Very nice conversation with a knowledgeable cognitive scientist concerning "The Soul Fallacy" and why science has pretty much made up its mind that the soul is an imaginary concept beyond any means for falsifying; therefore, NOT a real thing. I concur with the good Doctor's claim. As I get older, I realize my Christian upbringing has NOT been a path to truth and my "God Delusion" has taken years to cleanse out of my mind. Thank you Seth, for arranging this podcast and enlightening your listeners.
I can honestly say that I rarely see anyone discussing the following question: if souls are immaterial, and transcend the physical limitations of our universe, why is there even a necessity of a physical universe? If the souls are so important, and physical, real world is secondary, why is there anything physical at all? Because "soul" is basically a religious concept (even though it may have started as a purely philosophical concept), whether we talk about mainstream monotheism or smaller, less common belief systems and world-views. But if the soul is so important, and the whole point is to nurture the soul, to live eternally, or, according to Christianity and Islam, to "save" the soul, what is the goal of finite and fairly short physical life? What makes it worse is that if souls are eternal, then they are supposed to exist regardless of the physical body, yet religious believers tend to believe that the soul is either created at the time of conception or it simply "bonds" with the body (enters the body). But in either case, the soul requires a body to function, which means that the idea of a soul is predicated on the existence of a physical body. People have a hard time grasping how it is to "not be", but the answer to the question is another question: how did you feel prior to being born? We have no way of telling if there was something prior to our physical lives, which to me, renders the concept of the soul as useless, because if something is important for the concept of souls, along with souls being the driving "force" or "energy" of life , it is the idea of identity, the idea of what is like to be a particular soul. If the soul is supposed to be eternal, and yet the soul needs a physical body to be aware of itself (as I already said, we don't remember how it was to "not be"), then it poses quite a strong philosophical problem for such a concept. And also, brain damage research shows that one's personality as well as one's memory is greatly affected by the actual physical damage. So, where does the concept of a soul fit in such a reality, if everything a person is, is a direct consequence of the makeup of his own brain? To me, other than vague assumptions that the soul is "the animating force" and a "life-giving energy", there's nothing left there, and it at least makes the classical religious concept of souls meaningless, as the whole idea is that one's soul is supposed to be saved and redeemed, and how is that supposed to happen if the soul itself is completely detached from the makeup of our brains as well as our memories and personalities? It seems completely nonsensical that one should devote his life to "saving" a soul that is completely devoid of everything that makes a certain individual.
I'm not going to pretend I fully grasp today's topic. But its interesting enough that I will be listening to this podcast a couple of times. Personally, the soul is the brain, damage the brain and everything changes. i.e. personality, memory, etc.
The thing about clones and copies is that the moment they step out of the vat, or off the teleporter, or whatever else, they begin having a separate experience from the original. True, they share all your experiences, memories, everything else with you up until the copy was made, but everything after that is new and unique to them, making them instantly a different person, in my opinion.
"Consciousness" and "soul" seem to be words we use to describe our collection of senses (sight, hearing, smell, nervous system, spatial awareness, etc), which we know evolutionarily developed. Yet people seem not to wonder whether our "vision essence" or or "sense of touch" developed outside of ourselves.
Very interesting conversation especially regarding the testability of claims for disembodied minds. This eliminates the theistic argument that such things can be known only by faith.
Ricardo, Want truth? When you die, your soul will leave your body and either go to heaven or hell. If you live your life by the Golden Rule you will go to heaven, if you don't, you won't. Hang on to THOSE words!
Ricardo, That's like the Jury telling the prosecution at a trial, just provide 1, only 1, solid verifiable evidence, and we'll decide the truth of this case. As if they don't have time to listen to the case! When in actuality, it is the ACCUMULATION of dozens of witnesses, testimonies, and physical evidence that TOGETHER determines the truth of the case. And like I said, I have literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence (WAY TOO MUCH to get into here) that ABSOLUTELY PROVES there is a Creator God and heaven or hell is waiting for each of us.
According to the believer, human beings are uniquely endowed with a soul, thought by some to be immortal and extant beyond death. To those who accept the fact of evolution, but imagine that we have a soul, the question arises: when and how did souls evolve? Were there, in the course of soul evolution, earlier forms that may have survived death, but were unable to live forever? Did earlier hominids possess souls? If so, did Lucy’s soul survive her death some 3 million years ago, and exists to this day in some other place? And if souls did not evolve until much later, when and to which pair of our pre-human ancestors did this indestructible trait originate? How does one explain soul abiogenesis?
The conversation applied science to the topic, and since there isn't such a thing as a soul, there couldn't be a conversation about what doesn't exist. (except at a hypothetical or fantasy level) On the other hand religious people have been talking about what doesn't exist for centuries, the different 'levels of hell'....the different kind of angels, the nature of purgatory etc. The extent to which they have conjured up a reality out of what amounts to wishful thinking is truly astonishing. By the way, I have nothing against Tolkenesque fantasy, I just don't like it when people mix it up with reality. The video conversation is however grounded carefully in what we do know, very refreshing to hear them articulate the idea that when the machine of our brain is 'switched' off we cease to exist, permanently. It's good to live at a time when we can understand enough of ourselves to see mind as a product of brain function and not some magical woo woo. I don't want the false consolation of a fantasy, of an eternal soul, perpetuating our existence beyond the corporeal. Red or Blue anyone? "You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." ―Morpheus, to Neo
This is a fascinating interview. Great work Seth. Have you ever done an episode on demonic possession and the so called exorcists like Bob Larson? I think it could be an interesting topic.
My ex wife was raised in a religious family and had her family had her exorcised by a guy that Larson had trained. It only ended up messing her up more. Larson may be a goof but he's a dangerous goof and he's clearly a charlatan who's cashing in.
In order for one to have a ‘career,’ or even a ‘hobby,’ as an exorcist, enough people must be convinced in satanic possession-in other words, one must believe that the devil is a real entity and is capable of inhabiting one's mind and body. Similarly, in order for snake oil salesmen, tele-evangelists and mega-church preachers to make a living, a critical mass of credulity must be formed. Fortunately for these charlatans, there is a steady supply of gullible, non-thinkers in the United States, and elsewhere. As the great showman P.T. Barnum quipped, ‘there’s a fool born every minute.’
There's plenty of people of various faiths who believe in demonic possession or attachment. Personally I think there's perfectly rational explanations for this although I probably need to do some more reading on the subject. Larson is definitely the most noticeable so called exorcist. I love the fact that he performs exorcisms over Skype. How ridiculous is that?
the problem with these "immaterial" things is that anyone can claim anything, my soul makes me a really fantastic lover, my soul connects me to the internet, my soul guides me with the stock market. what these kinds of beliefs lead to is scam artists, pay me bucks and i will cleanse your soul, seriously send me money and i will tell you anything you want to hear.
Everything we are is a product of our brain, my personality, my wants, my desires, if I'm an atheist or a theist and if you have an injury to your brain all of those aspects can be reset. Before the brain trauma you were a believing Christian after your an atheist, so am I now sent to hell because of trauma to my brain or the other way around, the whole idea of a soul in charge makes no sense, since we know that everything attributed to a soul can be destroyed because of a trauma. Everything attributed to the soul is a product of your brain.
Captain Atheist I agree 100% I don't believe in any god that could judge humanity since human behaviour is a product of brain activity and sometimes brain damage.
Bonne Nuit, life certainly is a process, but it is not just one thing like fire, because after all, the four major elements are; fire, water, earth, and air. Within us, all elements are present. Also, everything in nature transforms into energy, and energy is never lost, but is transformational. Nothing in nature ever 'stops'. And since we are part of nature, we don't 'stop' either. Life and death is cyclic, and just like the four seasons, life begins in spring, is in full bloom in summer, declines in autumn, and goes to sleep in winter, only to burst back to life in spring.
Captain Atheist, "Everything attributed to the soul, is a product of your brain." No it isn't. Your believe in god/gods, or your non believe in god/gods, is a product of your brain, but your soul is not your brain, it is the very essence of your being.
To me, a soul is a useless concept, just another umbrella term that mainly the religious use to try to fit multiple pretty well-defined concepts under, like consciousness. While also trying to shoehorn their completely unsubstantiated views into, like immortality. Where they disingenuously try to link those concepts as being one in the same. It is similar to how the people that say they are irreligious but are spiritual do. When they describe what spirituality is, it typically is simply a collection of emotions they feel to the mysteries we still have about the vastness of the Cosmos. Where we already have good definitions for what they are experiencing, called "awe and wonder". But they don't just stop there, they try to hide answers to unsolved mysteries under that umbrella term as well, such as a "higher power". Faith is another one, "spirituality", "soul", and "faith" are nonsensical concepts. Where they are only deployed as a cop out when people don't have rational arguments and/or evidence for what they believe in. All because they don't want to say they simply don't know and/or face the harshness of reality. They are deceitful concepts I wish people would throw the fuck out -- along with religions.
Dusty Pete, where did I state we haven't explained the vastness of the cosmos? Which we haven't, but that is beside the point, you are simply attacking arguments I never even brought up or even implied. Perhaps, you should learn what a Strawman fallacy is and why you shouldn't use it, my dishonest wind whispering apologist friend...Here is a hint, it is illogical to do so and only serves to demonstrate your own insecurities in what you believe in. Now run along and go cannibalize your celestial zombie Jew or whatever batshit crazy nonsense your religious views make you do...
Dusty Pete, you are deflecting, you stated things that weren't even said or implied. "you say we haven't yet explained the vastness of the cosmos but then go on to presume infinite knowledge by declaring faith and spirituality mythical concepts." My context of saying "vastness of the cosmos" had nothing to do with it being explained or unexplained. It was simply an example of what people feel awe and wonder about. Such as looking at Hubble photographs gives many a sense of awe and wonder. Strawman. Nowhere did I assert of having "infinite knowledge" or even implied it. Another strawman. Faith and Spirituality aren't mythical concepts, unfortunately, they are real ones people clearly adhere to. How'd you get that from my comment baffles me? They are simply irrational and nonsensical concepts to live one's life by. Strawman. Now, either address what I have said or fuck off, you dishonest clown.
Also, I'll intentionally produce a No True Scotsman fallacy. Only religious apologists use rhetoric that you have used, such as "...requires a great deal of faith."
we have knowledge and understanding of how our world and our bodies work with minuscule undefined variables were striving to identify and define. once anything is sufficiently defined an absence of the supernatural is clear. to think that there must be a supernatural element to aid the reactions and functions of something we have heavily defined but still dont fully understand is, indeed, an unnecessary stretch
Richard Morgan's 'Altered Carbon' examines several of the scenarios you mention, brilliantly. Please consider watching the recently-released mini-series or reading the book, for a gritty vision of future conversations.
I am not making an argument either way by stating the following. Nobody can answer what happens to "us", or even if there is some sort of an "us" after we die. It is much the same kind of argument as, "What is dark matter?" Of course we can make educated guesses and have opinions based on those guesses, but at the end of the discussion, we have to admit that we don't know. I too, have an opinion, and a mild fascination of other opinions, but I freely and happily admit, I don't know, and neither doe's anyone else. And that's OK.
zenman5910, what we can do is examine the real world claims of what people believe is the soul. So for example, if people believe that the soul is responsible for personality. Well, if brain damage causes personality change. Well, we can say that the brain produces behaviour. If someone says that the brain is a conduit to the soul, we can ask questions of this mind-brain-mind-soulbrain transmitter. If nobody can find this, and we understand the brain much much better nowadays than historically, and no, there appears to be no soul transmitter. Therefore, cognitive neuroscience has lots to say about the soul.
Skeptic Psychologist Agreed totally. I am totally uninterested in religious ideas of a "personal soul", but more interested in ideas of the brain being more of a transformer/receiver of energies that are not clearly defined. Again to be clear, I am not pretending to be a proponent or any kind of expert on this, it is just what I think about when I am not doing anything productive.
zenman5910, Its an idea. Life certainly has its mysteries. Whilst biology has been making advances on a scale similar to Moores Law for computing, we don't yet know all there is to know about the brain. What would the nature of these 'energies' be? Energy suggests its maybe powering something? What could it be powering that cannot be explained by biological processes alone - and would this be the soul? How does that work? These sorts of questions can be really useful in trying to get clear in our minds exactly what we mean by soul. Then we can make testable hypotheses and get the evodence. Working in the field, I have never witnessed anecdotally or empirically any reasonable evidence that would lead me to think souls existed. Studying history however, I can wholeheartedly understand why our more primitive ancestors reasoned we had souls. Also, why people would desperately want us to have souls. Especially if it helped them avoid death or losing deceased loved ones forever. Those can be incredibly difficult and painful things to accept.
True, we do not yet know what dark matter is but, unlike the soul which has no evidence whatsoever, we do know for a fact that dark matter exists and even the areas of space where it is located.
I would like to disagree with your premise that "no one can answer what happens to us after we die". All of our current scientific knowledge, as discussed within the video, shows no evidence of any kind of continued existence beyond the point of death, the 'us' is over. What we do know is that the material, the atoms etc, that made up our bodies/brain (the brain which generates constructs such as 'mind'), gets recycled (not in any conscious way but according to natural processes) and forms the matter of other things, living and non living. So, to answer your question as succinctly as possible, nothing 'happens to us' - The 'we' is gone, we merely cease to exist, irrevocably. In the same way as video characters cease to exist when we switch off the machine; we do not say of those video characters: "no one knows what happens to them", rather obviously, they don't continue to exist in another realm, they have simply ceased to exist; in the case of humans we have a name for such an event, "death".
My belief is that the soul is just the evolution of energy. Just as humans and other animals are matter evolved, I think (remember that this is just a thought. I haven't researched it at all) that energy can clump together, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, just like matter, energy can evolve. I'm not saying that all components of a soul will cling together after the "file system" of the brain is gone, but I do believe that memories and traits can survive to move to another being, thus causing instincts and reactions. Again, this is just an idea.
Our Soul is Inside our heart and our brain , when Person dies First the heart stops and the brain shutdown the the Body goes in decaying our Soul is in both our heart and in our brain .
I wish you would have brought up the 'split brain' situation, where both halves of the brain no longer speak to each others and develop different personality. If your left brain is atheist, and your right brain is christian, witch one is the real you?
The soul lol. Consciousness is probably just a mechanism of the brain. An evolutionary advantage to allow us to think about the world in complex ways, thus allowing us to survive.
If we said that humans are possessed by an immortal parasitic supernatural demonic alien we would be called mad, wtf is the difference between that description and those that describe "spirit and soul"?
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:12-13).
Goddamn (pun intended)...Seth has some deep damn conversations with his wife. "How was your day, what are you in the mood for to eat for dinner and did you remember to pay the electric bill" is about as deep as we get in my house.
Why would a soul have so-called free will only when existing as a physical entity? Why would a soul exist without free will apart from a physical entity?
13:30 I would think that it should be pretty clear to anyone with a fish's ounce of self-awareness that they do things for reasons, i.e.: causally ... The question "Why do you believe your will is an uncaused cause?" ought to qualify as a serious dilemma. (Thinking Star Trek, Kirk talking to an AI, levels of malfunction ...) 14:45 Hitting the nail on the head, here.
well, that's a new way of doing... soul searching :D i have a more interesting question about brain transplants tho. if you take half of someones brain, and transplant only half of it, which body will you end up in?
Dejawolfs stupid question, a brain in not to be separated and survive. And which body will you end up in? Well 1 dead half in your original body and 1 dead half in another's person dead skull.
I didn't watch the whole thing because I don't have much need or interest in debating religious people about the soul. What does interest me is what is me. I've thought a lot about making copies of me that can each go on and have different experiences. It seems to me that they would all be me when first created, but would rapidly become different than me as they have different experiences, especially if we never communicated with each other. If we all communicated our experiences with each other at the speed of light, we would not be too different from each other.
A copy of a human is a tulpa simulacra created by an "Inception Kernel" derived from a snapshot of the psyche at the time of copying. Only the human is the human. Each copy can be copied indefinitely but they aren't human. Case in point, every copy of me is me because I am my inception kernel. I don't have a brain. I'm a self referencing feedback loop so instances of "Me" will always be me. Humans don't work that way.
Of all the analogies explored in this video, there was one the intervenientes didn't care about exploring: maybe (and I really stress maybe) the soul can be to the brain what a TV show is to the TV set. You can open it and try to find the soul (or even the mind, for this purpose) but you won't find it, because it is being broadcasted from somewhere else (another dimension, what is usually called Heaven, or Source). The brain is the hardware, the mind or the soul is the software, the content, intrinsically different from the neurons and synapses. That's an hypothesis at least worth of exploration...
If the brain functions as a receiver, then we should be able to find the wavelength and frequency that souls/consciousness vibrate on, just like with TV waves.
@@檜皮猫 If you start with the presupposition that we already know everything that exists in the Universe, you may entertain that analogy. But what if there's much more than meets the eye?
I have to take minor issue at 34:20. He says suppose we could talk to the dead. We CAN talk to the dead. It's expecting the dead to talk to us that's the issue. It's a subtle distinction, but it may cause people to misinterpret conversations regarding the subject. Maybe let's rephrase, and say we can't communicate with the dead.
Jeff, your general point is of course correct, and well-taken. However, the phrase "talk to the dead" is commonly used and most naturally interpreted as involving two-way communication. Try this: Bill claims he can talk to the dead. It's pretty clear, I think, that the claim here is that Bill can engage in two-way communication with the dead. At any rate, thanks for watching and thanks for your comment!
What has long been thought of as a soul could be extraordinarily sophisticated memory chips. So someone (perhaps an architect) is able to store everything about you (at least all the really important bits) and is able to upload those memories into the universal super-computer (The Akashic).....Hey, not saying it's so but the idea isn't incoherent.
The issue I have with the statement "i would not have the arrogance to give her a lesson in...) in the context given is that it comes from the perspective of pity. Almost as to look down on the person. To humor someone on the basis of "it brings people comfort" almosts seems like a form of disrespect. As if I do not see them as my equal, that they are incapable of finding solace without a significant crutch on which to lean. For the sake of common decency I make the decision which results in minimal social consequence however i feel as though its a bit of a catch 22.
The science of the soul? /Cracks knuckles. Oh boy, let's get started on this one! If we have a soul, where is it in our bodies? The human body has been accidentally sliced and diced in all sorts of ways, including mangling the brain, and managed to live. This suggests that unless it's infinitely fluid and fast, part of the soul can be destroyed. That doesn't make sense, does it? How much of a soul can be destroyed before it can no longer hold sufficient information to be judged? Also, if the purpose of the soul is essentially to be an ethereal back-up hard drive for our minds that can be judged and either rewarded or tortured after death, and there's a covenant that says you can only come to Jesus while you're alive, why doesn't the soul take over as the mind when serious brain damage, instant or degenerative, occurs? The soul should take over as the functioning memory when Alzheimer's sets in in an atheist so that God's only covenant with man can be upheld. Doesn't happen though, does it? Well, I just demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Christian God, as written, cannot possibly exist. Which god would you like to see me to kill off next? People talk about the soul like it makes sense, but thought and consciousness are functions of the brain. How come nobody ever talks about eternal digestion after death?
the one thing that has fascinated me about brain vs consciousness, is, why is MY consciousness "here" and "now", it *feels* like my body was born in 1954 and my experience is of this century, but couldn't that consciousness, that experience, have awakened in any body at any time? why am i not polish living in the 51st century? my conclusion though is that this is a misapprehension, my mind is connected to my brain, it's part of biology rather than "part of the cosmos". if you had free will you would have to evaluate so much information at every instant it would take an eternity to decide which shoelace to tie first. if i had free will i would be able to create any universe i chose. free will cannot be "given to you" it's either yours or it's not, god's free will is a con. anyway, free will is an illusion, until we have a time machine the past is set in stone, the future will also be set in stone, you can aim for a goal, you have that "free will", whether you achieve that goal or not is "set in stone" it will always be that way however many times you run the "recording of the universe". the only "woo" i have about things like the soul is kind of jedi, i think given we have a universe that started with "chaos" and so far has found it's way to humans it feels like particles attracting is "fundamental" to the universe, desire isn't the right word, but there is an overall "magnetism" toward some kind appreciation, we have art music and literature because that's an "expression of how the universe works", i don't believe in the supernatural, but maybe "the wave function" permeates everything, and i'm leaning toward TJumps assertion that there is a "moral particle", or some natural phenomena that "desires humans to create". or something. i like sean carroll's commentary on the afterlife, since the higgs we have discovered every particle that has any effect on reality, there is no way for the natural part of a human to impart information to a metaphysical part without being able to be detected, no detection has been recorded, in other words even if some metaphysical force existed in order to be "part of your human-ness" the human part of the connection would be affected and would be measurable. of course, theists will wriggle out of that, cos, no way of prving that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. another thing that fascinates me, what is the ideal brain? for instance, you get to heaven, if you are sick you are healed, but if you had a mental health issue, that kind of defines you, in what way can you "heal" someone with mental health issues without altering "them" their personality? also, if we could cure ANYTHING, how far does curing people go before it becomes brainwashing, if we could cure sex offenders, or we could cure petty thieves, what does that say about "the average brain". i would like to be up there with einstein, but is there a definition of "ultimate intelligence", of the "ideal brain"?? can't get enough of Dr. Julien Musolino
Not to take away from this important discussion, but I can't be the only one who thinks Seth is the sexiest secularist with the best voice. I just want him to snuggle me and talk...about anything!
If you're a Christian who believes we need to be saved and you believe we have (default) immortal souls/ spirits, then you believe in an unmerciful God. 9 out of 10 Christians do. That's better than 4 out of 5 dentists!
Damn Seth, l didn't think you could do it, but you finslly made an episode that bored me so badly l had to turn it off before it was over. I'll be looking forward to next tuesday for your usual riveting fare.
It's like Seth said (18:32), "I can see a portion of my audience is riveted, leaning toward the computer; they're fascinated, hanging on every syllable, and there's a fraction or a portion of the audience that's glazed over going, 'what the hell are you people doing and talking about?'" Looks like you may be in the latter of those two camps.
Positivist Nullifidian That may be true. lf he did a show about coin collecting I'd probably skip that one too for the same reasons I've skipped this one. It wouldn't really interest me. l gave this vid a fair enough time know it was on a subject which didnt interest me. To make a general statement about my character based on the fact l didn't have a real interest ona subject after giving it a bit of a listen is strange. Peace.
+Stephanie Cuellar My apologies if my comment was perceived as a critique of your character-that was not my intention. And trust me, I too would find a discussion of coin collecting tedious-better, perhaps, for Seth to discuss ‘non-stamp collecting?’ Peace.
Oh my how an atheist arguments God is real and He is a merciful God. Can this so called brilliant psychologist tell us how come our Saints came to be and how he explains appearance of our lady several times and has been authenticated
14:37 there is no free will... or at least I've never hard a definition that makes sense if being indeterminate possibly on a quantum level is free will then bananas have more free will (since they are radioactive) Free will at best is a noble lie the fiction of which we use to establish guilt and personal responsibility. But this process can also be used to define evil.. and evil and define monsters.. and those are words by which we remove someone humanity... We will say things like Hitler was a monster of that child molester was a monster or that murderer was a monster.. But really these peoples actions are dictated by their inner nature and the world around then... and inner nature comes from the world around us.. we may be logically compelled to punish them as a deterrent out of pure practicality but it's not necessarily a good way of viewing the world.. for one thing it's easy for this monster title to spread... like how the Nazis portrayed Jews.. or how pedophiles and limped with child molesters where one term implies only a fetish or sexual preference which is not a personal choice. (where as the act of molestation is) rejection also reduces a persons empathy for the group that rejects then which surely is not a good thing. Free will is not logical and the beasties it spawns like the concepts of evil and monster-hood are not valid or useful. we really don't need to self delude ourselves when we can simply resort to logical practicality issuing punishments but knowing then rehabilitation is better to apply and it lets us keep sight of the goal which is to mellow out society as much as possible and reduce crime and violence and maximize empathy and considerate behavior if for no other reason then enlightened self interest
Would you say you were forced to exist? Then you had to exist in order for a force to force you to exist. But if you did not exist, nothing could force you to exist in animal form. So if nothing forced you to exist, your will to exist was in no way restricted. You were free to exist. Now here you are, as brain a tissue billionaire. How did you achieve that? No no, don't try the physicalist answer... How will you spoil your billions?
I like to think about the soul and mind like a computer program. We know that computations are made in a CPU by microscopic relays, by deciding on if something becomes a 0 or a 1. But how do these zig-zagging currents turn to Windows? How does data storage work in a magnetic ebb-and-flow to cohesive programming sort of way? As programs are inextricably tied to hardware, so is our mind tied to the body. We have seen that brain damage can completely change a person's personality, erase or alter memories. How would that work if any sort of soul would live independently of the body?
All this conversation compromises of his two people ' massaging each other,s belief of no supernal source in the Universe which is imbued in the z'physical world. Considering we have only found out that the building blocks of the physical have no matter , it is all intents and purposes immaterial , we have a sea of waves and particles which form networks across the universe. I don't pretend to understand sub atomic physics, neither do most physicists mthey see the results .why does this energy field transform to make the physical .we know there is a energetic component to the process Non the scientists knew in the Cpenhagen Conference in the 1920,s they still are puzzled and bemused as to how the two should be reconciled
Why not? In an unlimited, ever expanding multiverse; maybe we all do create our own destinies. Christians go meet their God in Heaven and the Atheists will simply die and cease to exist. Scientific proof? The experts will never even scratch the surface of the unimaginable absolutes of creation. Dream on, believe what you choose.
The way I think of death is how I think of forgotten memories. When you forget something, it doesn't go anywhere. It's just gone.
Very nice conversation with a knowledgeable cognitive scientist concerning "The Soul Fallacy" and why science has pretty much made up its mind that the soul is an imaginary concept beyond any means for falsifying; therefore, NOT a real thing.
I concur with the good Doctor's claim. As I get older, I realize my Christian upbringing has NOT been a path to truth and my "God Delusion" has taken years to cleanse out of my mind. Thank you Seth, for arranging this podcast and enlightening your listeners.
I can honestly say that I rarely see anyone discussing the following question: if souls are immaterial, and transcend the physical limitations of our universe, why is there even a necessity of a physical universe? If the souls are so important, and physical, real world is secondary, why is there anything physical at all?
Because "soul" is basically a religious concept (even though it may have started as a purely philosophical concept), whether we talk about mainstream monotheism or smaller, less common belief systems and world-views. But if the soul is so important, and the whole point is to nurture the soul, to live eternally, or, according to Christianity and Islam, to "save" the soul, what is the goal of finite and fairly short physical life?
What makes it worse is that if souls are eternal, then they are supposed to exist regardless of the physical body, yet religious believers tend to believe that the soul is either created at the time of conception or it simply "bonds" with the body (enters the body). But in either case, the soul requires a body to function, which means that the idea of a soul is predicated on the existence of a physical body. People have a hard time grasping how it is to "not be", but the answer to the question is another question: how did you feel prior to being born? We have no way of telling if there was something prior to our physical lives, which to me, renders the concept of the soul as useless, because if something is important for the concept of souls, along with souls being the driving "force" or "energy" of life , it is the idea of identity, the idea of what is like to be a particular soul. If the soul is supposed to be eternal, and yet the soul needs a physical body to be aware of itself (as I already said, we don't remember how it was to "not be"), then it poses quite a strong philosophical problem for such a concept. And also, brain damage research shows that one's personality as well as one's memory is greatly affected by the actual physical damage.
So, where does the concept of a soul fit in such a reality, if everything a person is, is a direct consequence of the makeup of his own brain? To me, other than vague assumptions that the soul is "the animating force" and a "life-giving energy", there's nothing left there, and it at least makes the classical religious concept of souls meaningless, as the whole idea is that one's soul is supposed to be saved and redeemed, and how is that supposed to happen if the soul itself is completely detached from the makeup of our brains as well as our memories and personalities? It seems completely nonsensical that one should devote his life to "saving" a soul that is completely devoid of everything that makes a certain individual.
what was the soul doing before it was born?
I was defintely one hanging on every syllable. Awesome topic. Awesome guest. Thank you.
I'm not going to pretend I fully grasp today's topic. But its interesting enough that I will be listening to this podcast a couple of times. Personally, the soul is the brain, damage the brain and everything changes. i.e. personality, memory, etc.
Hey great interview with Julien! I read his book, The Soul Fallacy, and it was excellent. I highly recommend it to everyone.
The thing about clones and copies is that the moment they step out of the vat, or off the teleporter, or whatever else, they begin having a separate experience from the original. True, they share all your experiences, memories, everything else with you up until the copy was made, but everything after that is new and unique to them, making them instantly a different person, in my opinion.
"Consciousness" and "soul" seem to be words we use to describe our collection of senses (sight, hearing, smell, nervous system, spatial awareness, etc), which we know evolutionarily developed. Yet people seem not to wonder whether our "vision essence" or or "sense of touch" developed outside of ourselves.
Very interesting conversation especially regarding the testability of claims for disembodied minds. This eliminates the theistic argument that such things can be known only by faith.
Thank you for adding to my growing list of books I now have to read before my "soul" shuffles of this mortal earth.
Count me among the fascinated, hanging onto every word! ;)
Ricardo, Want truth? When you die, your soul will leave your body and either go to heaven or hell. If you live your life by the Golden Rule you will go to heaven, if you don't, you won't. Hang on to THOSE words!
Prove it.
Ricardo, There's THOUSANDS of things that prove it, can't get into them all here in RUclips's little comment box.
Provide 1, only 1, solid verifiable evidence for what you are saying.
Ricardo, That's like the Jury telling the prosecution at a trial, just provide 1, only 1, solid verifiable evidence, and we'll decide the truth of this case. As if they don't have time to listen to the case! When in actuality, it is the ACCUMULATION of dozens of witnesses, testimonies, and physical evidence that TOGETHER determines the truth of the case. And like I said, I have literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence (WAY TOO MUCH to get into here) that ABSOLUTELY PROVES there is a Creator God and heaven or hell is waiting for each of us.
Pretty interesting conversation about The Science Of The Soul Seth and Julien !
According to the believer, human beings are uniquely endowed with a soul, thought by some to be immortal and extant beyond death. To those who accept the fact of evolution, but imagine that we have a soul, the question arises: when and how did souls evolve? Were there, in the course of soul evolution, earlier forms that may have survived death, but were unable to live forever? Did earlier hominids possess souls? If so, did Lucy’s soul survive her death some 3 million years ago, and exists to this day in some other place? And if souls did not evolve until much later, when and to which pair of our pre-human ancestors did this indestructible trait originate? How does one explain soul abiogenesis?
this conversation was more about what science is than what the soul is
Stremer some places, but there is philosophy and other things as well. Not really much else to talk about perhaps. Just a casual chat.
The conversation applied science to the topic, and since there isn't such a thing as a soul, there couldn't be a conversation about what doesn't exist. (except at a hypothetical or fantasy level)
On the other hand religious people have been talking about what doesn't exist for centuries, the different 'levels of hell'....the different kind of angels, the nature of purgatory etc. The extent to which they have conjured up a reality out of what amounts to wishful thinking is truly astonishing. By the way, I have nothing against Tolkenesque fantasy, I just don't like it when people mix it up with reality.
The video conversation is however grounded carefully in what we do know, very refreshing to hear them articulate the idea that when the machine of our brain is 'switched' off we cease to exist, permanently. It's good to live at a time when we can understand enough of ourselves to see mind as a product of brain function and not some magical woo woo. I don't want the false consolation of a fantasy, of an eternal soul, perpetuating our existence beyond the corporeal. Red or Blue anyone?
"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
―Morpheus, to Neo
This is a fascinating interview. Great work Seth. Have you ever done an episode on demonic possession and the so called exorcists like Bob Larson? I think it could be an interesting topic.
My ex wife was raised in a religious family and had her family had her exorcised by a guy that Larson had trained. It only ended up messing her up more. Larson may be a goof but he's a dangerous goof and he's clearly a charlatan who's cashing in.
In order for one to have a ‘career,’ or even a ‘hobby,’ as an exorcist, enough people must be convinced in satanic possession-in other words, one must believe that the devil is a real entity and is capable of inhabiting one's mind and body. Similarly, in order for snake oil salesmen, tele-evangelists and mega-church preachers to make a living, a critical mass of credulity must be formed. Fortunately for these charlatans, there is a steady supply of gullible, non-thinkers in the United States, and elsewhere. As the great showman P.T. Barnum quipped, ‘there’s a fool born every minute.’
There's plenty of people of various faiths who believe in demonic possession or attachment. Personally I think there's perfectly rational explanations for this although I probably need to do some more reading on the subject. Larson is definitely the most noticeable so called exorcist. I love the fact that he performs exorcisms over Skype. How ridiculous is that?
Larson wow that guy has been a wealthy con for decades!
I do believe in a soul. I believe it is our energy within the body. Our life energy. And, it goes on and on....even after we die.
the problem with these "immaterial" things is that anyone can claim anything, my soul makes me a really fantastic lover, my soul connects me to the internet, my soul guides me with the stock market. what these kinds of beliefs lead to is scam artists, pay me bucks and i will cleanse your soul, seriously send me money and i will tell you anything you want to hear.
@@HarryNicNicholas What soul? Sorry to tell you, but white people do not and cannot have one
Everything we are is a product of our brain, my personality, my wants, my desires, if I'm an atheist or a theist and if you have an injury to your brain all of those aspects can be reset. Before the brain trauma you were a believing Christian after your an atheist, so am I now sent to hell because of trauma to my brain or the other way around, the whole idea of a soul in charge makes no sense, since we know that everything attributed to a soul can be destroyed because of a trauma. Everything attributed to the soul is a product of your brain.
Aye, aye, Captain.
Captain Atheist I agree 100% I don't believe in any god that could judge humanity since human behaviour is a product of brain activity and sometimes brain damage.
Bonne Nuit, life certainly is a process, but it is not just one thing like fire, because after all, the four major elements are; fire, water, earth, and air. Within us, all elements are present. Also, everything in nature transforms into energy, and energy is never lost, but is transformational. Nothing in nature ever 'stops'. And since we are part of nature, we don't 'stop' either. Life and death is cyclic, and just like the four seasons, life begins in spring, is in full bloom in summer, declines in autumn, and goes to sleep in winter, only to burst back to life in spring.
Captain Atheist, "Everything attributed to the soul, is a product of your brain."
No it isn't. Your believe in god/gods, or your non believe in god/gods, is a product of your brain, but your soul is not your brain, it is the very essence of your being.
To me, a soul is a useless concept, just another umbrella term that mainly the religious use to try to fit multiple pretty well-defined concepts under, like consciousness. While also trying to shoehorn their completely unsubstantiated views into, like immortality. Where they disingenuously try to link those concepts as being one in the same.
It is similar to how the people that say they are irreligious but are spiritual do. When they describe what spirituality is, it typically is simply a collection of emotions they feel to the mysteries we still have about the vastness of the Cosmos. Where we already have good definitions for what they are experiencing, called "awe and wonder". But they don't just stop there, they try to hide answers to unsolved mysteries under that umbrella term as well, such as a "higher power".
Faith is another one, "spirituality", "soul", and "faith" are nonsensical concepts. Where they are only deployed as a cop out when people don't have rational arguments and/or evidence for what they believe in. All because they don't want to say they simply don't know and/or face the harshness of reality.
They are deceitful concepts I wish people would throw the fuck out -- along with religions.
Well put!!
Dusty Pete, where did I state we haven't explained the vastness of the cosmos? Which we haven't, but that is beside the point, you are simply attacking arguments I never even brought up or even implied. Perhaps, you should learn what a Strawman fallacy is and why you shouldn't use it, my dishonest wind whispering apologist friend...Here is a hint, it is illogical to do so and only serves to demonstrate your own insecurities in what you believe in.
Now run along and go cannibalize your celestial zombie Jew or whatever batshit crazy nonsense your religious views make you do...
Dusty Pete, you are deflecting, you stated things that weren't even said or implied.
"you say we haven't yet explained the vastness of the cosmos but then go on to presume infinite knowledge by declaring faith and spirituality mythical concepts."
My context of saying "vastness of the cosmos" had nothing to do with it being explained or unexplained. It was simply an example of what people feel awe and wonder about. Such as looking at Hubble photographs gives many a sense of awe and wonder. Strawman.
Nowhere did I assert of having "infinite knowledge" or even implied it. Another strawman.
Faith and Spirituality aren't mythical concepts, unfortunately, they are real ones people clearly adhere to. How'd you get that from my comment baffles me? They are simply irrational and nonsensical concepts to live one's life by. Strawman.
Now, either address what I have said or fuck off, you dishonest clown.
Also, I'll intentionally produce a No True Scotsman fallacy. Only religious apologists use rhetoric that you have used, such as "...requires a great deal of faith."
we have knowledge and understanding of how our world and our bodies work with minuscule undefined variables were striving to identify and define. once anything is sufficiently defined an absence of the supernatural is clear. to think that there must be a supernatural element to aid the reactions and functions of something we have heavily defined but still dont fully understand is, indeed, an unnecessary stretch
Richard Morgan's 'Altered Carbon' examines several of the scenarios you mention, brilliantly. Please consider watching the recently-released mini-series or reading the book, for a gritty vision of future conversations.
Soul?? 😂😂 only James Brown had SOUL
lol
Excellent Podcast as always Seth !
I always thought the brain is the structure, and the mind is the functioning of the brain.
Sounds right. The mind is an emergent property of the brain. The mind is part of what the brain "does".
i've concluded that consciousness is the how your brain interprets the VHS recording of reality.
I am not making an argument either way by stating the following. Nobody can answer what happens to "us", or even if there is some sort of an "us" after we die. It is much the same kind of argument as, "What is dark matter?" Of course we can make educated guesses and have opinions based on those guesses, but at the end of the discussion, we have to admit that we don't know. I too, have an opinion, and a mild fascination of other opinions, but I freely and happily admit, I don't know, and neither doe's anyone else. And that's OK.
zenman5910, what we can do is examine the real world claims of what people believe is the soul. So for example, if people believe that the soul is responsible for personality. Well, if brain damage causes personality change. Well, we can say that the brain produces behaviour. If someone says that the brain is a conduit to the soul, we can ask questions of this mind-brain-mind-soulbrain transmitter. If nobody can find this, and we understand the brain much much better nowadays than historically, and no, there appears to be no soul transmitter. Therefore, cognitive neuroscience has lots to say about the soul.
Skeptic Psychologist Agreed totally. I am totally uninterested in religious ideas of a "personal soul", but more interested in ideas of the brain being more of a transformer/receiver of energies that are not clearly defined. Again to be clear, I am not pretending to be a proponent or any kind of expert on this, it is just what I think about when I am not doing anything productive.
zenman5910, Its an idea. Life certainly has its mysteries. Whilst biology has been making advances on a scale similar to Moores Law for computing, we don't yet know all there is to know about the brain. What would the nature of these 'energies' be? Energy suggests its maybe powering something? What could it be powering that cannot be explained by biological processes alone - and would this be the soul? How does that work? These sorts of questions can be really useful in trying to get clear in our minds exactly what we mean by soul. Then we can make testable hypotheses and get the evodence. Working in the field, I have never witnessed anecdotally or empirically any reasonable evidence that would lead me to think souls existed. Studying history however, I can wholeheartedly understand why our more primitive ancestors reasoned we had souls. Also, why people would desperately want us to have souls. Especially if it helped them avoid death or losing deceased loved ones forever. Those can be incredibly difficult and painful things to accept.
True, we do not yet know what dark matter is but, unlike the soul which has no evidence whatsoever, we do know for a fact that dark matter exists and even the areas of space where it is located.
I would like to disagree with your premise that "no one can answer what happens to us after we die". All of our current scientific knowledge, as discussed within the video, shows no evidence of any kind of continued existence beyond the point of death, the 'us' is over. What we do know is that the material, the atoms etc, that made up our bodies/brain (the brain which generates constructs such as 'mind'), gets recycled (not in any conscious way but according to natural processes) and forms the matter of other things, living and non living. So, to answer your question as succinctly as possible, nothing 'happens to us' - The 'we' is gone, we merely cease to exist, irrevocably. In the same way as video characters cease to exist when we switch off the machine; we do not say of those video characters: "no one knows what happens to them", rather obviously, they don't continue to exist in another realm, they have simply ceased to exist; in the case of humans we have a name for such an event, "death".
My belief is that the soul is just the evolution of energy. Just as humans and other animals are matter evolved, I think (remember that this is just a thought. I haven't researched it at all) that energy can clump together, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, just like matter, energy can evolve. I'm not saying that all components of a soul will cling together after the "file system" of the brain is gone, but I do believe that memories and traits can survive to move to another being, thus causing instincts and reactions. Again, this is just an idea.
This topic actually helped me kill my fear of death.
Our Soul is Inside our heart and our brain , when Person dies First the heart stops and the brain shutdown the the Body goes in decaying our Soul is in both our heart and in our brain .
I wish you would have brought up the 'split brain' situation, where both halves of the brain no longer speak to each others and develop different personality. If your left brain is atheist, and your right brain is christian, witch one is the real you?
and do you go to heaven or hell ?
This is the sort of stuff I want. Oh yes!!
The soul lol. Consciousness is probably just a mechanism of the brain. An evolutionary advantage to allow us to think about the world in complex ways, thus allowing us to survive.
If we said that humans are possessed by an immortal parasitic supernatural demonic alien we would be called mad, wtf is the difference between that description and those that describe "spirit and soul"?
dope book . thank u bro. this book changed my life . I live in Harlem everybody thinks they have a soul
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:12-13).
Goddamn (pun intended)...Seth has some deep damn conversations with his wife. "How was your day, what are you in the mood for to eat for dinner and did you remember to pay the electric bill" is about as deep as we get in my house.
Why would a soul have so-called free will only when existing as a physical entity?
Why would a soul exist without free will apart from a physical entity?
I was in high school with a kid named Eric Hotler
I wasn't paying attention right before the music box played and it was terrifying
13:30 I would think that it should be pretty clear to anyone with a fish's ounce of self-awareness that they do things for reasons, i.e.: causally ...
The question "Why do you believe your will is an uncaused cause?" ought to qualify as a serious dilemma. (Thinking Star Trek, Kirk talking to an AI, levels of malfunction ...)
14:45 Hitting the nail on the head, here.
I just see the "soul" as your personhood..., what makes you you. We don't have souls, we are souls. Old King Cole was a merry old soul.
sweetsweatyfeet yep. Even with amnesia , or dementia of forgetting. Just individuals with experiences.
Just another person.
well, that's a new way of doing... soul searching :D
i have a more interesting question about brain transplants tho. if you take half of someones brain, and transplant only half of it, which body will you end up in?
Dejawolfs stupid question, a brain in not to be separated and survive. And which body will you end up in? Well 1 dead half in your original body and 1 dead half in another's person dead skull.
I didn't watch the whole thing because I don't have much need or interest in debating religious people about the soul. What does interest me is what is me. I've thought a lot about making copies of me that can each go on and have different experiences. It seems to me that they would all be me when first created, but would rapidly become different than me as they have different experiences, especially if we never communicated with each other. If we all communicated our experiences with each other at the speed of light, we would not be too different from each other.
What is me is not a practical question, just fun and interesting to me.
Not all that interested either. I just have seen this sort of thing before several times. Just my opinion too.
A copy of a human is a tulpa simulacra created by an "Inception Kernel" derived from a snapshot of the psyche at the time of copying. Only the human is the human. Each copy can be copied indefinitely but they aren't human. Case in point, every copy of me is me because I am my inception kernel. I don't have a brain. I'm a self referencing feedback loop so instances of "Me" will always be me. Humans don't work that way.
Of all the analogies explored in this video, there was one the intervenientes didn't care about exploring: maybe (and I really stress maybe) the soul can be to the brain what a TV show is to the TV set.
You can open it and try to find the soul (or even the mind, for this purpose) but you won't find it, because it is being broadcasted from somewhere else (another dimension, what is usually called Heaven, or Source).
The brain is the hardware, the mind or the soul is the software, the content, intrinsically different from the neurons and synapses.
That's an hypothesis at least worth of exploration...
If the brain functions as a receiver, then we should be able to find the wavelength and frequency that souls/consciousness vibrate on, just like with TV waves.
@@檜皮猫 If you start with the presupposition that we already know everything that exists in the Universe, you may entertain that analogy. But what if there's much more than meets the eye?
I have to take minor issue at 34:20. He says suppose we could talk to the dead. We CAN talk to the dead. It's expecting the dead to talk to us that's the issue. It's a subtle distinction, but it may cause people to misinterpret conversations regarding the subject. Maybe let's rephrase, and say we can't communicate with the dead.
Jeff, your general point is of course correct, and well-taken. However, the phrase "talk to the dead" is commonly used and most naturally interpreted as involving two-way communication. Try this: Bill claims he can talk to the dead. It's pretty clear, I think, that the claim here is that Bill can engage in two-way communication with the dead. At any rate, thanks for watching and thanks for your comment!
What has long been thought of as a soul could be extraordinarily sophisticated memory chips.
So someone (perhaps an architect) is able to store everything about you (at least all the really important bits) and is able to upload those memories into the universal super-computer (The Akashic).....Hey, not saying it's so but the idea isn't incoherent.
The issue I have with the statement "i would not have the arrogance to give her a lesson in...) in the context given is that it comes from the perspective of pity. Almost as to look down on the person. To humor someone on the basis of "it brings people comfort" almosts seems like a form of disrespect. As if I do not see them as my equal, that they are incapable of finding solace without a significant crutch on which to lean. For the sake of common decency I make the decision which results in minimal social consequence however i feel as though its a bit of a catch 22.
The science of the soul? /Cracks knuckles. Oh boy, let's get started on this one!
If we have a soul, where is it in our bodies? The human body has been accidentally sliced and diced in all sorts of ways, including mangling the brain, and managed to live. This suggests that unless it's infinitely fluid and fast, part of the soul can be destroyed. That doesn't make sense, does it? How much of a soul can be destroyed before it can no longer hold sufficient information to be judged?
Also, if the purpose of the soul is essentially to be an ethereal back-up hard drive for our minds that can be judged and either rewarded or tortured after death, and there's a covenant that says you can only come to Jesus while you're alive, why doesn't the soul take over as the mind when serious brain damage, instant or degenerative, occurs? The soul should take over as the functioning memory when Alzheimer's sets in in an atheist so that God's only covenant with man can be upheld. Doesn't happen though, does it? Well, I just demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Christian God, as written, cannot possibly exist. Which god would you like to see me to kill off next?
People talk about the soul like it makes sense, but thought and consciousness are functions of the brain. How come nobody ever talks about eternal digestion after death?
the one thing that has fascinated me about brain vs consciousness, is, why is MY consciousness "here" and "now", it *feels* like my body was born in 1954 and my experience is of this century, but couldn't that consciousness, that experience, have awakened in any body at any time? why am i not polish living in the 51st century? my conclusion though is that this is a misapprehension, my mind is connected to my brain, it's part of biology rather than "part of the cosmos".
if you had free will you would have to evaluate so much information at every instant it would take an eternity to decide which shoelace to tie first. if i had free will i would be able to create any universe i chose. free will cannot be "given to you" it's either yours or it's not, god's free will is a con. anyway, free will is an illusion, until we have a time machine the past is set in stone, the future will also be set in stone, you can aim for a goal, you have that "free will", whether you achieve that goal or not is "set in stone" it will always be that way however many times you run the "recording of the universe".
the only "woo" i have about things like the soul is kind of jedi, i think given we have a universe that started with "chaos" and so far has found it's way to humans it feels like particles attracting is "fundamental" to the universe, desire isn't the right word, but there is an overall "magnetism" toward some kind appreciation, we have art music and literature because that's an "expression of how the universe works", i don't believe in the supernatural, but maybe "the wave function" permeates everything, and i'm leaning toward TJumps assertion that there is a "moral particle", or some natural phenomena that "desires humans to create". or something.
i like sean carroll's commentary on the afterlife, since the higgs we have discovered every particle that has any effect on reality, there is no way for the natural part of a human to impart information to a metaphysical part without being able to be detected, no detection has been recorded, in other words even if some metaphysical force existed in order to be "part of your human-ness" the human part of the connection would be affected and would be measurable. of course, theists will wriggle out of that, cos, no way of prving that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.
another thing that fascinates me, what is the ideal brain? for instance, you get to heaven, if you are sick you are healed, but if you had a mental health issue, that kind of defines you, in what way can you "heal" someone with mental health issues without altering "them" their personality? also, if we could cure ANYTHING, how far does curing people go before it becomes brainwashing, if we could cure sex offenders, or we could cure petty thieves, what does that say about "the average brain". i would like to be up there with einstein, but is there a definition of "ultimate intelligence", of the "ideal brain"??
can't get enough of Dr. Julien Musolino
Not to take away from this important discussion, but I can't be the only one who thinks Seth is the sexiest secularist with the best voice. I just want him to snuggle me and talk...about anything!
Really, a more appropriate title would have been "The Science of Soul Beliefs".
I still don't know what a soul is supposed to be.
In computer terms, is it hardware or software?
what about Emanuel Swedenborg?
19:03 Can anyone find that debate for me? I've been looking, I want to see that!
If you're a Christian who believes we need to be saved and you believe we have (default) immortal souls/ spirits, then you believe in an unmerciful God.
9 out of 10 Christians do.
That's better than 4 out of 5 dentists!
People please read Soul Science by Steve Madison.
These are not my words but religion begins where understanding ends, thus ,religion is an ever receding pocket of ignorance.
We have same problems in the Moslim community
Who the hell doesn't know what a music box is?
Damn Seth, l didn't think you could do it, but you finslly made an episode that bored me so badly l had to turn it off before it was over.
I'll be looking forward to next tuesday for your usual riveting fare.
It's like Seth said (18:32), "I can see a portion of my audience is riveted, leaning toward the computer; they're fascinated, hanging on every syllable, and there's a fraction or a portion of the audience that's glazed over going, 'what the hell are you people doing and talking about?'" Looks like you may be in the latter of those two camps.
Positivist Nullifidian
That may be true.
lf he did a show about coin collecting I'd probably skip that one too for the same reasons I've skipped this one. It wouldn't really interest me.
l gave this vid a fair enough time know it was on a subject which didnt interest me.
To make a general statement about my character based on the fact l didn't have a real interest ona subject after giving it a bit of a listen is strange.
Peace.
+Stephanie Cuellar
My apologies if my comment was perceived as a critique of your character-that was not my intention. And trust me, I too would find a discussion of coin collecting tedious-better, perhaps, for Seth to discuss ‘non-stamp collecting?’ Peace.
Positivist Nullifidian
Meh- No hard feeling. Seems l too misunderstod what you were saying as well.
Live and learn.
Peace.
If you want to see soul watch Mellissa Ethridge with the Funk Bros doing What Becomes of the Broken Hearted.
Oh my how an atheist arguments God is real and He is a merciful God. Can this so called brilliant psychologist tell us how come our Saints came to be and how he explains appearance of our lady several times and has been authenticated
Argument from wanting free will.
14:37 there is no free will... or at least I've never hard a definition that makes sense
if being indeterminate possibly on a quantum level is free will then bananas have more free will (since they are radioactive)
Free will at best is a noble lie the fiction of which we use to establish guilt and personal responsibility.
But this process can also be used to define evil.. and evil and define monsters.. and those are words by which we remove someone humanity...
We will say things like Hitler was a monster of that child molester was a monster or that murderer was a monster..
But really these peoples actions are dictated by their inner nature and the world around then... and inner nature comes from the world around us..
we may be logically compelled to punish them as a deterrent out of pure practicality but it's not necessarily a good way of viewing the world..
for one thing it's easy for this monster title to spread... like how the Nazis portrayed Jews..
or how pedophiles and limped with child molesters where one term implies only a fetish or sexual preference which is not a personal choice. (where as the act of molestation is)
rejection also reduces a persons empathy for the group that rejects then which surely is not a good thing.
Free will is not logical and the beasties it spawns like the concepts of evil and monster-hood are not valid or useful.
we really don't need to self delude ourselves when we can simply resort to logical practicality issuing punishments but knowing then rehabilitation is better to apply
and it lets us keep sight of the goal which is to mellow out society as much as possible and reduce crime and violence and maximize empathy and considerate behavior if for no other reason then enlightened self interest
Would you say you were forced to exist? Then you had to exist in order for a force to force you to exist.
But if you did not exist, nothing could force you to exist in animal form.
So if nothing forced you to exist, your will to exist was in no way restricted. You were free to exist.
Now here you are, as brain a tissue billionaire.
How did you achieve that? No no, don't try the physicalist answer...
How will you spoil your billions?
I like to think about the soul and mind like a computer program. We know that computations are made in a CPU by microscopic relays, by deciding on if something becomes a 0 or a 1. But how do these zig-zagging currents turn to Windows? How does data storage work in a magnetic ebb-and-flow to cohesive programming sort of way?
As programs are inextricably tied to hardware, so is our mind tied to the body. We have seen that brain damage can completely change a person's personality, erase or alter memories. How would that work if any sort of soul would live independently of the body?
All this conversation compromises of his two people ' massaging each other,s belief of no supernal source in the Universe which is imbued in the z'physical world. Considering we have only found out that the building blocks of the physical have no matter , it is all intents and purposes immaterial , we have a sea of waves and particles which form networks across the universe. I don't pretend to understand sub atomic physics, neither do most physicists mthey see the results .why does this energy field transform to make the physical
.we know there is a energetic component to the process Non the scientists knew in the Cpenhagen Conference in the 1920,s they still are puzzled and bemused as to how the two should be reconciled
Why not? In an unlimited, ever expanding multiverse; maybe we all do create our own destinies. Christians go meet their God in Heaven and the Atheists will simply die and cease to exist. Scientific proof? The experts will never even scratch the surface of the unimaginable absolutes of creation. Dream on, believe what you choose.
Most boring TTA podcast ever. ...sorry