John Searle - Can a Person Be a Soul?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- Is a soul required to make a person? If there is no soul, is there no person? Almost all scientists and most philosophers find no need for a soul.
Click here to watch more interviews with John Searle bit.ly/1GhLZWB
Click here to watch more interviews on souls and persons bit.ly/1PItgb2
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Regardless of what you believe about the soul, can we all just agree that Robert Lawrence Kuhn is one damn great host, especially considering how wide ranging and extraordinarily complex the subject matters are that he covers?
Yes he is!!
Exactly. Typical interviewers would ask questions which are much more naive when the subject matter gets so abstract.
@David R
Completely agree. This is a great series. Great channel.
Absolutely
He is not a theist, he in contrast to the militant atheists is respectful of theist understanding and belief and for that he deserves the highest marks which by his thoughtful and respectful interviews and inquiries he so richly deserves.
Always a joy to listen to John Searle, an intelligent and honest pragmatic. Hats off to Robert too, he's amazing in asking these questions. This whole channel is one of the best on YT.
“Imagine the day when we know how the brain produces consciousness”
Uh, that’s an IF not WHEN. Aka begging your question
His argument is basically that once we finally understand how the brain causes consciousness, we will finally understand how the brain causes consciousness.
Thank you for correctly using the phrase, "begging the question" which hardly anybody does these days.
The really hard problem is-How is something immaterial like sensory perception produced by material processes?
if it is sensory is not immaterial, why you try to find ghosts? we are body and language, nothing more, the rest is auto-illusions
I’m not a physicalist by any means, but you require an argument for the immateriality of sense perception - or else you beg the question.
What's important about John is that he was very precise and concise in the way in which he was making the argument and most importantly is the way he was trying to clarify the terms definition.
As Noam Chomsky rightly points out, there was a big change in science from Newton - it lowered its goals. It went from that the world is in principle, intellectually available to us to the idea that theories are intelligable to us. What an enormous shift!
He says that the existence of consciousness does not imply the existence of a soul - as though these words are refering to different things! The soul is our psyche, that life which we experience from within. The soul is the subject of all our living actions, of all our different modes of thinking and feeling. The soul is that which in its constant search for happiness is constantly shaping itself by its actions, thinking and felling. So, it's something undeniable. We can be more sure of our souls then of our bodies. You can also call it consciousness, it's just a new way of expressing the old concept, nothing substantially changes with it.
Can a person be a soul?
A person is a soul. He/she also is in charge of their own decisions.
Soul is encoded on birth, as an angel. When he/she grows to adulthood, then responsibilities take shape.
It really depends on how a person is educated for a role and a personality in the society.
Behind every person's mind, there is a direct soul, which is called consciousness.
I reckon you didn't watch the video and decided to answer the question on the title
There’s no argument in your statement
You can’t dismiss the qualitative dimension in the way he is attempting to do.
I don't think he is though, he's openly stating that qualia is irreducible ontologically
What John Searle does here is simply to _assume_ that the brain causes consciousness, whereas what he considers to be causality might in fact be correlation. He needs to demonstrate that there is more than a correlation going on here between neurophysiologial processes and conscious states.
If we intervene to change the brain, consciousness changes. Reliably. Some examples for those interventions are drugs or surgery. So either our interventions on the brain influence consciousness, or consciousness influences our interventions on the brain (e.g. my currently having hallucinations causes my having taken LSD an hour earlier), or both are caused by something else (a prestabilized harmony in the sense of Leibniz perhaps).
The first possibility seems by far the most likely one.
It is a mistake to assume that our consciousness only takes place within ourselves. Our individual consciousness is a shared experience but this shared experience is beyond our conscious awareness. We can sense it but do not comprehend it fully. A good hunter knows not to look intently at the prey because the prey will sense the conscious awareness of them by the other. We can feel when someone's eyes are upon us. The soul is not inside the individual but resides within the collective consciousness. It exists independent of us but our existence creates it. There is no separation. All things are interconnected. Separation is an illusion. We are a part of a much larger whole. Boxes within boxes. The soul is not about the I. This confusion concerning the soul was created by religion.
If we knew as much about the brain as he says we know, then there would be no mysteries in psychology left, we would have perfect understanding of psychology, we'd just go to the university and the right way of understanding psychology would be completely clear to us. Furthermore, music would be a solved problem, novel writing would be a solved problem, culture would be a solved problem. Everything would be understood, including the total teleology of human life and human efforts, we would know exactly how human civilization is going to work out, we would also know what is truly ethical and what is not truly ethical, and on, and on, and on, forever. Every question would be completely understood.
And clearly, we're not there, we're not even close.
Weak arguments from Searle.
Denying dualism only because of the supposed violation of the conservation law is not only trivial, but just plain wrong.
If you postulate some kind of other "stuff" you just have to think at something that doesn't affect the world quantitatively but only mirrors it qualitatively or informatively, and the game is done. I'm not saying that this is the case, anyway, and Searle actually made some very good point.
Searle's problem is that in learning all there is no know about the brain we start from about 3 feet on a thousand mile journey. Who knows what will be revealed after further understanding? Our ideas about what constitutes an understanding might be revolutionized from what we think we know now.
Searle etc. are avoiding a few things that are ah..kind of important. If all that is is physical, what is logic? Can anyone measure logic? How much does it weigh? Is it pliable? What caused it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? Using logic, he makes an error saying that if physical processes are sufficient to explain decisions then it rules out free will. Nope. Mere sufficiency doesn't rule out free will. Yes my car is sufficient to get me to work, no that doesn't mean there aren't bicycles. And regarding conservation of mass, exactly where did all this mass come from? If everything is determined, cause and effect, what caused mass? You can't say it has always been and still subscribe to determinism.
yes and if everything is determined so would be your comment which is just absurd
The hard problem of consciousness certainly is a mass debate.
Consciousness =soul
After months of listening to Lawrence and he’s incredible I have come to the conclusion unfortunately that the soul and body are just one. Neither can exist without the other. When the Body dies so does the “ you” there can never be another you at least not that you’re aware of because there can never be an exact replica of you That’s it we get a one time round in this crazy life Sad , and that’s all there is to it. Or is it ?
how dare you lmao 🤣
Ha ha. The question - "is there a you? " is an examination question in philosophy. It's not as simple as just saying "When the Body dies so does the "you" then...😆
Guess we will all find out. Science dont even understand the brain,or NDes for that matter. I will put my faith in God, not man. The price one pays for holding a false , worldly view. Ponder that...
@@donaldprairie1869 I don't know how you guys are so sure about the existence of spiritual world and God.
If consciousness is not ontologically reducible to brain states, as Searle maintains, it is not identical to brain states. But if there is mental causation, as Searle also maintains, then he seems to get the same problem as the people talking about a spiritual substance: If there is causal interaction between consciousness and brain states, and physics only describes brain states, then we seem to also have a problem with conservation of energy. At least in the case when conscious states cause physical states, namely when intentions cause actions.
In another video, Searle said consciousness is to the brain as digestion is to the intestine, merely a biological function. But in this video he admits that a comprehensive account of every neuronal process would not yield a satisfactory explanation of the experience of consciousness. But clearly science does show in a very direct way how the processes of the intestine produces digestion. This resistance of consciousness to reduction is the reason that we have the vocabulary for distinct physical and mental domains. Searle cannot explain the insideness of consciousness. Digestion is observable in the intestine. It can be directly observed as part of the outer world of things. Consciousness is only directly observable in the inner life.
At 2:20, J.Searle says "the operations of the computer are defined purely formally or syntactically [...] in the form of symbol manipulation, and we know that's not enough [i.e. for explaining the mind]". Could someone please indicate a reference where this is detailed? Especially for the "that's not enough" part.
He has a good book about those topics mystery of consciousness
John Searle is the firm believer of materialism....basically he says particles are fundamental to the existence...but the existence is much more complicated than that and cannot be fully explained by modern physics... thats the problem...
Finally, someone who talks sense..
The problem with John's argument and the false part is the nobody knows even now how the brain works. Nobody knows exactly what is consciousness. Similarly, spiritual energy is spiritual "energy". So the best statement would be just this: "we do not know or we can't say/prove for sure".
After researching the subject for many years, I generally agree with the comments from John Searle. Religion tries to answer this difficult question using the words written in an ancient 2000 year old book. that we have souls after death. This is indeed a statement of faith and this belief is currently not provable fact.! The catholic doctrine about this subject does not convince me that we are (or have) living souls after death! From a protestant standpoint, Clarence Larkin"s picture charts about this subject (where souls are going all over the place) make no sense and appear to be almost absurd! We will simply have to wait and see what is true about this subject. Personally, while I personally have faith a higher power does exist, I do not believe anyone can prove this belief one way or the other! Thank you!
So glad to see someone say this
👉Gosh, John Searle...You never struggling, even for a moment when you on the course of arguing, every logic and reason starts pouring out of your mouth as a string of words that makes sense most of times 🙃🙄
Spiritual reality is the greater reality.
Physical science is a subset.
The soul and consciousness exists without a body. We simply enter the body as a rented vehicle
We are separate from the car we drive. And our being is not our physical body
I question that it is the brain only from which consciousnesses arises but from the entire network of neurons throughout the body. Self and mind can only arise from the entire system, the brain and the mind are servants of the body.
Soul and spirit are completely different entities the soul is concerned with body maintainance just like any computer program...spirit is you manufesting itself or yourself in the physical world you cannot change but your soul can...
Mohammed-ElFatih Osman ElKhider Define them as you like, they still don’t actually exist.
In Judaism, the soul is not so much a substance, but the sum of key human abilities such as intelligence, consciousness, emotions etc. as well as the sense of the divine.
In fact, there are different names for different aspects of the soul as well a more general word
He's a hardcroe material fundamentalist and I wouldn't expect anything less than for him to think that materialism can explain it all.
For you John that might be good enough. But the truth is. Materialism cannot and will not answer the deepr questions that beg answers.
I find it interesting that he starts it off by stating that because a person is religious, they have a hidden agenda (which may actually be true) in arguing for the soul, but non-religious atheistic naturalists/physicalists somehow are completely neutral in their arguments against a soul. Riiiight. ;)
miT Tim actually the Bible is talking about consciousness! the Lord is consciousness( Oh Israël de Lord Of God de Lord is one) one Consciousness make us all live and the Bible is a law of Attraction book!! Consciousness is the only reality because this is Who We Are!! what people called God is the collection of all our consciousness!!
Scientists don't set out to disprove the soul. Certainly not out of logical need, to support a cherished belief. Science has no opinion about God; it's untestable. But it's hard to squeeze souls into a cohesive picture of reality, so most scientists do without.
Scientists did used to assume souls existed, way back in the day. But there was no science behind it, just prejudice.
There's no known physics by which a soul could exist or function. Maybe they do exist, but it would be scientific malpractice to assume it with no evidence, no plausible mechanism, and with explanatory power to offer.
You might as well assume your muscles are operated by fairies pulling strings, even though no one has ever seen one, no one can explain why fairies are involved, and even though it seems kind of obvious how muscles can work without them. You'd seem like a lunatic to anyone who didn't already believe in fairies.
To claim that consciousness is caused by processes in the brain it's a big assumption that do not consider that the opposite could actually be true and possible.
The more I listen to philosophers and neurobiologists talk about the problem of consciousness the more I am convinced that you can’t explain subjective experience objectively. In terms of this video, the “missing bit” is an objective account of subjective experience. It seems to be a consistent problem with self-referential Explanations. I just like you need to use chemistry to explain biology and physics to explain chemistry and maths to explain physics, You need a different language to explain consciousness other than neuroscience. But this doesn’t make the explanation supernatural.
Searle is all over the place. Denying the ontological reduction of consciousness presupposes some form of ontological dualism. Period. He can't backtrack afterwards claim it's all just biology and retain his monism. That's called begging the question (petitio principii).
You are exactly right. Ontologically if you believe mind can't be reduced to physics, then you have an ontological dualism. It doesn't matter whether you call the other stuff soul or mind or ectoplasm, or substance X. You're a dualist. Whether or not this extra stuff is caused by the brain is a completely separate matter. Searle's view is mind/body dualism. What does it mean for something to be a different substance? Isn't it precisely that it has a different ontology? It seems to me that Searle has plainly admitted to being a substance dualist in this video.
He didn't really say that.
No, because he was all over the place, like the first comment says:)
Great discussion, Kuhn got the best out of great thinkers like Searle, Marvin Minsky Penrose, etc. Searle here is right. Cartesian dualism is layman metaphysics. Starting from that assumption (i.e, the mental and physical) creates unnecessary puzzles: x = person - physical; therefore, there is an x. So what is x? As much as I want to see all my gone loved ones (in some form as religion says), I am not convinced there is such an x.
Searle is still a boss though.
"We don't have bodies, we are bodies" Christopher Hitchens
Well, there are now many recorded, peer reviewed studies demonstrating that at death, there is a loss of mass in every person within 90 seconds. How does he explain this? Second, is he not aware of dualism? If I can suppose that my soul is now in the body of a turtle (which I can do) and that my human body was blown up then this demonstrates that my soul and body are not the same thing. (Heisenberg's principle). If they're not the same thing, then there is a difference...
John Searle presumes that in order for an immaterial soul to interact with a physical body would require an exchange of energy that violates the conservation laws. This is absolutely a false presumption. And the reason is in the uncertainties of quantum mechanics. First there is some uncertainty in the total amount of energy in the universe. And secondly, and more importantly, there is even more uncertainty in the distribution of that energy. And the butterfly effect says that small differences can have huge effect in our world. So as observations are made, the quantum mechanical wave function is reduced, and one of many possibilities are made manifest. This could be the mechanism by which the soul influences the world. And it would not violate any of the conservation laws.
Lil Phag, Your assertion that consciousness has nothing to do with the collapse of the wave function is not proven and unprovable, since all experiments regarding the collapse of the wave function also include a conscious observer. Also the "many worlds" interpretation is also unprovable, due to it's impossible to access other worlds and there for impossible to assert underlying determinism. Since you believe what is unproven, then you also believe quantum woo woo.
I'm not claiming proof that a soul exists. I'm simply claiming a possible way for a non physical soul to interact with the physical world with out violating the conservation laws. The video claimed this would be impossible, but it is not impossible.
Lil Phag, You need to relax. I understand that wave function collapse is not well understood, and subject to philosophical interpretations. Never the less, it is a real phenomenon, and the interpretation where consciousness plays a part can not be ruled out.
I've watched the videos you suggested. They've told me nothing I didn't already know.
But you obviously believe consciousness can be ruled out. Here is why I think you believe this.
In the double slit experiment, decoherence can be observed when we attempt to measure which slit the particle goes through. You believe any measuring device is sufficient to collapse the wave function, but in reality all it can do is cause different parts of the wave function to decohere from each other. But the wave function remains until a conscious observer looks at it. How do we know this? because of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. In that thought experiment a cat in a box can be both dead and alive at the same time. Certainly the dead and alive parts of the wave function have decohered from each other, but never the less the wave function does not collapse until you look in the box.
Now we can easily modify it and put the double slit experiment plus measuring device in the box. And we will see that the measuring device causes decoherence, but the wave function still does not collapse until you look the box.
Lil Phag, I have not claimed the soul exists, I'm simply open to the possibility. You have ruled out the soul from the start and therefor refuse to accept contrary evidence. I've given logically coherent arguments, and you've given nothing but ridicule. Since you have no reasons to support your case, then it's clear that you are the one with the agenda.
First prove that the 'butterfly effect' actually exists.
If the soul causes the collapse of the wave function, the actions of the soul a totally random. Because the collapse is random, except for the probability when it occurs, but those probabilities are determined by the wave function. So if we substract those probabilities, we are left with complete randomness, and what would that have to do with a soul?
I'm with Searle when he admits that consciousness is "ontologically subjective" and therefore cannot be reduced to an objective third-person process, but how does he reconcile this with scientific materialism? How can the ontologically subjective phenomenon of consciousness and the mass of ontologically objective objects in the universe be the same material substance? Why would we apply the same name (i.e. matter) to these fundamentally dissimilar things?
it's because scientific materialism is wrong.
Thank you René you started the best game in town 😂
Twenty five hundred years ago the Buddha said the same thing. No soul, the sense of self is a false view.
John Searle kicks ass!!
Talk about a hopeful atheist. Such intelligence trapped in the dark
Actually there is room for divine intervention into the physical world without breaking conservation laws. If quantum events are in only random in appearance, but actually controlled by some omniscient being, then choosing certain events over others won't be perceptible to us. But they might lead macroscopic effect. A nuclear decay in our brain at the right time can cause different behaviour. As long as these event aren't changed often enough for us to detect a significant trend we are none the wiser.
But we do not know all forms of matter and energy. At least its prudent to assume so.
There are dimensions we cannot see, meaning is not temporal, but I can't prove it
"Forget about the damn vocabulary"
Precisely.
What is meant by the word soul? Our awareness of our own actions is built up of abstract relationships caused by the workings of our physical bodies and minds. I don't believe the universe would exist with out it's own existence depending on an eternal preexisting being. The universe displays all the evidence of being engineered. The engineer keeps records of our actions as we precede in life building a personal history. How we've used our bodies and minds. I would argue that the word soul represents our personal histories. Your soul is the file on your life. This file is kept in the necessary exrtradimensional space in which our universe is embedded.
+SeanMauer but... but... but .... there's no free will, in the first place! you don't get to choose who you are. if you take identical twins at birth and raise one in the saxe-coburg-gothe family, and the other in a very poor, violent, black (i see the flag there my man ;) family, than, at the age of 20 they will be as different as prince william and a meth addict. you'll say then "no, no.. that was their different souls manifesting" or some bullshit... but if you repeat this experiment countless times you'll see that people raised in english high nobility will drink high quality tea and those raised in poor families will sniff low quality meth. if you don't get to choose who you are than you are clearly some particular, transient formation of particles. a miracle, but nothing so impressive about particular individuals that they've to be kept in special file cabinets, in the record books of all time. we have trillions of years ahead of us... so our future children will clearly be as different from us as we are different from monkeys. many scientists even go so far to say that carbon life's natural evolution is to spawn silicon "artificial" intelligence. do you realise the difference between us termites and an AI? this perspective might make one think... "does god keep a file cabinet with all billions of dogs, monkeys, donkeys, my cat who died last year....? if i think i'm so much more special than an ant, than clearly future beings will make me as unimportant as an ant"
I love your post Love & Division :)
anywherein12seconds
False, how do you know there is no free will before you born? You wouldn't know if you really chose your soul you chose. You can't prove no free will before birth
Lol, you're arguing naturalistic fallacy and darwinian evolution, while the topic is completely different
there's no "natural" evolution to a carbon mate, these scientists change their opinion all the time,
At least Searle acknowledges that materialism entails the hard problem of consciousness. Dualism just does away with thr HPoC but now you are burdened with pipelining this abstract mind entity with the physics of the world. You trade one problem for another.
Based on some of the comments here, a very interesting question occurred to me. I think that consciousness is something that can be understood, but not like most scientific discoveries such as how DNA works. The reason is that the understanding of consciousness requires consciousness itself; thus can that which is to be understood understand itself? But even one is able to really understand consciousness, so that for example one could decide if the “soul” exists or not, or is simply consciousness or something separate, would it really make a difference in one’s life?
Osho used to say when the observer (self) and the object of our observation (our consciousness) becomes one, ie., they are no longer different from each other, one has reached state of enlightenment, the whole thought of hindus revolves around advaita Or non duality, however I have no experience to be certain of his words. I have a long way to go.
@@monke6669 I don’t consider myself enlightened- but try this out (it’s a little more explicit than most Zen proverbs):
Knowem or Knot
Consciousness is not what you think it is,
But more like what you thought it was…
…
You likely know what you think you know,
Yet also true and oh so important:
You probably know that which you don’t,
But you cannot know that which you can’t.
And lest you think you know it all,
One thing you cannot know is this:
Though with you since you learned to crawl
It is what you think is consciousness.
For consciousness is not the present,
And consciousness is not the past,
It is the mental place between those spaces
That your mind’s memory cannot hold fast.
Dedicated to the Firesign Theater:
“How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all?”
Columbia Records, July 1969.
============
All knowledge is a comparison between the past and the present (e.g. duality). Consciousness is that process of comparison (e.g. thinking). It is unknowable because it is neither past nor present, but somewhere in between.
I see his one fundamental flaw...I think. He said, that if we reach such a time that the mind body problem is fixed, then there is no room for a soul. Of course not! You FIXED the mind body problem & that proves there is no soul! It is like saying, 'If I am right, I am right!'. You are correct sir, but what if your wrong?
Here is the other side. What if his lack of a belief in god is why he postulates there is not soul? Just as he implied those on the opposite side of this argument do, with that there is a god. What if the opposite happened? What if we know all those things & the mind body problem still exists! Then there must be a soul. He would be wrong, because he is wrong. So, which is real?
I can play the what if game also. You need to philosophically answer it with what you have, not what you just possibly might have later. If you go at it that way, we end up back at our base axioms. His is science will answer it. Mine is science will not conquer this problem. It will not be solved unless we accept god & thus the soul as real. Either way, saying that some far distant future may solve this is just a prop for your opinion.
That is the issue. Can you get past your bias? On this, this philosopher will not accept any answer until science answers it. He might be on to something, but it is something he should consider he is wrong about & look at it against his bias.
What if your belief in God made you postulate this argument?
You can see how this is circular.
he said I don't know using so many words😂
Saerly totally avoid ontological questions and did Argument from silent fallacy
Searle, how do you deny dualism, really? Logically, 'it' either is or 'it' is not. So, what exactly is the complement of 'it is'? Surely, not a dialectical or oppositional relation to 'it is' or 'it is something else'. Is the complement to 'it is' undefined? That is what is 'leftover'. The 'undefined' must be the complement of 'it is' not an oppositional relation to 'it is'. Biology is dialectically related to consciousness but biology is not the complement of consciousness. Therefore, what is leftover is 'undefined' or not quantifiable.
That made no sense.
Or it could be that I just didn't understand it.
There is no need for dualism or nominalism to posit the reality of conversations with whoever we converse with. Such conversations are real. Dreams likewise are real. Everything boils down to what can exist but this does not mean that experience is irrelevant and it is experience that gives rise to the veneration of terms such as truth, beauty, justice and goodness. What we call ontological is merely an aspect of reality as is everything else. Another way of saying this is that science is not exempt from ethics and neither is philosophy.
What year is this interview from?
If we reject the soul then we avoid punishment of what we do here. This is the central point and motivation. No soul no punishment and human law it is just a rule that possible to change or ignore somehow. So killing, violence, oppression all sort of antihumanism will never be judged by God or whatever that gives origine of soul. That wants to know rich and sadistic persons manipulating the society.
a person can live with out is soul
Can a person not be a soul? is a more interesting question.
I think we don’t need a concept of soul. Religious though is wrong at this. The true questions are: ¿What are we doing in this world? ¿There is a reason for our existence? We can’t answer this with science. That is true, even if we know how the mind works.
They could of saved 10 minutes...simply by saying No..
Reality is becoming duller and duller.
What about the real cases of rebirth
Itis impossible for a scientist or anyone to seriously consider that there could be something more left over ifthey cannot conceive a universe being different from this one, becausethey are too immersed in their own life fluxes. They cannot see themselves from outside. That is why. It is impossible to logically think of the uttermost subjectivequalities of life, self and conscioueness if you are always feeling that you are yourself, well fit in your own life flux. It is necessary to have things disturbed.
Bruno Borges Machado
Universe being different from this one is also nonsense, there is no number "one", the universe is not a number for you to label it this way, scientists study what is possible and in range, they do not discard the possibility of souls and etc. Physicalism is imcomplete and quantum physics already refuted it long time ago
"TO BE" is the answer.
Forget about the soul and being able to judge whether it exists or not. we don't even know what any physical object is with complete and perfect conclusivity. every thing we call a thing appears to each of us as a formulation of something we intuit to be greater than our formulation of that thing, and that is as close as we get to understanding what anything is. So that physical object in front of you, although you don't know it with completeness, you still know it exists, some something about which you do not have total knowledge or understanding. and so the soul. something worlds harder than a physical thing to know about, yet we intuit that something soul-like exists. Searle has an opinion here, that is all we have from him. This question can only be answered through personal, long, in depth investigation. Nothing wrong with having a conversation about it, but to come to some kind of an answer, you have to do the work yourself.
Mathematics is reality,there is nothing else we can know about!!
Color experiences exist, and cannot be described mathematically. So that means that the quantitative (physical reality) is just a subcategory of the qualitative (conscious experiences).
@@BugRib what do you mean? Colors are not like consciousness
The soul is concerned with physical objects and spirit is concered with abstract notions...
Searle is being inconsistent here... he made the point himself... consciousness is ontologically irreducible to the matter of the brain... that's the whole reason we have the vocabulary of "mental" and "physical"... the vocabulary makes sense because there are clearly two different ontologies in reality... we can't reduce one to the other... so these labels "mental" "physical" make sense.
In every sense he's a substance dualist. He's just afraid to take on that label for political reasons.
since reality is 99.9% empty spaces all mathematical equation are bogus! we consciously choose to focus on this physical plane
wisdom
huh???
yes, but objects may create empty space as they are in a place and distance we recognize empty space. because of objects and their substance etc and beyond..
not true, because electrons are in a so called super position. If you look at the electron you can see it in a certain position, but it´s actually in every possible position and nowhere at the same time somehow. I know it doesn´t make sense, but that´s kind of how it works. You can´t actually understand it, but I imagine it being some kind of electron cloud surrounding the nucleus. So to say that 99.9% of matter is empty space is just not true.
@@daan260 but it is
Life is gooey prickles and prickley goo, Alan Watts.
No evidence ? Read Rick Strausman’s book DMT: The Spirit Molecule. At least 300 pages of evidence.
I’ve just started reading that!
Is that a picture of the Pope in the background?
no its a picture of your mom
The invisible us is nothing but invisible vibrations formed into a consciousness that gives us self awareness. Our created senses are nothing but processed information that gives us a visible world to live in.
These fools don't have a clue how we were created so they have to lie until they die, unless they were chosen to listen to our Creator's voice and obey His commandments. Then they will hear how they were created and possibly believe what they hear.
Your preoccupations give you away.
Searle never answers the question asked. He is like a politician. Changes the question to suit what he wants to say.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a living soul. Gen 2:7; man does not have a soul, he IS a soul.
+Shirley James oooooooo k.
+Chazz Cannon I was, of course, speaking from a Biblical view point, which I realize isn't compatible with the evolutionary view. Believe it or not, the Bible does not teach that man has an immortal soul. 1 Timothy 6:15,16 "...and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality..." So, only God has immortality. Also, Ezekiel 18:4 "..the soul that sinneth, it shall die." So, souls can die. Shalom
+Shirley James I agree wholeheartedly!
Not quite. The Latin word for ghost is "spiritus" meaning breath or wind. The English "ghost" or German "geist" have the same sense to them, even if "geist" may also mean mind. This is exactly the same sense as in the Bible.
This makes the brain hurt
We're all shadows and dust.
Steven Novakovich
Flawed metaphor
Dualism is disingenuous,it forgets matter can have mindful properties without being different!
Humans literally have souls to be alive do you think if your soul is ripped out of your body just running around on Earth that you wouldn't control your soul or you will still be alive God controls your soul remember that God bless you and everyone that comes past the comments or watches bye-bye.
“Stop saying words I can’t explain”-searle.
Then explain to me who I’m talking to when I speak to myself. “It’s all biological” then explain where the predatory Instincts of the first cell came from. The fact he just disregards other peoples work just to further his own seems the heights of academic arrogance. Since when did “just forget about” have scientific Validity? Wtf
Another “God of the Gaps” argument. Speculation is not evidence.
The mystery dimension, is the spirit, yet God need not be a mystery. The soul is simply a living creature, that will be a dead soul upon death. No learned degrees necessary. God speaking, and many hearing him, is documented twice in the bible. No quantum physics experience required. Religion is bogus, while God is not.
Prof Searl ends by saying, against axiomatic dualism, that all he can do is show the cost of maintaining that view. The cost of denying that view has been enormous, greater perhaps than all past costs of those maintaining that view. It's like Searl does not pay attention to history or current affairs. Even if one cites the marvels of applied science as being so wonderful how does one at the same time ignore the claims of so many that comfortable modernity seems to fall short of satisfaction? The breakdown molecules of psychiatric meds are now detectable in many urban and even rural ground water supplies, since in one way or the other the toilet drains lead back to the aquifirs. HIV epidemic that's not going away, human papiloma virus is now considered to be epidemic and modern science coupled with a materialist world view has now produced a gonorhea super bug untreatable with known meds. Come on John, get out of the ivory tower once in while.
John appears to be ignoring an awful lot of important research.
Without soul a person is an animal. animal dont need soul to exist.
and according to you animals dont have soul.
its like the first spanish sailors brought back tribals from the new world to Andalusia and declared " these things dont have a soul"
hogwash
Samrat Bee if you want to be exclusive and special you can say anything to justify your illusion of superiority.
Zatoichiable yet your the one saying animals dont have a soul. Let alone there is hardly any real proof that human beings have a soul. Eventually in the scale of this endless universe, the size, the complexity, the question of superiority is useless ...
Samrat Bee useless? who do you serve? the land the grass serve the animals and we used the animals for food for tilling the land, transportation etc they all serve you. Do you serve them? who do you serve? its not a useless question. Why is the end beneficiary of all these complexity ultimately serve mankind?
Samrat Bee you have no absolute knowledge to conclude absolutely. now be gone!
Junk interview. There is no physical world there is only energy and by extension vibration and magnetism. Mr Searles point of view is the one presuposing assurance of a traditional understanding of reality - when it suits him. Egged on by a biased interviewer he conveniently forgets the surreal attributes of quantum mechanics to postulate his prejudices.
Smart men wish it were common knowledge come on entropy spread the fundamental provable truths not primitive belief
I really like John Searle, but virtually nothing he says over the course of this entire interview makes any fucking sense. Some of it makes the exact opposite of sense, and some of it doesn't actually say anything.
This guy literally said he knows all about the brain and how it works. He was wrong on ALL counts 🤣🤣🤣
He didn't say that. 2:35 "Let's SUPPOSE we had a..."
Talking sense? "KIcking ass??" You gotta be kidding! How does Searle's spiralling round the houses in some super-dupa, go-faster stripes future neuroscience, then just saying "and hey presto, now we REALLY know what it is to see pink," come ANYWHERE NEAR closing the explanatory gap in the philosophy of consciousness? Get real about the hard problem guys . . .
J.Searle cannot prove what he is saying. It is also a form of belief.
If we had souls we wouldn't be able to go unconscious. Anesthesia wouldn't work. Also, brain damage would have no effect.
WHWWD And Philosophy Stop making sense! 😎
All the comments on this video exhibit cognitive bias
How come scientists agree that we know very little about the brain and this clown is saying he knows all about how the brain works? Weird to be honest.
He didn't say that. 2:35 "Let's SUPPOSE we had a..."
Vojtěch Smutný He knows nothing. He’s a clown.
@@glennralph7007 he is respected linguist and theorist. Just because he presents opposite view than yours does not make him a clown
Vojtěch Smutný This guy is saying that consciousness is produced in the brain. Shows how little he knows. How do you get consciousness from a brain....unconscious matter? That’s magic right there he is pushing lol
@@glennralph7007 if I take a mallet and slam your head with it. You will be unconscious. So tell me again there is no link between brain and consciousness.
The guy in the pink shirt just doesn't get it
A person is a soul then a person is gay