My dog died recently but sometimes I think I can hear him in the house. I hope that when I go to Heaven, he will run to greet me at the pearly gates. I can't wait to see his little face again. I miss him so much.
I always come back to the argument that if the 'soul' is eternal then where was 'I' before I was born? That alone makes a belief in a continuity of consciousness very difficult.
Not really. I can imagine that once you have obtained consciousness at birth or conception, whichever the case may be, then at that point it can’t be lost. Kinda like a cosmic imprint we make once here with our consciousness. So though you didn’t exist before, your imprint will cause you to always exist with the creator of the material and spiritual realms. Only he can erase it. And if we’re tied to Christ, we don’t have to worry about being erased. We live on in consciousness by means of him.
I had my first Out of Body experience when I was 18. I didn't know what it was (I thought it a vivid dream). I continued to have them off and on for all my college years. It wasn't until I found ECKANKAR (the ancient science of Soul Travel, at the time) that I learned that I WAS Soul, and that I was 'inhabiting' a body. I didn't need a body to have Consciousness. Rather, the body needed me (Soul) to have life, itself. I have since recalled many past lives and know that I can never really die. We were created by GOD and sent into this world to grow strong and loving. BLESSINGS...
after a general anaesthetic for nasal surgery, I realised I had no experience of the time when I was under the drugs that "put me to sleep". Where was my soul? I thought the experience was blissful because for the first time since my previous surgery, my thoughts were turned off. No memories of the experience, just bliss. I love life but am not scared of death.
I think she didn't invent the concept, but this woman is absolutely briliant. This is called "emergent dualism". In essence anthropologic monism says "humans are a unity", dualism says "a human is body and a soul" (and the soul can live separately...). What Eleonore presents here, this "emergent dualism", says "we're really one thing, not two, but because of how and who we are, there also is a soul", this is literally a tentative to reconcile the two views.
@@samuele.marcora false. Eleonore STump just explain it, that even without the matter, the mind works is such a away as if you had that part of the body which is amputated. That power remains, that is why aquinas said that soul exists.
@@MrStaano It is amazing how Christians, have so much revelation, and yet we are called to be humble, be a light a shinning example. Yet we all fall short, and yes we have souls, I like to call it Spirit, it is that part of you that ultimately decides , or is your volition. And this is tied to your body, more specifically your brain.
@@ericday4505 All religions have revelations........ made up by humans until proven otherwise....... But your religion has the right one ?? So arrogant. You just talk some ancient magical mumbo jumbo...... Without any proof. If you die its game over. Deal with it. No proof for heaven, hell, angels, dragins, demons, souls, spirits. This is not a playstation game, dude. Magic is not real. We dont have magic. Just science, art and reality. Thats it pretty much. Its called being a grown up in 2020.
@@ericday4505 You are arrogant saying you have revelation. hahahah !!! I just say; you have no proof. Which you don't. You think you have the holy truth and the real religion. Just because you believe........ So arrogant and the cause of nearly all problems in the world.
@@robertlight6905 That "she has no verification" is not disqualifying what she says. Verification is not a precondition for postulating a hypothesis. History shows that sometimes things that couldn't be verified for decades or that would have sounded ridiculous hundreds of years earlier, became established scientific fact later. We shouldn't immediately fence off a thought that doesn't match our preconceived notion of reality because it "has no verification". Besides that, there are physicists that think that information might be the foundation of all reality. This is also unverified but an idea that seemingly touches on (it's not the same, I see that) what Eleonore Stump says here when she equals our deepest self with our "configuration". Of course with the difference that she ascribes self-awareness to this configuration.
Another well known question that can easily be answered by simply reading bible text with an open mind. It boils down to semantics and how the word " SOUL " is defined. In Genesis creation account the English text reads *MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL.* The Hebrew word nephesh (anglicized form) simply means "living creature." So using these semantics humans ARE souls. Other scriptures (such as Job) tell us *THERE IS A SPIRIT IN MAN.* Using that as a source and realizing soul and spirit are interchangeable . . . clearly humans HAVE a spirit. Or call it a " soul." Obviously there are problems in translation not only in language but also from one culture or civilization to another. Happy speculating to all. Finally what difference does it make ???? If you commit a felony and are convicted . . . you still face consequences in this life.
The Aristotelian position to which she holds as a Thomist is that the soul is the form of the body. I think speaking about it as mere configuration is problematic, but I also understand that she’s giving a pithy introduction to a complex idea.
Around 5:50: “That configuration [the soul, what makes you you] can subsist without the matter it’s made of.” So, it’s made of matter… but it can also be made of nothing. I would like to hear (a) a resolution of this logical contradiction, AND (b) empirical proof that the assertion is true.
I love this series, I really love Eleanor, because she has an ability to make sense out of what might appear at first glance to be nonsensical things and concepts. i.e. Gods eternity being an eternal stretched out now. One thing still puzzles me about the book of Ecclesiastes, and that is in chapter 9: 5&6, it states the dead are conscious of nothing, outright contradicting consciousness continues. Robert you have a very timely, especially for our day, excellent thought provoking series. Thankyou so much! for this show.😊👍
Moby Dick is Moby Dick, not the copy on your bookshelf. Moby Dick is a configuration of letters or more abstractly ideas (for example there are translations of MD), not any specific matter.
It is quite clear that all this woman said is that we have no clue whether a soul exists or not. if you consider the "meta" nature of things there's no evidence for a soul outside the brain, she says in a roundabout way while also saying she can't explain the difference between dust and spirit... admitting brazenly that you can hold dust and not spirit. not the same thing
So, true. Everyone here seems to be working from the 'Intellectual jargon and philosophy' mode, as if no human has every EXPERIENCED anything beyond this physical reality. People, I feel, need to put forth more effort to break thru the heavy illusions that make this world seem like the one reality, when, in truth, it's actually the least real of any of the dimensions. That's actually the beauty of this world. The heavier the illusions, the greater the growth when we break through them. You, William, seemed to have done just that. You're a breath of fresh air. Good luck on your continued journey.
@@moranplano In truth, just by studying the chemicals of a human body you would not have a understanding of what it is like being a human being because that is a " EXPERIENCE " and since you can't put an experience under a microscope and examine it " EXPERIENCE " itself is beyond the physical and since the means to " know " experience is the " self " the self is also beyond the physical. So materialism will just always remain a belief ideology never a " truth " ideology.
Might as well give it a go: The "configuration" is the arrangement of cells (neurons), that provide (when accompanied by a healthy body) a substrate in which chemical and electrical processes occur. One of the functions - side-effects if you will - of these processes is consciousness. The "identity" of a person is a snapshot of the configuration at any moment in time. Identity persists as long as the configuration persists and the chemicals and electrical signals flow. Identity evolves as the configuration evolves; and the configuration evolves as a result of aging, learning, forgetting etc. The soul is simply fluffy, poetic language for identity; and the only sense in which identity persists once the body and brain are gone is in the memory of other brains. Right... time for a glass of wine.
You need to interview Dr. Bruce Greyson MD, who has studied NDE’s for fifty years. We know that energy and information never end, they just change forms or states, why is it so hard to believe in the Spirit or Soul, when matter ends.
Please interview Hamza Yusuf, Nassim Haramein, Ed Fredkin, William Chittick. Please it would be amazing to have them on the show. Thank you so much. I love this show💖💖
If my soul is conscious, how come anesthetics work ? I had an operation under general anesthetics and was completely unconscious. I woke up, it seemed to me, an instant after the doctor injected the anesthetic. Yet it was several hours later. I didn't dream. I had no sensations. It was like being dead.
You precisely weren’t dead. Sleeping/anesthesia is a particular physical state in which your body is still functioning and working as a whole (albeit in an altered state of consciousness). Death happens when the body stops working as a whole, something you’ve never experienced before.
@@tedgrant2 you’re misunderstanding or misusing the word “dead.” Your consciousness isn’t “dead” in a dreamless sleep. Death requires your body to stop working together as a unity so as to produce life (this includes brain death which is the cessation of all neurological functioning of the brain, which is nothing like what happens when you sleep or are under anesthesia.)
Does the earth have a soul? If we poison it with CO2, will its soul continue without humans inhabiting it? How will we know? if we're not here. Maybe that question is more salient. And maybe the question of souls is for other centuries, and the question about the atmosphere is for this one.
It is very noticeable that climate change (AGW) denial is strongly linked to many religious sects, particularly fundamentalist ones (AIG for instance). I reckon they probably imagine that their god won't let anything bad happen to the world or that it won't matter because judgement day is imminent.
'The metaphysical status that configuration can subsist without the matter it is made out of, the configuration of the water molecule can't' Geez you couldn't make this up, hang that is precisely what she is doing. It's a bit like saying that if you didn't have a brain you would still be able to function normally with a bit of therapy, but that is what she has said.
meow meow meow She made it to onto this video obviously because she is someone who knows more than the average person about a certain topic. Who are you?
read her books and academic papers about it! After all, it's very difficult to argument something and present evidence for that (that would satisfy all) in only 9 minutes, however she does that in her work where she can spend more than 400 pages proving her point.
I can get on board with the soul being the metaphysical property that arises from the arrangement of brain cells. I also can accept that she's taking on faith that it continues beyond death -- fine. But I think there's a fatal flaw in her reasoning that this soul that continues beyond death must be "me." Imagine if there were a scanner + 3D printer that could perfectly duplicate a person's complete state down to the last proton, neutron, and electron. My duplicate would have the exact same state as me immediately upon printing, but it wouldn't be me. It would be a very perfect copy that believes it's me. I wouldn't share its consciousness, and it wouldn't share mine, and it seems likely that we would begin to diverge in some ways after the moment of duplication. The same would apply to a hypothetical soul transferred from the body into some spiritual configuration upon death, at least according to her conception of the soul. It would be a copy, but it wouldn't be me. If there is a soul, I think this definition is still lacking something fundamental about it.
That copy wouldn’t be you. “You” are the total sum of all of your life experiences and your unique idiosyncrasies. Whether those two aspects exist within the soul or mind is not known. However, if they do exist in the soul than that copy would be nothing but an empty shell totally lacking, like a newborn child.
@@allloren7277 If I understand Stump's argument correctly, she is saying that the soul arises from the connections and information stored in the brain and maybe other parts of the nervous system. To use a computer analogy, the soul is the software and memory while the brain is the hardware. It's possible to transfer the software and memory to different hardware when the original hardware dies, so by this view the soul can live on after death or even be revived. In your comment, the "total sum of all your life experiences and your unique idiosyncrasies" are also encompassed in the "software and memory" components of the brain. I'm just saying this explanation is still missing something fundamental about the soul, as evidenced by the fact that we could just as well (theoretically) make multiple copies of the software and memory and end up with distinct but initially identical persons. I think we agree, but we're saying it differently.
She's an experienced and respected philosopher at St. Louis University. The use of technical terminology and foreign patterns of thought is not prima facie evidence that everyone else is tossing word salad. It's prima facie evidence that RUclips commenters are not nearly as smart or well-informed as they think they are. Any highly specialized discipline develops its own system of technical language for framing abstract concepts and making subtle but important distinctions. Theoretical physics is highly foreign to those without special training. It is filled to the brim with technical terms and vernacular terms used in unique and technical ways (think of the way that the word "color" is used in theoretical physics). Yet people generally trust that the fact that they were not able to make heads or tails of a presentation on quantum theory is due to the fact that they lack the requisite knowledge and training to understand it. It is the same for philosophy and philosophical theology. The only way in which you can say otherwise is if you actually have pursued the discipline in reasonable depth, which you haven't. Lacking that knowledge, you ought to exercise intellectual humility instead of trolling on RUclips.
Hylomorphism is just the view that soul is the form, structure or configuring principle that enables our body to think. This thought goes back to Aristotle. Thomistic Hylomorphism is named after Thomas Aquinas who agreed with Aristotle on that soul is the form but also thought that the form can survive the bodily death
RAYfighter consciousness is fundamental. If you listen to the reality of consciousness by peter russell, you'll get to understand the best explanation of it all in my opinion.
This comment only has force if you could demonstrate that atheism is true. For if it is false, then theology certainly is about something, and there would possibly be information given to us for theology to work on and to organize. Now, for those who not only think God exists but also think God's existence is demonstrable, they cannot take people like you seriously, and your comment is rather puerile.
The soul is not proven through reason or science, it’s “part of the data theology gives us”. Really? Data is just freely given? Or is it given like communion in response to accepting a particular doctrine of belief?
According to the Bible, your soul is in your blood. That's why God banned the eating of blood. (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, 1st Samuel 14:33)
I think she describes hylomorphic theory here and when she says 'configuration' she means a synonym of form or morphe. Belief in souls is as dumb as belief in mathematical reality or entities whivh do not reduce to material. That is to say, it isn't dumb. Getting rid of the soul is as hard as getting rid of metaphysics. The positivists failed at that, and the naturalists can only deny what is intuitive and apparant. It's a purely negative move. A Modern term perhaps more palatable is 'consciousness' which is baffling scientists from psychology to quantum physics. That's because the founders of the scientific method just decided to ignore it, as a methodological stipulation. It's a mistake to take that for a claim about the nature of reality.
Consciousness is Soul. Consciousness can not create awareness alone. It needs Mind of body to create awareness. At death body with mind dies. Consciousness or soul still exists without awareness.
In Eleonore's last video she combined the hearts and minds of both of her and interviewer into a Oneness of Love. I believe in a fractal universe. In this regard... We find the duality war of contention of heart and mind in each of us. Each harbours a different perspective or attitudes towards causes and issues we are forced by life to deal with. What the heart holds paramount is often dismissed as nonsense by the rational mind. But this becomes the question... What do we call the thing that aligns the mind and heart in perfect unity? It is no longer mind or heart. Could it be soul? Heart and mind as One? Twilight is neither day nor night and has its own name. But there is no name in common use for when both polarised energies of heart and mind combine into One. Maybe there should be. I would recommend soul for the position. When heart and mind are one in an idividual... maybe we could then really make a community with others of like heart/mindedness.
lol. the thumb/brain analogy is bunk. neural reconfiguration is still operating on matter. no evidence for a bodiless spirit outside of matter operating on matter.
If the spirit exists, then what point would be in remembering things? Would your soul remember pictures, languages, still know how do sports or play guitar? That's naive. We can remember all this stuff because the information is encoded in the brain like in a hard-drive on your PC. But after the death, the hard-drive corrupts. Fairytales, nothing more....
It is a sign of profound conceit when one's first reaction to encountering an intelligent person who disagrees fundamentally with one's worldview is "wow, I guess intelligent people believe in gobbledy goop!" Why are you so confident in your own interpretation of reality? Don't you think that it is a conceivable possibility that you just lack understanding of the tradition of thought in which things like the original video are made intelligible? You are not the smartest person to ever walk the Earth. Feeling like you've had an intellectual epiphany in which previously confusing things came to make sense is a very powerful experience. But so many atheists like yourself feel like this experience is untouchable. It's not. Sometimes the problem whose solution you were looking for was misconceived in its framing. Sometimes you have preexisting ways of thinking which logically lead to naturalism and which are shared by most Christians living in the West. It is often those preexisting ways of thinking and framing questions which need to be challenged. The feeling that the world began to make sense when one changed one's belief system is not a feeling unique to atheists. Abandoning one's childhood faith is not a prima facie sign of intellectual aptitude. That you recognize that highly intelligent people believe what you think is "gobbly goop" should lead you to self-doubt about the scope of your knowledge.
Her first argument of the thumb and eye possibly behaving the same if either are incapacitated seems a stretch. One is in the domain of the PNS, and the other the CNS. These differing nervous systems also heal differently if at all in the case of the CNS when damaged, correctly anyways. She also is following linea of logic with incredulous conclusions. Her other point of the view of the soul as described by middle ages clergymen...(never women) is pitiful to watch as she takes the easy way out by noting that the correct answer regarding the differing opinions of what is a soul, is a combination of both. Her whole argument is flawed.
absolutely and here are the proofs 1-science can't explain the very first sentence of how subjective consciousness arise from objective matter or as called the hard problem of consciousness, we understand the physical world so well, if consciousness was purely materialistic, it would be easy to explain it with laws of physics but that's not the case 2- the return of full lucid consciousness in patients with late stages of dementia just hours before death, the brain is heavily damaged but full consciousness return, nothing can explain that except metaphysics 3-near death experiences, it happen to humanity throughout the ages and almost everyone of those who experienced it experienced HEIGHTENED CONSCIOUSNESS/HYPER CONSCIOUSNESS which is much greater and grander than normal consciousness that's limited by the physical brain atheism is the denial of the obvious, an intellectual suicide and most importantly atheism is a lose-lose situation, how could any sane mind look at everything around them and not to automatically think of higher intelligence behind it, science even make it more clear, just look at the unbelievable extreme fine tuning of the physical constant of the universe, it's self explanatory and even the multiverse theory which they use to damage control the fact of fine tuning, we will question where do these universes came from?....there must be a higher intelligence in both cases, u can't say it's random because if u slap someone in the face and told him it was a random event, everyone will laugh at you now these atheists wanna pretend everything is random? mindboggling atheism is a manifestation of arrogance, pride and blackhole like ego and hatred for the almighty
straight up denial and anger, typical atheism....... if u know anything about science u would KNOW that consciousness is beyond the limited objective linear robotic science we have plus science itself points to higher intelligence in every way, shape and form secondly the god of the gaps argument is completely ludicrous beyond belief and u know it, the more we know, the more we learn the more god's image become apparent, just see Anthony flew, perhaps the most notorious atheist of all time, it was the DNA "gap" when discovered that made him a strong believer in the almighty :).....just ask urself, if u see a castle built in the middle of nowhere, does understanding the mechanisms behind it negate a mind that put it together?? LOL u get the idea thirdly, nope NDEs are a major phenomena that's been happening to since the dawn of mankind and ur denial is pathatic atheism is the denial of the obvious, an intellectual suicide and most importantly atheism is a lose-lose situation, u either live a sad empty meaningless life (proven by science atheism and depression and suicide) or risk going to hell
LOL, this is Matt dillahunty, the gigantic blind gaytheist xD xD, trust me, i've watched hrs upon hrs upon hrs of popular atheists like dawkins, harris, hitchens, krauss, penn, dennet etc... and believe me i haven't heard a single point that made any sense whatsoever, it's all mental gymnastics, usage of falsehood to deny the truth, fallacies, arrogance, blindness and total denial of the glaring obvious (Your Creator)....atheism is a total intellectual bankruptcy on all fronts and you know it :)
1-LOL.... the more u look at the universe the more gods image become apparent, just look at the unbelievable fine tuning or the DNA, it's too obvious and atheists can't deal with it "Surely no human designer ever would design laughable flaws such as 5 metres detour of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve"....LMFAOOO, just look at yourself you just USED YOUR OWN MIND to point out these faults which is itself is a part of the universe ....and that prove the universe is very well done, plus, mind is much more complex than anything else in the universe, that argument is laughable, atheists just debunk themselves every time they open their mouths and speaking of evil, evil/adversity points to higher intelligence behind it but ur biased against the negatives, even if the there was a universe which is completely evil, full of pain and suffering in every corner, that still points to a mind behind it, if u played a videogame and you put it on the hardest difficulty, does that negate that there's an intelligence behind it?? LOLZ about homosexuality, of course you won't discuss it because you know you can't, u can't argue against facts, 1+1 =2 but your brain can't accept it, u just keep repeating the same "medieval" card, sorry dude these are facts whether we're in the medieval time, 2018, 3018.....it's all the same plus the overwhelming majority of people on this earth see it completely disgusting and about it being safe, you're being delusional right now, 80% of new aids patients are gay, plus they may brainwash children....ur blind mind can't see the obvious truth and u have the audacity to claim ur "scientific" and "logical".......gaytheism is a mental illness
She is guessing and she really does not know! Mankind wants to be immortal (so badly) and a life after death....I truly wonder, why do we deserve it? I have a problem with religion, in general, which tries to provide answers, yet, to those who adhere to religion, , it is all a matter of faith! Finally, her theory or belief is based on the validity (or reality) of a Biblical God, who has been written about by human beings in an ancient book!
How does a fish know how to swim, or a bird how to fly, or a baby how to cry? It's inherent "soul" of it's DNA makeup. But once that DNA is no more, that specific soul is no more. If anybody "out there" in internet land has any actual evidence of any kind of actual "soul" beyond that, please feel free to post it here for all the world to see.
her comparison is totally wrong... she says that if we remove your eye than the brain won't be able to show the visuals (something thats eyes are suppose to signal to the brain, so that brain can visualise it )and than in that thumb example she says that if we remove a PART from your brain that's responsible for the movement of the thumb and with the help of certain therapies it will work fine again.. yea because you didn't remove the thumb.. but in the case of the eye u literally removed the very eye.. try removing the whole thumb.... would that thumb work back..? also let me enlighten her a bit... our brain is not plastic... the ability for our brains to change, something that we have discovered only in past few decades is Neuroplasticity.... meaning Neuroplasticity is the fundamental principle in physical rehabilitation, such as physiotherapy for patients following stroke, that allows patients to regain motor function and recover. Through neuroplasticity, the more a particular movement is performed, the stronger the brain pathways for that movement become and the easier it gets to perform that movement in the future.... so if ur kid was born lefty u can make him righty and also according to Neuroplasticity u can also make believe ur mind that there isn't any soul. and also what non sense is she saying that we are dust particles and yet we have metaphysical aspects in us.... Accounting for the existence of mind in a world largely composed of matter is a metaphysical problem which is so large and important as to have become a specialized subject of study in its own right, philosophy of mind... and Philosophy is an abstract... how can one take her seriously ?
We don't understand the "technology" of the brain in the same way that Leonardo da Vinci would not understand the working of a smart phone. End of discussion.
Since evolution is a fact, where in our lineage did this "soul" originate? Was abiogenesis also soul-genesis? Did the first self-replicating cells have a soul? Does the soul enter the fertilized cell at conception? If so, what about chimeras? Where did the extra soul go? I'm betting that the answer is: there is no such thing as a soul.
modern human mind/brain developed/evolved over 100's of thousand of years. at what point did it have a soul? when brain goes, so goes ur identity. there is no spirit, soul, nor god.
Mastermindyoung14: There's lot of possibilities. Just a few are that It could be in all matter to a degree (as she suggests at the end, some form of panpsychism as applied to souls) or possibly with life, or with theory of mind, or with moral awareness, or of course not at all.
curevoy: I'm betting on not at all. There isn't much evidence to support the claim that "souls" exist. People WANT it to be true, just like people WANTED to believe that the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth (it intuitively appears that way). Science doesn't care what you think may be true, and often shows you that what you want to believe is not the truth.
She has Degrees in Theology and Philosophy,so knows her stuff? Causality ends at the big bang,so we don't know what created what,if at all! If Theists want to put God there,fair enough but it explains nothing but a psychological or emotional need!!
5:00 You don't reason your way to it. Exactly, because it's not reasonable. Descarte didn't believe in some ectoplasmic substance, he believed in the soul, or spirit or whatever you want to call that theoretical unknowable stuff. You can believe is a soul or a spirit if you want but don't think you got to that belief by way of reason or evidence, because you didn't. You got there because that's what you want to believe . Wishful thinking isn't a good basis for belief. Configuration doesn't stand on its own, without anything to configure there is no configuration.
Agency is reasonable. You can reason your way to that. Sure you start by intuitively knowing that you have free will, then reasoning towards the metaphysical probability.
@@kjustkses Intuitively you might know any number of false beliefs from the sun goes around the earth to the heart is the seat of emotions. "Free will" is an ambiguous term, it's unclear what knowing that you have it even means. Just try answering the question what is the will free from? Free from outside influences? That obviously not the case. From from your thoughts and biases? Nobody is free from those. So free from what?
@@kjustkses I take a different approach, I don't believe things by default. I require evidence to believe. That seems like the best way to avoid fraud and bad ideas.
She is a very smart woman, and I can appreciate how she describes what exists. Talking about the afterlife and speculating about resurrection, though, is absurd. Ego ends at death. Resurrection is something that happens throughout life. To view it as a biological phenomenon turns it into fantasy.
It annoys me when Theists mock Materialism when they haven't a clue what its range is: Matter can have mindful properties without being different or spiritual! The Fallacies that Theists live by are rather sad!!
I was going to say the same thing. In another Closer to Truth comment section another materialist said something along the lines of "complex systems have been proven to possess mind if sophisticated enough." Really? Are we just making things up now?
@@larrybeckham6652 The problem is there’s no way to know if they do or not. At one point they will be sufficient and competent in enough operations to fake completely what consciousness appears like to someone on the outside. All their reactions and responses to things will make it appear as though they are conscious but will never be able to know if they literally have the same subjective experience and awareness that we do.
An equal number of people moving in the opposite direction are the fools who invent nonsense to pretend they are the clever ones. Providing the evidence tends to put a stop to this nonsense, but what would you expect from religious hypocrites, exactly. When in doubt, Magic is the answer
She seems to be conflating emergent properties with some kind of theological woo. In this instance emergent properties, ie the fact that arrange the same matter in different ways leads to different results is an observed fact however the theological woo she is attempting to add to that remains theological woo. THe configuration of the matter can be fully described by physics, there is no reason to bring any metaphysics into the operation at all.
I have many synchronicity anagrams like these made from all the names I had. Daniel Ray Waters Hazelton Ortiz DrWho a zany letters realization Antenatal lie's a zero ritzy DrWho
My dog died recently but sometimes I think I can hear him in the house.
I hope that when I go to Heaven, he will run to greet me at the pearly gates.
I can't wait to see his little face again.
I miss him so much.
The soul is the spiritual, immaterial, immortal part of a person
I always come back to the argument that if the 'soul' is eternal then where was 'I' before I was born? That alone makes a belief in a continuity of consciousness very difficult.
Not really. I can imagine that once you have obtained consciousness at birth or conception, whichever the case may be, then at that point it can’t be lost. Kinda like a cosmic imprint we make once here with our consciousness. So though you didn’t exist before, your imprint will cause you to always exist with the creator of the material and spiritual realms. Only he can erase it. And if we’re tied to Christ, we don’t have to worry about being erased. We live on in consciousness by means of him.
Man, Eleonore Stump is a genius. Her books were heavily recommended to me as resources in my college papers.
I had my first Out of Body experience when I was 18. I didn't know what it was (I thought it a vivid dream). I continued to have them off and on for all my college years. It wasn't until I found ECKANKAR (the ancient science of Soul Travel, at the time) that I learned that I WAS Soul, and that I was 'inhabiting' a body. I didn't need a body to have Consciousness. Rather, the body needed me (Soul) to have life, itself. I have since recalled many past lives and know that I can never really die. We were created by GOD and sent into this world to grow strong and loving. BLESSINGS...
Do you have a second party witness to your alleged event?
after a general anaesthetic for nasal surgery, I realised I had no experience of the time when I was under the drugs that "put me to sleep". Where was my soul? I thought the experience was blissful because for the first time since my previous surgery, my thoughts were turned off. No memories of the experience, just bliss. I love life but am not scared of death.
Well done for this lady. How articulate and intelligent she is. God bless her.
I think she didn't invent the concept, but this woman is absolutely briliant. This is called "emergent dualism". In essence anthropologic monism says "humans are a unity", dualism says "a human is body and a soul" (and the soul can live separately...). What Eleonore presents here, this "emergent dualism", says "we're really one thing, not two, but because of how and who we are, there also is a soul", this is literally a tentative to reconcile the two views.
That’s the most beautiful and understandable description of the soul I’ve ever heard.
Now all we need is for her to back up her story with proof its actually true.
Pity is BS. Configuration of matter is nothing without matter
@@samuele.marcora false. Eleonore STump just explain it, that even without the matter, the mind works is such a away as if you had that part of the body which is amputated. That power remains, that is why aquinas said that soul exists.
She has no evidence for her huge claims.
Absolutely we have souls, are souls are in some way tied to our brains. But our spirit or souls lives on after our bodies expire. Look into NDE.s
A soul thats just a fairytale; ancient magical thinking........ no proof at all.
@@MrStaano It is amazing how Christians, have so much revelation, and yet we are called to be humble, be a light a shinning example. Yet we all fall short, and yes we have souls, I like to call it Spirit, it is that part of you that ultimately decides , or is your volition. And this is tied to your body, more specifically your brain.
@@ericday4505 All religions have revelations........ made up by humans until proven otherwise....... But your religion has the right one ?? So arrogant. You just talk some ancient magical mumbo jumbo...... Without any proof. If you die its game over. Deal with it. No proof for heaven, hell, angels, dragins, demons, souls, spirits. This is not a playstation game, dude. Magic is not real. We dont have magic. Just science, art and reality. Thats it pretty much. Its called being a grown up in 2020.
@@MrStaano And who is arrogant, just as I have faith in what I believe, you are certain that I am wrong. So who is exactly arrogant my friend?
@@ericday4505 You are arrogant saying you have revelation. hahahah !!! I just say; you have no proof. Which you don't. You think you have the holy truth and the real religion. Just because you believe........ So arrogant and the cause of nearly all problems in the world.
I'll say it again, ... she's a legend.
RAYfighter you shall be too one day
@RAYfighter Judge Judy IS a legend
She has no verification.
RAYfighter wrong or right you’re gonna find out.... brother
@@robertlight6905 That "she has no verification" is not disqualifying what she says. Verification is not a precondition for postulating a hypothesis. History shows that sometimes things that couldn't be verified for decades or that would have sounded ridiculous hundreds of years earlier, became established scientific fact later. We shouldn't immediately fence off a thought that doesn't match our preconceived notion of reality because it "has no verification". Besides that, there are physicists that think that information might be the foundation of all reality. This is also unverified but an idea that seemingly touches on (it's not the same, I see that) what Eleonore Stump says here when she equals our deepest self with our "configuration". Of course with the difference that she ascribes self-awareness to this configuration.
Another well known question that can easily be answered by simply reading bible text with an open mind. It boils down to semantics and how the word " SOUL " is defined. In Genesis creation account the English text reads *MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL.* The Hebrew word nephesh (anglicized form) simply means "living creature." So using these semantics humans ARE souls. Other scriptures (such as Job) tell us *THERE IS A SPIRIT IN MAN.* Using that as a source and realizing soul and spirit are interchangeable . . . clearly humans HAVE a spirit. Or call it a " soul." Obviously there are problems in translation not only in language but also from one culture or civilization to another. Happy speculating to all. Finally what difference does it make ???? If you commit a felony and are convicted . . . you still face consequences in this life.
Her argument better illustrates the difference between form and substance than it does a soul.
She is in willful ignorance of her own mortality.
The Aristotelian position to which she holds as a Thomist is that the soul is the form of the body. I think speaking about it as mere configuration is problematic, but I also understand that she’s giving a pithy introduction to a complex idea.
I liked this talk much more than the others with her. I can buy into her view here even if I have no idea whether it's true or not
I agree on our mind being an emergent property of complex configuration of matter. But without matter, there cannot be a configuration of it
Around 5:50: “That configuration [the soul, what makes you you] can subsist without the matter it’s made of.” So, it’s made of matter… but it can also be made of nothing. I would like to hear (a) a resolution of this logical contradiction, AND (b) empirical proof that the assertion is true.
I love this series, I really love Eleanor, because she has an ability to make sense out of what might appear at first glance to be nonsensical things and concepts. i.e. Gods eternity being an eternal stretched out now. One thing still puzzles me about the book of Ecclesiastes, and that is in chapter 9: 5&6, it states the dead are conscious of nothing, outright contradicting consciousness continues. Robert you have a very timely, especially for our day, excellent thought provoking series. Thankyou so much! for this show.😊👍
She is my fave guest I made a playlist of all her clips
Very simple. It’s called experience. We are more than just biological machines
configuration without matter? What is being configured what is being ordered?
I thought the same thing. What is form without substance? Her whole point is argument from analogy.
software that runs on the wet meat
Uhh examples: mathematical laws, logical laws, laws of physics, information. That take up 0 physical space, and are ordered quite well.
Moby Dick is Moby Dick, not the copy on your bookshelf. Moby Dick is a configuration of letters or more abstractly ideas (for example there are translations of MD), not any specific matter.
True Believer Got an example of information without matter?
It is quite clear that all this woman said is that we have no clue whether a soul exists or not. if you consider the "meta" nature of things there's no evidence for a soul outside the brain, she says in a roundabout way while also saying she can't explain the difference between dust and spirit... admitting brazenly that you can hold dust and not spirit. not the same thing
It scares me how smart people are😢
The self is the soul.
So, true. Everyone here seems to be working from the 'Intellectual jargon and philosophy' mode, as if no human has every EXPERIENCED anything beyond this physical reality. People, I feel, need to put forth more effort to break thru the heavy illusions that make this world seem like the one reality, when, in truth, it's actually the least real of any of the dimensions. That's actually the beauty of this world. The heavier the illusions, the greater the growth when we break through them.
You, William, seemed to have done just that. You're a breath of fresh air. Good luck on your continued journey.
@@moranplano In truth, just by studying the chemicals of a human body you would not have a understanding of what it is like being a human being because that is a " EXPERIENCE " and since you can't put an experience under a microscope and examine it " EXPERIENCE " itself is beyond the physical and since the means to " know " experience is the " self " the self is also beyond the physical. So materialism will just always remain a belief ideology never a " truth " ideology.
I think Aristotle has it right in “On the Soul” and his other works.
Might as well give it a go:
The "configuration" is the arrangement of cells (neurons), that provide (when accompanied by a healthy body) a substrate in which chemical and electrical processes occur. One of the functions - side-effects if you will - of these processes is consciousness. The "identity" of a person is a snapshot of the configuration at any moment in time. Identity persists as long as the configuration persists and the chemicals and electrical signals flow. Identity evolves as the configuration evolves; and the configuration evolves as a result of aging, learning, forgetting etc.
The soul is simply fluffy, poetic language for identity; and the only sense in which identity persists once the body and brain are gone is in the memory of other brains.
Right... time for a glass of wine.
"...I don't have the statistics, but an equal or greater number are moving in the opposite direction..."
Hmmm....
She probably means something like: "I don't have the exact numbers, but [...]"
You need to interview Dr. Bruce Greyson MD, who has studied NDE’s for fifty years. We know that energy and information never end, they just change forms or states, why is it so hard to believe in the Spirit or Soul, when matter ends.
Because our immature fear to death creates the fantasy of immortality.
Grey hair arround her ears means she is a good listener.
Or old and doesn't dye her hair
😂
Please interview Hamza Yusuf, Nassim Haramein, Ed Fredkin, William Chittick. Please it would be amazing to have them on the show. Thank you so much. I love this show💖💖
If my soul is conscious, how come anesthetics work ?
I had an operation under general anesthetics and was completely unconscious.
I woke up, it seemed to me, an instant after the doctor injected the anesthetic.
Yet it was several hours later. I didn't dream. I had no sensations. It was like being dead.
You precisely weren’t dead. Sleeping/anesthesia is a particular physical state in which your body is still functioning and working as a whole (albeit in an altered state of consciousness). Death happens when the body stops working as a whole, something you’ve never experienced before.
@@wierdpocket
I know my body was still alive.
But as far as awareness goes. I was dead.
@@tedgrant2 you’re misunderstanding or misusing the word “dead.” Your consciousness isn’t “dead” in a dreamless sleep. Death requires your body to stop working together as a unity so as to produce life (this includes brain death which is the cessation of all neurological functioning of the brain, which is nothing like what happens when you sleep or are under anesthesia.)
@@wierdpocket
After a night out with my mates, I am dead to the world.
Alcohol has a strange effect on my soul.
Maybe it's chemistry.
Soul is the breathe you breath
Matter is not made out of matter but excitations in fields.
Does the earth have a soul? If we poison it with CO2, will its soul continue without humans inhabiting it? How will we know? if we're not here. Maybe that question is more salient.
And maybe the question of souls is for other centuries, and the question about the atmosphere is for this one.
It is very noticeable that climate change (AGW) denial is strongly linked to many religious sects, particularly fundamentalist ones (AIG for instance). I reckon they probably imagine that their god won't let anything bad happen to the world or that it won't matter because judgement day is imminent.
'The metaphysical status that configuration can subsist without the matter it is made out of, the configuration of the water molecule can't' Geez you couldn't make this up, hang that is precisely what she is doing. It's a bit like saying that if you didn't have a brain you would still be able to function normally with a bit of therapy, but that is what she has said.
Judge Judy would be more convincing if she provided more evidence.
meow meow meow
She made it to onto this video obviously because she is someone who knows more than the average person about a certain topic. Who are you?
@@kjustkses Dunno, but someone who hasn't yet used an argument from authority fallacy.
Roq Steady
Thick as a rhino hide.
@@kjustkses He/she is also someone who hasn't used an ad hominem fallacy.
read her books and academic papers about it! After all, it's very difficult to argument something and present evidence for that (that would satisfy all) in only 9 minutes, however she does that in her work where she can spend more than 400 pages proving her point.
You couldn't deny the existence of the soul without being a soul.
That's circular logic if I've ever seen it.
I can get on board with the soul being the metaphysical property that arises from the arrangement of brain cells. I also can accept that she's taking on faith that it continues beyond death -- fine. But I think there's a fatal flaw in her reasoning that this soul that continues beyond death must be "me." Imagine if there were a scanner + 3D printer that could perfectly duplicate a person's complete state down to the last proton, neutron, and electron. My duplicate would have the exact same state as me immediately upon printing, but it wouldn't be me. It would be a very perfect copy that believes it's me. I wouldn't share its consciousness, and it wouldn't share mine, and it seems likely that we would begin to diverge in some ways after the moment of duplication. The same would apply to a hypothetical soul transferred from the body into some spiritual configuration upon death, at least according to her conception of the soul. It would be a copy, but it wouldn't be me. If there is a soul, I think this definition is still lacking something fundamental about it.
That copy wouldn’t be you. “You” are the total sum of all of your life experiences and your unique idiosyncrasies. Whether those two aspects exist within the soul or mind is not known. However, if they do exist in the soul than that copy would be nothing but an empty shell totally lacking, like a newborn child.
@@allloren7277 If I understand Stump's argument correctly, she is saying that the soul arises from the connections and information stored in the brain and maybe other parts of the nervous system. To use a computer analogy, the soul is the software and memory while the brain is the hardware. It's possible to transfer the software and memory to different hardware when the original hardware dies, so by this view the soul can live on after death or even be revived. In your comment, the "total sum of all your life experiences and your unique idiosyncrasies" are also encompassed in the "software and memory" components of the brain. I'm just saying this explanation is still missing something fundamental about the soul, as evidenced by the fact that we could just as well (theoretically) make multiple copies of the software and memory and end up with distinct but initially identical persons. I think we agree, but we're saying it differently.
You don't have a soul; you are a soul.
you can only deny what you can define.
Why is it so difficult to grasp that our soul is what makes 1+1 more than 2?
Hippy Chick: "You can't reason your way to this position"
Professional scientist: "K"
You know, if I listened to this woman long enough I’d become as insane as she is
The only reason you think she is insane is you are insane think about it!
She's an experienced and respected philosopher at St. Louis University. The use of technical terminology and foreign patterns of thought is not prima facie evidence that everyone else is tossing word salad. It's prima facie evidence that RUclips commenters are not nearly as smart or well-informed as they think they are. Any highly specialized discipline develops its own system of technical language for framing abstract concepts and making subtle but important distinctions. Theoretical physics is highly foreign to those without special training. It is filled to the brim with technical terms and vernacular terms used in unique and technical ways (think of the way that the word "color" is used in theoretical physics). Yet people generally trust that the fact that they were not able to make heads or tails of a presentation on quantum theory is due to the fact that they lack the requisite knowledge and training to understand it. It is the same for philosophy and philosophical theology.
The only way in which you can say otherwise is if you actually have pursued the discipline in reasonable depth, which you haven't. Lacking that knowledge, you ought to exercise intellectual humility instead of trolling on RUclips.
@@Charles-Pettibone Bla-blá.
I think we need a new perspective on the subject. Some "souls" have biological sensory suits, so they can navigate this dimension.
The brain can function without the body but not the vise versa! This means indeed that the soul (when such exists) is located in the brain.
And your evidence?
Like an architectural mental image of a building. Blueprint!
We are living souls, (biblical translation is creature), when we die, we are dead souls. Our spirit, is God's knowledge of us.
That's Thomistic Hylomorphism I guess. Is Eleonore Catholic?
dara ghaznavi What is that?
Hylomorphism is just the view that soul is the form, structure or configuring principle that enables our body to think. This thought goes back to Aristotle. Thomistic Hylomorphism is named after Thomas Aquinas who agreed with Aristotle on that soul is the form but also thought that the form can survive the bodily death
Elenore is a Roman Catholic and a Thomist.
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
She's flawless 🕊
Materialism is daft, and couldn't be more wrong.
RAYfighter consciousness is fundamental. If you listen to the reality of consciousness by peter russell, you'll get to understand the best explanation of it all in my opinion.
@@estring123 Very religious thing to say👍Calm down, you are not made out of matter. You come from santa claus magic stuff!
How do you know that? "You don't. It's just part of the data theology gives us." How can we take people like her seriously?
Yeah, stick to your expensive TV preachers if you don't understand eh...
you don't lol
You need to be less old. Try being 5 yo you might take her serioisly :)
This comment only has force if you could demonstrate that atheism is true. For if it is false, then theology certainly is about something, and there would possibly be information given to us for theology to work on and to organize. Now, for those who not only think God exists but also think God's existence is demonstrable, they cannot take people like you seriously, and your comment is rather puerile.
Data?
Like the utterings of illiterate Bronze Age goat herders?
The soul is not proven through reason or science, it’s “part of the data theology gives us”. Really? Data is just freely given? Or is it given like communion in response to accepting a particular doctrine of belief?
Only when you have aboslute knowledge you can conclude absolutely.
According to the Bible, your soul is in your blood.
That's why God banned the eating of blood.
(Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, 1st Samuel 14:33)
Ask this question to Swami Sarvapriananda
I think she describes hylomorphic theory here and when she says 'configuration' she means a synonym of form or morphe. Belief in souls is as dumb as belief in mathematical reality or entities whivh do not reduce to material. That is to say, it isn't dumb. Getting rid of the soul is as hard as getting rid of metaphysics. The positivists failed at that, and the naturalists can only deny what is intuitive and apparant. It's a purely negative move. A Modern term perhaps more palatable is 'consciousness' which is baffling scientists from psychology to quantum physics. That's because the founders of the scientific method just decided to ignore it, as a methodological stipulation. It's a mistake to take that for a claim about the nature of reality.
Consciousness is Soul. Consciousness can not create awareness alone. It needs Mind of body to create awareness. At death body with mind dies. Consciousness or soul still exists without awareness.
The word "soul" means conscience. Nothing more.
In Eleonore's last video she combined the hearts and minds of both of her and interviewer into a Oneness of Love. I believe in a fractal universe. In this regard... We find the duality war of contention of heart and mind in each of us. Each harbours a different perspective or attitudes towards causes and issues we are forced by life to deal with. What the heart holds paramount is often dismissed as nonsense by the rational mind. But this becomes the question... What do we call the thing that aligns the mind and heart in perfect unity? It is no longer mind or heart. Could it be soul? Heart and mind as One? Twilight is neither day nor night and has its own name. But there is no name in common use for when both polarised energies of heart and mind combine into One. Maybe there should be. I would recommend soul for the position. When heart and mind are one in an idividual... maybe we could then really make a community with others of like heart/mindedness.
lol. the thumb/brain analogy is bunk. neural reconfiguration is still operating on matter. no evidence for a bodiless spirit outside of matter operating on matter.
it all sounds nice but where is the evidence?
Religion has no answer for that. But neither does science. Not yet at least.
If the spirit exists, then what point would be in remembering things? Would your soul remember pictures, languages, still know how do sports or play guitar? That's naive. We can remember all this stuff because the information is encoded in the brain like in a hard-drive on your PC. But after the death, the hard-drive corrupts. Fairytales, nothing more....
just random So wrong.
so from this I see even very intelligent people and highly intelligent people believe in gobbly goop.
More intelligents just generates more obfuscated arguments for the gobbledy goop.
It is a sign of profound conceit when one's first reaction to encountering an intelligent person who disagrees fundamentally with one's worldview is "wow, I guess intelligent people believe in gobbledy goop!" Why are you so confident in your own interpretation of reality? Don't you think that it is a conceivable possibility that you just lack understanding of the tradition of thought in which things like the original video are made intelligible? You are not the smartest person to ever walk the Earth.
Feeling like you've had an intellectual epiphany in which previously confusing things came to make sense is a very powerful experience. But so many atheists like yourself feel like this experience is untouchable. It's not. Sometimes the problem whose solution you were looking for was misconceived in its framing. Sometimes you have preexisting ways of thinking which logically lead to naturalism and which are shared by most Christians living in the West. It is often those preexisting ways of thinking and framing questions which need to be challenged.
The feeling that the world began to make sense when one changed one's belief system is not a feeling unique to atheists. Abandoning one's childhood faith is not a prima facie sign of intellectual aptitude. That you recognize that highly intelligent people believe what you think is "gobbly goop" should lead you to self-doubt about the scope of your knowledge.
What I'd like to see discussed is when all of mankind have eventually died, what is God's plan for tge souls and would God create another universe?
Interesting explanation but isn't this just a form of property dualism?
Her first argument of the thumb and eye possibly behaving the same if either are incapacitated seems a stretch. One is in the domain of the PNS, and the other the CNS. These differing nervous systems also heal differently if at all in the case of the CNS when damaged, correctly anyways. She also is following linea of logic with incredulous conclusions. Her other point of the view of the soul as described by middle ages clergymen...(never women) is pitiful to watch as she takes the easy way out by noting that the correct answer regarding the differing opinions of what is a soul, is a combination of both. Her whole argument is flawed.
absolutely and here are the proofs
1-science can't explain the very first sentence of how subjective consciousness arise from objective matter or as called the hard problem of consciousness, we understand the physical world so well, if consciousness was purely materialistic, it would be easy to explain it with laws of physics but that's not the case
2- the return of full lucid consciousness in patients with late stages of dementia just hours before death, the brain is heavily damaged but full consciousness return, nothing can explain that except metaphysics
3-near death experiences, it happen to humanity throughout the ages and almost everyone of those who experienced it experienced HEIGHTENED CONSCIOUSNESS/HYPER CONSCIOUSNESS which is much greater and grander than normal consciousness that's limited by the physical brain
atheism is the denial of the obvious, an intellectual suicide and most importantly atheism is a lose-lose situation,
how could any sane mind look at everything around them and not to automatically think of higher intelligence behind it, science even make it more clear, just look at the unbelievable extreme fine tuning of the physical constant of the universe, it's self explanatory and even the multiverse theory which they use to damage control the fact of fine tuning, we will question where do these universes came from?....there must be a higher intelligence in both cases, u can't say it's random because if u slap someone in the face and told him it was a random event, everyone will laugh at you now these atheists wanna pretend everything is random? mindboggling
atheism is a manifestation of arrogance, pride and blackhole like ego and hatred for the almighty
straight up denial and anger, typical atheism.......
if u know anything about science u would KNOW that consciousness is beyond the limited objective linear robotic science we have plus science itself points to higher intelligence in every way, shape and form
secondly the god of the gaps argument is completely ludicrous beyond belief and u know it, the more we know, the more we learn the more god's image become apparent, just see Anthony flew, perhaps the most notorious atheist of all time, it was the DNA "gap" when discovered that made him a strong believer in the almighty :).....just ask urself, if u see a castle built in the middle of nowhere, does understanding the mechanisms behind it negate a mind that put it together?? LOL u get the idea
thirdly, nope NDEs are a major phenomena that's been happening to since the dawn of mankind and ur denial is pathatic
atheism is the denial of the obvious, an intellectual suicide and most importantly atheism is a lose-lose situation, u either live a sad empty meaningless life (proven by science atheism and depression and suicide) or risk going to hell
like i expected, zero rebuttal, thank you for admitting defeat
LOL, this is Matt dillahunty, the gigantic blind gaytheist xD xD, trust me, i've watched hrs upon hrs upon hrs of popular atheists like dawkins, harris, hitchens, krauss, penn, dennet etc... and believe me i haven't heard a single point that made any sense whatsoever, it's all mental gymnastics, usage of falsehood to deny the truth, fallacies, arrogance, blindness and total denial of the glaring obvious (Your Creator)....atheism is a total intellectual bankruptcy on all fronts and you know it :)
1-LOL.... the more u look at the universe the more gods image become apparent, just look at the unbelievable fine tuning or the DNA, it's too obvious and atheists can't deal with it
"Surely no human designer ever would design laughable flaws such as 5 metres detour of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve"....LMFAOOO, just look at yourself you just USED YOUR OWN MIND to point out these faults which is itself is a part of the universe ....and that prove the universe is very well done, plus, mind is much more complex than anything else in the universe, that argument is laughable, atheists just debunk themselves every time they open their mouths
and speaking of evil, evil/adversity points to higher intelligence behind it but ur biased against the negatives, even if the there was a universe which is completely evil, full of pain and suffering in every corner, that still points to a mind behind it, if u played a videogame and you put it on the hardest difficulty, does that negate that there's an intelligence behind it?? LOLZ
about homosexuality, of course you won't discuss it because you know you can't, u can't argue against facts, 1+1 =2 but your brain can't accept it, u just keep repeating the same "medieval" card, sorry dude these are facts whether we're in the medieval time, 2018, 3018.....it's all the same plus the overwhelming majority of people on this earth see it completely disgusting
and about it being safe, you're being delusional right now, 80% of new aids patients are gay, plus they may brainwash children....ur blind mind can't see the obvious truth and u have the audacity to claim ur "scientific" and "logical".......gaytheism is a mental illness
RAYfighter lololol another zero rebuttle.... sad
She is guessing and she really does not know! Mankind wants to be immortal (so badly) and a life after death....I truly wonder, why do we deserve it? I have a problem with religion, in general, which tries to provide answers, yet, to those who adhere to religion, , it is all a matter of faith! Finally, her theory or belief is based on the validity (or reality) of a Biblical God, who has been written about by human beings in an ancient book!
How does a fish know how to swim, or a bird how to fly, or a baby how to cry?
It's inherent "soul" of it's DNA makeup. But once that DNA is no more, that specific soul is no more. If anybody "out there" in internet land has any actual evidence of any kind of actual "soul" beyond that, please feel free to post it here for all the world to see.
Do you have any evidence for your claim?
Mind don't belong to body,body belongs to mind!
Like the Cheshire Cat she has a grin without a cat.
So if i give her 100 dolars and then just take the paper back she still has 100 dolars. :)
Contrived configuration theory = Faith, not science.
Sheeeeeeet makes sense
we do NOT know. end of discussion! disperse!
Marcin Ratajczyk Not true. Some people DO know.
@@glennralph7007 lol
Marcin Ratajczyk It’s true whether you choose to believe it or not.
@@glennralph7007 Oh yeah? Show me the evidence for the existence of souls then. Let me guess! you don't have it! Bye!
Marcin Ratajczyk You’re just one of the many who haven’t had a real experience to show you that proof.
I can see the dust...
Well i'm not dust, so I must have a soul! /s
her comparison is totally wrong... she says that if we remove your eye than the brain won't be able to show the visuals (something thats eyes are suppose to signal to the brain, so that brain can visualise it )and than in that thumb example she says that if we remove a PART from your brain that's responsible for the movement of the thumb and with the help of certain therapies it will work fine again.. yea because you didn't remove the thumb.. but in the case of the eye u literally removed the very eye.. try removing the whole thumb.... would that thumb work back..? also let me enlighten her a bit... our brain is not plastic... the ability for our brains to change, something that we have discovered only in past few decades is Neuroplasticity.... meaning Neuroplasticity is the fundamental principle in physical rehabilitation, such as physiotherapy for patients following stroke, that allows patients to regain motor function and recover. Through neuroplasticity, the more a particular movement is performed, the stronger the brain pathways for that movement become and the easier it gets to perform that movement in the future.... so if ur kid was born lefty u can make him righty and also according to Neuroplasticity u can also make believe ur mind that there isn't any soul. and also what non sense is she saying that we are dust particles and yet we have metaphysical aspects in us.... Accounting for the existence of mind in a world largely composed of matter is a metaphysical problem which is so large and important as to have become a specialized subject of study in its own right, philosophy of mind... and Philosophy is an abstract... how can one take her seriously ?
We don't understand the "technology" of the brain in the same way that Leonardo da Vinci would not understand the working of a smart phone. End of discussion.
Since evolution is a fact, where in our lineage did this "soul" originate? Was abiogenesis also soul-genesis? Did the first self-replicating cells have a soul? Does the soul enter the fertilized cell at conception? If so, what about chimeras? Where did the extra soul go? I'm betting that the answer is: there is no such thing as a soul.
modern human mind/brain developed/evolved over 100's of thousand of years. at what point did it have a soul? when brain goes, so goes ur identity. there is no spirit, soul, nor god.
Mastermindyoung14: There's lot of possibilities. Just a few are that It could be in all matter to a degree (as she suggests at the end, some form of panpsychism as applied to souls) or possibly with life, or with theory of mind, or with moral awareness, or of course not at all.
curevoy: I'm betting on not at all. There isn't much evidence to support the claim that "souls" exist. People WANT it to be true, just like people WANTED to believe that the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth (it intuitively appears that way). Science doesn't care what you think may be true, and often shows you that what you want to believe is not the truth.
I'm betting that too. But what we want says nothing about what's true *either* way.
What an utterly naive view of reality.
Pure double-speak
She has Degrees in Theology and Philosophy,so knows her stuff?
Causality ends at the big bang,so we don't know what created what,if at all!
If Theists want to put God there,fair enough but it explains nothing but a psychological or emotional need!!
5:00 You don't reason your way to it. Exactly, because it's not reasonable. Descarte didn't believe in some ectoplasmic substance, he believed in the soul, or spirit or whatever you want to call that theoretical unknowable stuff.
You can believe is a soul or a spirit if you want but don't think you got to that belief by way of reason or evidence, because you didn't. You got there because that's what you want to believe . Wishful thinking isn't a good basis for belief.
Configuration doesn't stand on its own, without anything to configure there is no configuration.
Agency is reasonable. You can reason your way to that. Sure you start by intuitively knowing that you have free will, then reasoning towards the metaphysical probability.
@@kjustkses Intuitively you might know any number of false beliefs from the sun goes around the earth to the heart is the seat of emotions.
"Free will" is an ambiguous term, it's unclear what knowing that you have it even means. Just try answering the question what is the will free from? Free from outside influences? That obviously not the case. From from your thoughts and biases? Nobody is free from those. So free from what?
O Soul
Our entire society is based on personal accountability. I would need extremely strong evidence that the freedom of the will does not exist.
@@kjustkses I take a different approach, I don't believe things by default. I require evidence to believe. That seems like the best way to avoid fraud and bad ideas.
O Soul
What evidence do you have that you are not just a brain in a vat?
She is a very smart woman, and I can appreciate how she describes what exists. Talking about the afterlife and speculating about resurrection, though, is absurd. Ego ends at death. Resurrection is something that happens throughout life. To view it as a biological phenomenon turns it into fantasy.
It annoys me when Theists mock Materialism when they haven't a clue what its range is:
Matter can have mindful properties without being different or spiritual!
The Fallacies that Theists live by are rather sad!!
_"Matter can have mindful properties"_
Lol...
I was going to say the same thing. In another Closer to Truth comment section another materialist said something along the lines of "complex systems have been proven to possess mind if sophisticated enough." Really? Are we just making things up now?
If you happen to know what matter is, let me know, please, because so far nobody knows the answer. The same goes to energy.
begs the question. no evidence provided here at all. all she did was apply a bible quote to the "hard problem."
@Jon lol. He asked her "How do you know that?" She said, "You don't. It's just the data that theology gives us."
That typifies the theist nonsense.
Nowaday anybody can say anything, even people with titles and curriculum.
Yes, if AI never manages to reach consciousness then I'd feel better about that bet
The thought of AI managing to reach consciousness scares the holy shit out of me! Game Over.
@@larrybeckham6652 The problem is there’s no way to know if they do or not. At one point they will be sufficient and competent in enough operations to fake completely what consciousness appears like to someone on the outside. All their reactions and responses to things will make it appear as though they are conscious but will never be able to know if they literally have the same subjective experience and awareness that we do.
So this is the proof of a soul...?
Got proof?
She has a wonderful knack for making up stuff. What worries me is that she seems to believe that her fun fantasies are real.
Yes!
Mad as cheese
Seems we have a lot of sick peoples here looking for a physician.. good
The woo is strong.
An equal number of people moving in the opposite direction are the fools who invent nonsense to pretend they are the clever ones. Providing the evidence tends to put a stop to this nonsense, but what would you expect from religious hypocrites, exactly. When in doubt, Magic is the answer
She is not even wrong.
She seems to be conflating emergent properties with some kind of theological woo. In this instance emergent properties, ie the fact that arrange the same matter in different ways leads to different results is an observed fact however the theological woo she is attempting to add to that remains theological woo. THe configuration of the matter can be fully described by physics, there is no reason to bring any metaphysics into the operation at all.
I have many synchronicity anagrams like these made from all the names I had.
Daniel Ray Waters Hazelton Ortiz
DrWho a zany letters realization
Antenatal lie's a zero ritzy DrWho
No human alive or dead or yet to be born , will never be able to disprove God !
Shifting the burden of proof as always. Nobody will never be able to disprove that there's a teapot orbiting between Mars and the Earth.
@@Marques2000 TBOP is a good argument, except the teapot or Santa Clause are not attributed to existence. God is, even if only in philosophy.
@@نادرالیراحمان What do you mean? Like an ontological argument?