Arthur was seven born.
He says it's much more Hindu or Buddhist than a Christian idea. This is only partially true. It is absolutely an idea originating in Hindu philosophy, but not Buddhist. Westerners like to heap anything Hindu and anything Buddhist into the same pile and call it "Eastern," when the two disagree so dramatically on so many key points. This is a product of Orientalism, an ignorant and ruinous Western myth. Most of Vedanta is centered around the idea of Atman and Brahman, as the fella tries to explain, but the Buddha thought these ideas were just stupid. That's why the early Buddhists thought the Hindu sages were morons and the Hindus mocked the Buddha and his followers for the same thing. We condescend to and disrespect both sides when we fail to distinguish between them. It's like thinking Africans are all the same, or that Africa is a monolith, while a guy in Senegal and one in Ethiopia, or one in Tunisia and one in Zambia, are like, What? What are you talking about?
If we truly live in a computer simulation. Then somewhere a conscious mind created all this. That is why we Catholics call the mystery of faith. I accept a soul for that reason. It will always be beyond your comprehension.
Well the creator could have been Super, Smelly, Farty, Monkey who got a d minus on his universe creation project in 3rd grade because most of his universe was inhospitable to carbon based life. That is quite a stretch to a Catholic God, and why would you even worship that smelly monkey who got a d minus?
@@markb3786 It is better to be thought of as a fool.. Then to speak and remove all doubt! You are undoubtedly one!!!
Do dogs have souls? What is the relationship between 'soul' and 'personality'?
O SOUL LO MIO! 🎶
I've Discovered Indian Temples Depict Wormhole Travel Machines.
I discovered that vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup is better than chocolate ice cream
@@markb3786 your comment just proves your on the Spectrum.
Yes.
Good luck. Very beautiful
The majority of people trained in neuroscience are unwilling to entertain the idea of a soul existing? I wonder if that's really true. If it is, that's really narrow-minded of them.
Yeah, well they pretty much base their conclusions on the scientific method which doesn't really lend itself to philosophical hypothesis.
Neuroscience is based on the idea that our conscious experiences and mental activity are the result of activity in the brain. Hence they study the brain in order to understand these phenomena.
Suppose that consciousness is not physical. We can talk and write about our conscious experiences, so that means our consciousness is physically causal, which means there is non physical causation of activity in our brains that leads to these actions. What would that look like in the brain? Maybe neurons firing for no physical reason. No electrical stimulation, chemical process, or any physical reason for the neuron to activate, the activity would just happen for no reason. To write a description of a conscious experience or thought, this would have to happen in co-ordination all across the motor cortex, it would be obvious. We just don’t see anything like that.
@@markb3786 It's one thing to practice science; it's another thing to think that your practice of science is all there is.
@@simonhibbs887 We don't see wind. But we see its effects.
@@davidrobinson5180 Exactly, such an effect should be visible. We don’t see it. We see systems of causal activity fully explainable in physical terms.
Personally, I don't think this guy has any idea what he is talking about.
*had. He’s been dead for quite some time
Well, so much for his "soul". @@drewpowers7236
Seems to me that our symbiotic microbiome is being ignored in this discussion.
For the same reason our skeletons are ignored in the conversation, it's a necessary support structure but doesn't contribute to processing information
@@uninspired3583 our skeletons are not separate life forms that influence our behavior with chemical signaling.
Is it me or are theists all a bit weird or atypical? From Swinburne to this guy
Robert's theists are perfect people compared to the average theist in America.
@@markb3786 one thing for sure is they are not Pedos
@@1stPrinciples455 yeah uh you might want to Google "youth pastor"
All Persons have a Name,
when Persons gets born in new bodies,
they get new names,
but it is the Same Soul,
as just Continiue.
We, and our Consciousness is Eternal,
our Day-Consciousness/Thinking,
is always in Motion, motion is change,
so, according to the ongoing development,
the Soul is also taken' color,
of the Life-performance and experiences.
Dude is talking reincarnation where the elements of the body return to the cycle of Nature while the "soul" goes to Umbo where it waits to be reborn. I see it differently. A "soul" is the living person. When you die that extra essence (soul) that is the whole being greater than the sum of the parts simply ceases. It doesn't go anywhere nor does it wait in Umbo. It just ends. 😢😢😢😢😢
The afterlife is not a waiting room. Time affects the body, not the soul. We are the intersection of Heaven and Earth, for a while. If you look at the evidence for telepathy (for instance) with an honest mind, some things are non-physical. Or at least in my life, though I have yet to meet anyone who has not had at least one remarkable event happen. It is too easy to assert that anything contradictory to expectations must be mistaken.
People will get to know they have souls. After they die
so there is me and my soul? Will we have the same voice when we get to know each other?
there's no such thing as 'evil'
for such a state to exist you'd need an interventionist creator of the universe - and I don't think there is such a thing. there certainly isn't any evidence (good evidence) for such a being.
A baby doesn't yet have any real consciousness, knows nothing about itself, about God and the world - but who would say it doesn't have a soul because of that?
me?
Not even in Seoul...🥴🙄
A soulamometer would help. Somebody get on that. Space Force? How about you guys?
Underrated comment
Kudos from 444 Gematria!
There was no consensus among religions as to what a "soul" would be. The Judeo Christian "soul" was simply a living creature, a living being. Animals are souls, people are souls. Theological lunacy.
How intellectuals like this can think there should be anything to a soul or something that continues dieep within us to the next life is beyond me. This is b.s.
Let's parallel his example of a person visualising a scene, and no collection of neurons in their brain being that scene. Consider a computer generating a 3D simulation of a boat sailing across a lake with mountains in the background. Computers do this sort of thing for computer games all the time. Is any collection of transistors that scene? No, of course not, even though we all know and agree for a fact that everything going on in what I just described in completely physical. The scene isn't a collection of transistors, it's a pattern of activation of circuits and components throughout the computer over a period of time. It's a thing the system is doing as a process, not what anything in the system is. I'm surprised at a philosopher of Hick's stature not grasping this.
Hmm... The transistors are real, the process is real and the scene, although an illusion projected onto the screen is also real to the minds eye. A mind in a brain... consciousness BUT where sits that I which is aware of it? AND from what is that I made?
I thought in the same way but thought of music CDs. There is a player( brain ) and the CD contains only readable zeros and ones...yet music is produced. Not magic but explainable science at work. With that said, I actually believe we have souls but left religion since age 20. There is evidence for souls in science. Souls yes, religious fables and myths, no. I just don't agree with Hick's hypothesis.
@@microndaand
@@micronda Suppose the brain generates such a ‘screen’ internally and there is a separate self. Presumably that self is aware of its own state and perceives the scene. How does that self perceive scenes, what’s going on inside it? Does it have a ‘screen’ generated internally, and a self inside to be aware of its state? You see where this is going, if self awareness requires a separate self, you end up with an infinite regression of selfs to be aware. So what’s the solution?
Self awareness does what it says on the tin. The self is what it is aware of. The thing that is aware is also the self. They are one and the same. It’s true self-referentiality. It’s a feedback loop, not a hierarchy. We have very simple, primitive versions of this in computer programming systems. It’s called reflective programming, where a computer program can inspect and modify its own runtime state and code. I think this is very early days, what we have now is to human consciousness as a single cell is to a human body, but it’s a start.
@@simonhibbs887 Say the minds eye, sees an image on its screen. Consciousness in the mind interprets the image, gives it meaning, modifies it, feeds it back into the loop and identifies itself as that process. Are you that process?
I recall when I was an early infant, the light going out and family voices hushing. All that was left was my complete awareness, it was pitch black, deadly quiet and I was scared until I realised that the awareness was only me. I can do the same thing now, with the light off and totally quiet. Yet that feeling of awareness is always exactly the same. Not a process, nor a runtime modified in any way, totally separate from the loop.
“How can this be? Nicodemus asked. You are Israel’s teacher, said Jesus, and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony..." With all due respect to any perspectives, the answers are written in all of us just waiting for the right moment to become inevitable. Thanks for this interview.
Yes
I recommend you guys to read Risale-i Nur Collection by Said Nursi. Anyone can see what the reality is from this books. He is the RUMİ of this time.
I think Kia have a Seoul, right? 🚗🇰🇷
Short answer is no. What people choose to believe doesn't mean anything without evidence.
The objectively correct answer is actually “we don’t know for certain”. I’m other words, there is no answer. Mainstream scientists and religious people are both arrogantly dogmatic when approaching the question of whether or not something about us continues after death.
There is no evidence I'm not a dog. Woof.
@@ElephantWhisperer222Agreed we don't know for certain. The only reason this is discussed is pure wishfulment because the evidence is zero. If you think the evidence is not zero then go claim your Nobel prize.
@@TurinTuramber If you agree then why did you assert that the answer is no, when that’s not true? The answer is we don’t have the answer, it’s neither yes or no. To say the answer is yes or no is technically incorrect.
1. Are you a soulless ape?
2. Do you think evidence proves anything?
X-Files
The bloodthirsty evangelical and jewish vampires (greed) don't have souls.
But earthling human beings (love) do.
Eastern beliefs don't transcend elsewhere or live on unless your talking about something reformed or new
Poor guy, struggling so hard to find some hope that death is not his end. Robert, eternal life would be a nightmare. The universe isn't even eternal.
A lot of people act like they know for certain whether or not something continues after we die. The objectively correct, scientific answer is “we don’t know”. Don’t subject yourself to the same sort of dogma that religious people do when approaching this question. Indirect evidence supports both claims, we are not intelligent enough at the moment to prove either side.
Maybe for you living forever would be a nightmare but many including myself would very much like to continue to enjoy life.
@@ElephantWhisperer222 you were asked to elaborate on this "indirect evidence" in another post. Please enlighten us.
@rickwyant, speak for yourself.
@@markb3786 Sure! One piece of indirect evidence is that there are medically documented (and many that have no medical documentation) cases of patients being declared dead, and upon resuscitation tell of events which happened not just in the room their body was in, but in other rooms near where the body was. Patients who’s not only heart, but brains were not functioning at any level where something like that should be possible. It’s extremely rare that this happens. But the fact that it does and has, and currently has no explanation, means that until it’s potentially and scientifically explained away it would be dishonest for one to assert that there is absolutely nothing beyond the death of the body. Similar experiences have happened at scenes of accidents and other unfortunate events.
Well some of us do lol
No.
What a load of bull. So many words but saying nothing meaningful. Consciousness is not such a mystery based on the leading hypothesis that the brain is a simulation engine (a lot of evidence for that) and because we are embodied, we need to simulate self in our brain-simulated environment. This gives rise to the feeling of 'being inside yourself'. The simulation engine ends when you die.
How do you know? Karl Marx told you, right?
I can come onboard with important aspects of these last two episodes (Phillip Clayton & John Hick). They resonate, more-or-less, with my thoughts about the nonlocal self & the creative void. Most importantly, they both steer clear of the notion of God-as-Creator, which, like Many-Worlds, in its efforts to "explain everything" explains nothing at all. One minor bug, though, at 3:43 - *he* is the widely assumed generic pronoun in the English language, *not she* (Finno-Ugric languages circumvent this gender-norming nonsense with the genderless pronoun).
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.
This is the same argument I had with my self just prior to surgery. “I’m going to trust in science and pray there’s a God” The sentiment of seeking longevity in a soul is born out of fear. We may merely be an experiment in this vast universe, a tiny piece of sentient information that is emergent from complexity. Sentience does not guarantee eternal existence. We will be nonexistent for trillions of years. The real mystery is the fine structure constant!😂
Aatmiya DIVINITY
Be Blessed
*HARE KRSNA*
Experiencing satisfaction hearing the video please "Do Persons Have Souls? and able to share personal points of view about this topic.
SOUL, spiritual entity - (Consciousness, Atman, Brahman, ISHAVAR, GOD, KRSNA) is basically Unmanifested in nature but have latent potential to manifest.
This transformation of spiritual entity takes piace because of the presence of material energy along with the spiritual entity.
The process of transformation is progresson from non- living to living to non- living is a cycle of birth/death/birth/death...........................
Very respectfully Loving 💞 ING You One and All DIVINE ❤️ NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
❤
Dear God And Goddess of this beautiful planet
Most of Your intellectual mathematics dont know the origin of numbers and most of the intellectuals of meta , pera, cognitive, Quantum and language specialist even don't know how mind understand any language, Hail To all lords🕉☯🙏
There is an entire field dedicated to explaining how mind understands language, it's called linguistics.
Don't make sweeping claims about what we don't know, when you don't know the first thing about what we do know...
I have a soul. Nobody else does. Eat your hearts out… I suggest Tabasco.
But clearly you lost it
@@SPDLand wasn’t using it. A piece of leftover twaddle from history’s unflushable poo.
Their is no soul or consciousness.......Humans have the ability to understand.......That ability is misunderstood as consciousness or soul.....
😄 souls have bodies. This is a simulation.
Talk many many. But dont talk about what is soul. Same like talk many many about god but no idea what god is !! How intelligent does that make us !?
there is old reptile bloodskin tissue stayed outside the
Neurosience keep out How definitions about consciousness so far. Guys evidence though brains show his lack neurosience vetification is nill.
It's like me saying "pink, two-headed unicorns exist" and the entire world spends the next two thousand years debating whether I'm right or not.
underrated comment
Nobody has the slightest idea why even bother trying
There is no proof of a soul at all. Belief is an opinion. This is not to be taken as a fact. People really need to let go of all this stupid wishful thinking, stop fearing a death that you can't avoid, live the life you have until it ends. Finally for fuck's sake stop thinking there's anything else after this life because there is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.
Do frogs have piano lessons ? See what I did there ?
I caught your attention, which is the whole point of asking.
I know you don't know, but that's of no concern of mine. Gotcha.
Hmmm. If consciousness is created by the brain then when the brain dies so dies consciousness with it. Humans just can't accept that this is all there is. BTW and I do really love these sessions; not one person has ever talked about the 'elephant in the room' which is evolution. There always seems to be an undercurrent of some mysterious deity or purpose to our existence. One might also post the question about dogs, cats, chickens, etc. I especially liked the episode about the Universe maybe being conscious, I mean really?! Of course to also contribute to random possibilities, maybe this is all a collective dream created by some unknown cosmic computer programmer who out of boredom created what we all see and call the Universe.
Even if what you're saying is true or we do continue on in some form, it doesn't matter because there's absolutely nothing we could do to change that fact. Akin to Pascal's Wager and with no evidence either way why not believe if it's comforting and makes your very brief time here on earth more enjoyable and gives you hope.
I disagree. Look up "near death experiences or out of body experiences".
There is no sole there is no god there is only us and are conscious when we die are so called sole doesn't wing it's way to heaven u go back to where u came from an eternal void of nothingness. Let's just say you're going back home where u came from
No. Peer reviewed case of remote consciousness ( soul ) after the brain had stopped functioning.
ruclips.net/video/JL1oDuvQR08/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Ghost, spirit, or soul is a word commonly understood as a non-physical entity... based on this simple information, Consciousness can be considered as a soul because, not only that consciousness is non-physical, it has supernatural qualities such as the free will to believe anything on its own even believing in Supernatural God that defies physics... So yes, people have souls..
..and because Consciousness exhibits supernatural qualities, its origin can not possibly be material but, rather, originated from a Supernatural SOURCE...
But if you continue to insist that Consciousness is a product of EXPLOSION OF NOTHING (Bigbang) then go ahead.. you are always free to believe anything for any reason.. God won't force you Home because He always respects your free choice to live a life without His grace, out there in a cold dark emptiness (hell)
Why do you continue to post these obvious lies that you make up?
Quick answer: No.
Is this old? Is he aware that scientists are now able to see images produced by imaginations of test subjects through neural brain activity monitoring plus AI?
Soon, we will be able to hear the thoughts of our pets. I have a feeling that's not going to go over well for our cats.
Consciousness is an electromagnetic tidal pool, spinning, on the side of the river of existence. A high resolution feedback loop. I see no reason for us to ascribe to it any more than this.
The electrical field that is augmented by neurons firing seems like an obvious candidate for a conscious substrate to me, but the idea rarely gets mentioned.