@@Jun_kid *Not that long ago, but yes, I later noticed that this interview was certainly not recorded in the past few years. Saw a recent one from this year. He's still doing good for his age, nevertheless.*
The key premise in the argument was slipped in and went unchallenged: "It can't be about the physical, because we know everything about the physical" (which basically just echoes the Knowledge Argument, Explanatory Gap argument, Zombie argument, etc.) I can't think of a single serious neuroscientist who would say any such thing as "we know everything about the physical" as it relates to brain and consciousness. He's just clearly wrong on that. Of course, there is the further question of whether any amount of additional physical knowledge about the brain **could** determine which of the mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding consciousness or persons he adumbrated was correct. Prof. Swinburne gives a negative answer to that, but the argument for that was not presented here.
In order to have a coherent point-of-view? There’s nothing about the concept of soul that implies it wouldn’t experience itself as non-localized; indeed I’m not sure the idea of an absolutely non-local locus of attention makes sense…
I don't always buy Swinburne's arguments, but he is a fascinating and impressive thinker. I do feel that he was really out on a limb in this clip and that he knew it.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that we know everything about the "physical". It's just that what we consider physical cannot account for Consciousness.
@@plafar7887 Why can't it? We don't have a theory of how the brain produces consciousness now, but we have no reason to think that a good explanation has to involve anything non-physical like a "soul". When we change the way the brain works, e.g. with injury or drugs, we get changes in consciousness that correlate in specific ways. This shows us that consciousness *is* accounted for by the activity of physical matter in the brain, but we have an explanatory gap as to *how* it happens.
@@jonstewart464 It shows us that there's a correlation, but not how Consciousness arises from physical structures and dynamics. Physics, as it exists now, cannot account for it. It's not that we haven't figured out how the existing laws give rise to Consciousness, it's deeper than that - they can't. You can actually prove this in a more formal way ( not that it's needed, it's quite intuitive).
@@plafar7887 You might think that physics *can't* explain consciousness, but there is no accepted "proof" of this assertion. It's one of the most active topics of debate amongst scientists and philosophers: what has convinced you as "proof" has convinced very few experts in this area. Personally, I'm quite convinced by the mysterianism position (McGinn, Chomsky) but plenty of people who've devoted their lives to studying consciousness are convinced by illusionism, panpsychism, etc. I'm totally unconvinced by theories that introduce non-physical substances to account for consciousness - they don't help solve the mystery.
@@jonstewart464I understand your question, but I want to point out that Swinburne deals with this is excruciating detail in his book Evolution of the Soul, and does go a good way to demonstrating the reasonableness of his position. There is no explanatory gap; rather, the epiphenemonological (spelling?) qualia of experience is essentially different to any physical event: there is a brain event, but the experience of that brain event (a mind event) is different. E.g. no matter how much we study and examine a brain event that is processing pain, that observation will alway be fundamentally different to the person experiencing that pain (the mind event). Also, he is not an arrogant philosopher; he understands there exist other arguments.
Severing the corpus callosum creates gaps in our knowledge. Then follows with “the only possible explanation for our ignorance … must be non-physical”. His logic for dualism is utterly absurd.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that we know everything about the "physical". It's just that what we consider physical cannot account for Consciousness.
@@plafar7887 Watch it again. The guest was quite sure there was no need to wonder about natural explanations. Nope. Only supernatural explanations will do when that is your worldview. This is no different from any other god of the gaps situation. If you believe in the supernatural (yes this is a belief, not an a priori), then your unconscious mind will insinuate/project that reality onto your scientific imagination. Occam stands near with a scythe.
@@craigswanson8026 What I think he means by it is that one cannot find an explanation in what we consider 'natural'. Consciousness is not a problem within Neuroscience, or Biology, it's a problem that requires a rethinking of what we consider natural science.
Unless I got lost in the interview, and the answer was there, at what stage of human development did this soul appear? There have been so many different humanoid species and we believe many modern humans have elements of Neanderthal DNA within their make-up, so did they also have souls? If so which species and when did they acquire the facility?
🤔….i’m so confused. I think I am going to have to watch this video at least 3 more times. First, I’ll split the screen view in half so it reaches just the right side of each of my eyes; then I’ll reverse that so the video only hits the left side of each eye; and then again I will listen to the video with my eyes closed. If I STILL don’t get it, I might try watching the video one more time while standing on my head.
The argument that there's a non-physical experiencing entity (soul/person) which is 'connected' to a part of the brain, but can lose parts of soul-self when those bits are disconnected from the soul-connected brain parts is odd. Do blind people whose optical brain systems are damaged similarly lose part of their soul-self? Or is a forgotten memory a lost part of the soul-self? Even odder is the idea that these lost experiences are other soul-selves living independently in the same body!
"Do blind people whose optical brain systems are damaged similarly lose part of their soul-self? " No. The sensory data stream that gets rendered to the soul/psyche, consciousness is the experience, not the experiencer. This is CONTENT of consciousness, not the consciousness itself that is damaged or constrained. So the experience or interface with physicality will now be altered as reflected in the sensory datastream that the consciousness receives and their will be a visual constraint on the game play of the the experiencer who is experiencing the data stream until that consciousness logs off finally from that particular experiencial datasteam with that particular avatar body, ie at death. Nothing is fundamentally damaged in the particular eternal unit of consciousness. The damage is avatar specific and based only on that particular iteration with that particular body.
Your soul is your personality. It really is that simple. The character of your personality is the visceral measure of how spiritually mature your soul is along its path of purification. That character is expressed in how you treat yourself and others. This character development is cumulative from one incarnation to the next. You are not starting from scratch. You are building on what you learned in your past lives. Your character is shaped by your relationship to your personal truth, how much truth you are willing to face and hold a mirror to. In that regard, you walk side by side as the symbiotic facilitator in your soul's journey of purification. Your everyday trials and tribulations continually test your willingness to face your personal truth. The more truthful you are with yourself, the more courage, love and wisdom you can hold and express with humility. Thus, the more rewarding your life becomes, and the more purified your soul becomes. Your personal truth is faced by asking yourself three simple questions over and over again: what am I too proud to admit, what am I too self-willed to let go of, and what am I too fearful to confront.
I'm not so sure. When I tried LSD a month ago for the first time I felt like my soul left my body. For the 1st time ever in my life I felt that the person that was standing there on the dirt was not me. I experienced ego death, the only thing left I had was memories and extreme love, nothing more. I was just this constant presence, everything seemed connected, it was mind blowing.
Sounds like you had a true moment of grace and awakening! Psychedelics have proved effective in facilitating such experiences, especially when used in supervised workshop experiences. In ideal workshop circumstances where one feels safe, the masks of pretense can drop off and the channel opens for personal Truth to flood in in many ways. Great insights of self awareness and understanding can open up here. Out of body experiences seem to be a common denominator. How these experiences are felt and interpreted is surely personal. Much contemplation is likely to follow. I'd be curious to know what you have carried forth into your everyday life from this experience. How has your behavior changed? BTW, everything is connected!
@@FrankDeAlto I feel like I shouldn't worry too much about everything and life itself, we create the meaning of it. I feel more alive now than before and I'm not afraid of talking to people no more, I feel more free. Better just enjoy each moment. I felt so connected to the earth and everything that my life perspective was truly changed. It was by far the most incredible experience in my life.
LOL- Mental gymnastics this man pulled off to get around to "My soul..." was extraordinary- he deserved a gold medal for that tumbling/contortionist routine.
Consciousness ( which is assigned to soul by religions) is actually based on some societal ideas gained by an individual over time. Had it been connected to the soul, we should have attained it by birth and not over time. Even if soul exists, it is unlikely that the soul can communicate with the brain. The existence of soul is just a belief and humans do not have the capability to know whether it is true or not.
The soul is concept which belongs to religion. Consiousness is essentially different concept, which has many dimensios. It is dependent on the central nervous system. As you can listen here different manipulative methods can change our personality and lobotomy was used before antipsychotic drugs.
If he wasn’t into Christian Apologetics and wasn’t such a staunch proponent of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, perhaps his views on the existence of the soul might have come across as slightly more objective and believable. As it is, he is obviously biased and has no evidence to backup his views either.
There are people that have had some mental problem like a stroke or mental breakdown, sometimes drug induced in which the idea of the self is gone. In what way does the soul manifest itself that can't be a physical phenomenon? Is it memories or personality, the life story? It seems that I could loose my memories, my life story, and personality and would still exist as a person. What, if anything is left of that five year old now that I am 73? Is there any outward expression of that same soul shared by me at five and me today?
I have a serious difficulty with arguments that propose a non physical element. I don't think it is ever a consistent hypothesis. IF something that you might call non material interacts with the real world causing state changes in the material realm, like a soul interfering with the brain's functions, then it MUST have physical properties just like anything else. By definition! It must be subject to measurement, it must be able to move some kind of needle! The fact that we haven't come up with that gauge device means that we either will or that the soul just doesn't exist. It is not evidence for an "immaterial" soul, whatever that might possibly be. Like the electric field, for instance. It can interfere with the physical because it is part of physical world! When we didn't know how to measure it we thought it was magic, but now we know.
That isn't the bad part. I take no issue with people taking solice in faith in some type of immortality. It's the people who then exploit those people's faith for their own benefit (and subsequently harm to others) that I think we should assertively oppose.
Fascinating topic ! My question is what happens if people suffer from (A) schizophrenia, or (B) multiple personality disorder ? Schizophrenics can switch from one personality to another - but THEY KNOW that one or several other personalities exist within their body; people suffering from multiple personality disorder switch from one personality to the next WITHOUT KNOWING that other personalities are present and available. In both cases the corpus callosum is intact. I am intrigued by this question, as my sister is a schizophrenic, and my late first wife had multiple personality disorder.
The ‘soul’ as I understand it is a religious concept describing an immaterial spiritual entity or consciousness unique to every person that is connected to but ultimately separate from the individual, hence its immortality. It is not a scientific concept but rather an anthropological construct used to justify a belief in god. Discussing the soul is a complete waste of time.
To experience this reality you need the ability to control the physical in the realm that you the physical can not comprehend because it's mind not matter that you seek knowledge of
Read some summaries of the literature in Psychology, Biopsychology and the Neurosciences and still claim, what’s physical cannot explain what experiences and consciousness are. People make these ridiculous claims without realizing just how much work has been done in these fields.
While I think Swinburne makes a decent attempt to incorporate information into his views here, and considers some alternatives, I think his view has many flaws. If there is a non-physical object or being (a soul) in communication with both of the detached hemispheres, then for it to be functional it seems to require both the transmission and reception of information from the brain. If it cannot communicate any information between hemispheres (as is suggested by experimental studies), then it is either only in communication with one hemisphere or it is unable to communicate with other parts of itself (I guess we would consider this to be separate souls). I agree with Swinburne on this. However, we cannot (as of yet) determine whether or not a hemisphere is unconscious, in the same way that we cannot determine whether or not other people or other animals are conscious. We generally assume other humans are conscious because they appear to be similar to us and we believe ourselves to be conscious, but Swinburne suggests here that we cannot tell if a human is in communication with a soul in much the same way. Therefore, we cannot determine whether anyone else has a soul. They may just display all physiological signs of consciousness without being conscious or having a soul. Perhaps we are as well. Or perhaps people have an arbitrary or uncountable number of souls (why should the number of souls be discrete?). Or perhaps several people share souls without the souls having the ability (or desire) to transfer significant amounts of information. Perhaps the concept of a soul is so poorly understood or defined because we have no means to interact with it (known) that isn't hugely dependent on the physiological states of the body (including the brain), so we can't gauge its properties. Instead, we tend to speculate on the properties of a soul with no real progress.
Soul is just another word to signify the self. Krishna says in the gita: " this body, O son of Kunti is called the field of activities, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field." Simply put, if there is no self or soul knowledge doesn't exist but since knowledge does exist the self cannot be denied to exist. In truth, we don't have a soul like it's some possession we in essence are the soul.
Soul cannot be calculated where we do not find any logical reasoning. i believe there is a soul because we are able to create calculation, unlike computer that is designed to calculate.
You already have everything you need. Consciousness want you to be in control. Once that is done, you then have to conquer four elements at the same time. For certain race, they have the other 2 or 3 elements to complete the rite. The nonphysical is already in you waiting to go up, BUT you (humans) so filled with a type of impatient feelings you give in and remain in the realm of science alone - the longer you keep away from your acausal part that spirals up to the top of your brain when on the walk of journey or wandering you become to unlock parts of you. My ancestors knew you were good folks but you on the other hand don't believe in the enduring power that filters you till you become one with this whole creation in and around us. I wish your children will one day think for themselves rather than follow father who don't know their left from right.
@giuseppeLizzi-rj3er You can call it that if you want. But the fact that I have a personality doesn't entail that any of the woowoo claims about the soul are true.
Here’s the truth paraphrased from the bible. The soul is a persons’ body. It’s not a spirit. Air we breathe is spirit. Not a invisible ghost within our body.
All that is created is through agreement and this agreement is what's unbelievable yet you have a chair as well as I do that's the agreement between you and me and other remember all is in agreement
You Are Asking Right Question to Wrong Persons or Vice a Versa , All They are Confused With mind and matter, Intellectual Consciousness and Awareness , Your Ego is your Soul, in reality your Persona which is collection of memories within your in coming consciousness you call it as DNA And Your Personal Experience in your life , its a kind of role you play , Yes Some unique experience in the exploration of your body and mind are Extracted when this body dies for the evolution of consciousness , Do People call it as Having Souls , I believe as I know upto now all are Equal Goddess & Gods Few Awaken Rest Enjoying Sleep in their Persona💔🙏
the "soul" (this hole) as far as it exists at all sits between soil & sol (Earth & Sun) (to "soil" something is to make it dirty & S-O-L = speed of light)
What is soul? Neurosience doesnt know how figure it out. Guys definies soul though keep out neurosience proceendings he soul definitions are wortheless neurosience. Rambling gibberich
I thought that was Johann Herbart calculus psychology, counter-faculty theory of soul, counter Fichte's pure ego, there's associationism (3:27) there's interaction (8:00) determinism (8:47)
All we experience is for the higher mind the ferma it controls what we experience in the form of time which doesn't exist we are in agreement as far as this construct goes
Hey Mr Kuhn! Have you ever considered interviewing the neo-neo-platonist and cognitive scientist, John Vervaeke? He's been getting sorta popular and I'd love to hear a discussion between y'all!
Originally when children died their souls went to hell. Eventually when children died their souls went to purgatory. Today when children die their souls go to heaven. Would our theologian identify which outcome is correct?
Physically is just how we experience reality by means of our sensory perceptual systems. And what’s good is that biological evolution has managed to make it that these experiences correlate quite highly with reality. Or at least correlate highly enough that we are able to adapt and survive in reality.
@@jjharvathhYou seem to not understand word, but your intent is clear: you really had no desire to argue anything, to try and dissuade anyone of anything. Perhaps you’re too lazy; most likely you just know you can’t.
Early on in the development of the human brain, a need arose to find a sense to one’s existence. The notion of ‘soul’ emerged from this need. Objectively speaking, nothing proves that Homo sapiens are the only living beings endowed with an eternal soul, nor does anything proves that the soul even exists.
His argument for studying the brain not telling us about the number of persons only works if we consider persons to be indivisible. He thinks they must be because he believes in souls. If we are divisible, for example if the severing of the corpus callosum does create two conscious entities, then his argument fails. So he's smuggling in this assumption, presumably unknowingly. I'm not suggesting he's arguing in bad faith, I have huge respect for him.
Berkeley says we know the soul as the perceiver in perception. And Hume says perceptions (his own, anyway) never reveal any perceiver. (This is the disagreement between Hindus and Buddhists, from millennia prior.) I guess Swinburne is in Berkeley's camp. What the body does ... it's auto pilot actions and reactions ... never guarantee a perceiver is present in its operations, even its perceptual ones, but if you attend to your own immediate experience, you know that you're there... you just don't know if anyone else is attending to the other potential perceptual objects that your body / brain might be presenting. That's how I understand his points, anyway.
I knew I have been in his world before this 40+ years I have been here. And, there is a reason I won't dabble in woods till I find my peak while my feet is on this earth. The four must become one whether you like it or not. It is a fact you can't now or in the future.
The source of consciousness is from the CENTER, which of the human body manifested in the form of the heart. The brain is another layer of manifestation from the heart. It is also the manifestation of the mind. The mind is of the soul. Mind and soul are both non physical. Brain and body are physical. Human can sense mind and soul as he sense brain and body.
Yes, of course, people have conscious immortal souls who are the free observing SUBJECT that receives what the physical brain conveys be it dreams, thoughts, pain and pleasure, emotions, etc., which serve as the OBJECTS being perceived.. Without the aware soul, you are nothing but an unaware animal just driven by natural instincts beyond control, not free and so not accountable, or just like an AI driven by a program.. People who do not think they have souls would likely become a democrat who think "FREE WILL to CHOOSE" does not exist because they believe that Darwin's IGUANA is their Original Mama, just evolving driven by nature.... but then, mysteriously march in the streets, screaming on top of their lungs, demanding freedom and human rights without free will to choose freedom, like an incoherent funny clowns... sigh...
Animals are not unaware. Most of them have the same or very similar sensory perceptual systems as us. Animals also make choices from the options available to them just like humans do.
Swinburne was old school when he was young. Now he’s like a corpse trying to reinvigorate apologetic talking points that have been dead and buried for decades, if not centuries, now.
Your sentiments i avoid, but because you been relpying to me I'm here to say: be a man for once in your life - no more verbatim. It's ok for Robert to critique all, but when critiqued himself you get all defensive and try damage controlling.
What is this term that is 'physical', both the concept of and contact, and what allows for or is the medium that enables contact or relations? Because 'physical' or contact entails time and space, the temporal & spatial, i.e, mass & magnitude, so how then can this term 'physical' even be used as a principle or as entity? The materialists always imply that 'everything is physical' - and they use this very term so indirectly precluding God, or anything beyond the existiential reality or a 'supernatural' realm. It's pretty clear if you use your God-given intellect that that which is susceptible to time and change can not be principle. What does this 'everything is physical' really mean, what's the every Reason for this belief? Relativity isn't a principle, nor is contact a principle, nor is change a principle. You can't use the term 'physical' and shoehorn everything else to fit that belief. Everything physical is ultimately not principle.
How would the pure Idealists have scientists and engineers design automobiles without at least pretending that reality is physical? The question I can never get an answer to is, what good would come if suddenly all scientists agreed consciousness is primary or even if they just agreed that consciousness must be among the fundamental things that exist? What is all this angst about scientist not giving the non-physical enough credence all about? What are people wanting to happen?
@@S3RAVA3LM You do know your aggression speaks of fear… you act all self righteous, almighty and mad, but really are just afraid to speak clearly, lest others see your arguments are weak. You drop names of philosophers, but do you really understand them? If you do, then put their thoughts in 21st century language and duke it out. Quit hiding behind your “obscurity-speak”.
@@longcastle4863 No. That's just a misconception on your part. You cleave to the consensus, so feeling a false sense of validation when really you're insecure - thus you cling to the "popular" opinion. You can't actually give any insight because you haven't any. It's easy to point out a 'sophist', because when you test them, they're only ever superficial, and when they themselves a confronted by this fact, the narcissist in them comes out.
@@longcastle4863 Again, I don't care about you or your 'beliefs' - you either have insight, facts, evidence, Wisdom, or you don't. Your little incoherent cry baby defense here is quite telling.
*Professor Swinburne is 88-years-old?! Remarkable vitality and cognitive composure, to say the least. 😮*
@@Jun_kid *Not that long ago, but yes, I later noticed that this interview was certainly not recorded in the past few years. Saw a recent one from this year. He's still doing good for his age, nevertheless.*
The key premise in the argument was slipped in and went unchallenged: "It can't be about the physical, because we know everything about the physical" (which basically just echoes the Knowledge Argument, Explanatory Gap argument, Zombie argument, etc.) I can't think of a single serious neuroscientist who would say any such thing as "we know everything about the physical" as it relates to brain and consciousness. He's just clearly wrong on that. Of course, there is the further question of whether any amount of additional physical knowledge about the brain **could** determine which of the mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding consciousness or persons he adumbrated was correct. Prof. Swinburne gives a negative answer to that, but the argument for that was not presented here.
Exactly!
If the soul is a non-physical thing, why should it be constrained to one physical spot in the physical brain?
In order to have a coherent point-of-view? There’s nothing about the concept of soul that implies it wouldn’t experience itself as non-localized; indeed I’m not sure the idea of an absolutely non-local locus of attention makes sense…
@@halcyon2864 Conffusing? Rather. ;))
I don't always buy Swinburne's arguments, but he is a fascinating and impressive thinker. I do feel that he was really out on a limb in this clip and that he knew it.
I agree! Talking about a soul, but nothing to do with God?? I'm an agnostic but this is weak.
We ought not give any credence to those who say “we know all about the physical, so it must be non-physical”. Good god the arrogance.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that we know everything about the "physical". It's just that what we consider physical cannot account for Consciousness.
@@plafar7887 Why can't it? We don't have a theory of how the brain produces consciousness now, but we have no reason to think that a good explanation has to involve anything non-physical like a "soul". When we change the way the brain works, e.g. with injury or drugs, we get changes in consciousness that correlate in specific ways. This shows us that consciousness *is* accounted for by the activity of physical matter in the brain, but we have an explanatory gap as to *how* it happens.
@@jonstewart464 It shows us that there's a correlation, but not how Consciousness arises from physical structures and dynamics. Physics, as it exists now, cannot account for it. It's not that we haven't figured out how the existing laws give rise to Consciousness, it's deeper than that - they can't. You can actually prove this in a more formal way ( not that it's needed, it's quite intuitive).
@@plafar7887 You might think that physics *can't* explain consciousness, but there is no accepted "proof" of this assertion. It's one of the most active topics of debate amongst scientists and philosophers: what has convinced you as "proof" has convinced very few experts in this area. Personally, I'm quite convinced by the mysterianism position (McGinn, Chomsky) but plenty of people who've devoted their lives to studying consciousness are convinced by illusionism, panpsychism, etc. I'm totally unconvinced by theories that introduce non-physical substances to account for consciousness - they don't help solve the mystery.
@@jonstewart464I understand your question, but I want to point out that Swinburne deals with this is excruciating detail in his book Evolution of the Soul, and does go a good way to demonstrating the reasonableness of his position. There is no explanatory gap; rather, the epiphenemonological (spelling?) qualia of experience is essentially different to any physical event: there is a brain event, but the experience of that brain event (a mind event) is different. E.g. no matter how much we study and examine a brain event that is processing pain, that observation will alway be fundamentally different to the person experiencing that pain (the mind event). Also, he is not an arrogant philosopher; he understands there exist other arguments.
Severing the corpus callosum creates gaps in our knowledge. Then follows with “the only possible explanation for our ignorance … must be non-physical”. His logic for dualism is utterly absurd.
I think you're missing the point. It's not that we know everything about the "physical". It's just that what we consider physical cannot account for Consciousness.
@@plafar7887
Watch it again. The guest was quite sure there was no need to wonder about natural explanations. Nope. Only supernatural explanations will do when that is your worldview. This is no different from any other god of the gaps situation. If you believe in the supernatural (yes this is a belief, not an a priori), then your unconscious mind will insinuate/project that reality onto your scientific imagination. Occam stands near with a scythe.
@@craigswanson8026 What I think he means by it is that one cannot find an explanation in what we consider 'natural'. Consciousness is not a problem within Neuroscience, or Biology, it's a problem that requires a rethinking of what we consider natural science.
Unless I got lost in the interview, and the answer was there, at what stage of human development did this soul appear? There have been so many different humanoid species and we believe many modern humans have elements of Neanderthal DNA within their make-up, so did they also have souls? If so which species and when did they acquire the facility?
🤔….i’m so confused. I think I am going to have to watch this video at least 3 more times. First, I’ll split the screen view in half so it reaches just the right side of each of my eyes; then I’ll reverse that so the video only hits the left side of each eye; and then again I will listen to the video with my eyes closed.
If I STILL don’t get it, I might try watching the video one more time while standing on my head.
The argument that there's a non-physical experiencing entity (soul/person) which is 'connected' to a part of the brain, but can lose parts of soul-self when those bits are disconnected from the soul-connected brain parts is odd. Do blind people whose optical brain systems are damaged similarly lose part of their soul-self? Or is a forgotten memory a lost part of the soul-self? Even odder is the idea that these lost experiences are other soul-selves living independently in the same body!
"Do blind people whose optical brain systems are damaged similarly lose part of their soul-self? "
No. The sensory data stream that gets rendered to the soul/psyche, consciousness is the experience, not the experiencer. This is CONTENT of consciousness, not the consciousness itself that is damaged or constrained. So the experience or interface with physicality will now be altered as reflected in the sensory datastream that the consciousness receives and their will be a visual constraint on the game play of the the experiencer who is experiencing the data stream until that consciousness logs off finally from that particular experiencial datasteam with that particular avatar body, ie at death. Nothing is fundamentally damaged in the particular eternal unit of consciousness. The damage is avatar specific and based only on that particular iteration with that particular body.
I'm a simple person. I see Swinburne and RLK talking, I click. Simply brilliant stuff here. Swinburne is so sound and RLK is the perfect partner.
Reading more might help. 😊
Your soul is your personality. It really is that simple. The character of your personality is the visceral measure of how spiritually mature your soul is along its path of purification. That character is expressed in how you treat yourself and others. This character development is cumulative from one incarnation to the next. You are not starting from scratch. You are building on what you learned in your past lives. Your character is shaped by your relationship to your personal truth, how much truth you are willing to face and hold a mirror to. In that regard, you walk side by side as the symbiotic facilitator in your soul's journey of purification. Your everyday trials and tribulations continually test your willingness to face your personal truth. The more truthful you are with yourself, the more courage, love and wisdom you can hold and express with humility. Thus, the more rewarding your life becomes, and the more purified your soul becomes. Your personal truth is faced by asking yourself three simple questions over and over again: what am I too proud to admit, what am I too self-willed to let go of, and what am I too fearful to confront.
I'm not so sure. When I tried LSD a month ago for the first time I felt like my soul left my body. For the 1st time ever in my life I felt that the person that was standing there on the dirt was not me.
I experienced ego death, the only thing left I had was memories and extreme love, nothing more. I was just this constant presence, everything seemed connected, it was mind blowing.
Sounds like you had a true moment of grace and awakening! Psychedelics have proved effective in facilitating such experiences, especially when used in supervised workshop experiences. In ideal workshop circumstances where one feels safe, the masks of pretense can drop off and the channel opens for personal Truth to flood in in many ways. Great insights of self awareness and understanding can open up here. Out of body experiences seem to be a common denominator. How these experiences are felt and interpreted is surely personal. Much contemplation is likely to follow. I'd be curious to know what you have carried forth into your everyday life from this experience. How has your behavior changed? BTW, everything is connected!
@@FrankDeAlto I feel like I shouldn't worry too much about everything and life itself, we create the meaning of it.
I feel more alive now than before and I'm not afraid of talking to people no more, I feel more free.
Better just enjoy each moment.
I felt so connected to the earth and everything that my life perspective was truly changed.
It was by far the most incredible experience in my life.
Good argument
LOL- Mental gymnastics this man pulled off to get around to "My soul..." was extraordinary- he deserved a gold medal for that tumbling/contortionist routine.
4:23 in and I don't feel like I'm understanding anything
But it sounded _so_ eloquent.
🥸
Consciousness ( which is assigned to soul by religions) is actually based on some societal ideas gained by an individual over time. Had it been connected to the soul, we should have attained it by birth and not over time. Even if soul exists, it is unlikely that the soul can communicate with the brain. The existence of soul is just a belief and humans do not have the capability to know whether it is true or not.
It's not so much that the person does not have a soul, it's that there is no "person" There is an organism
The soul is concept which belongs to religion. Consiousness is essentially different concept, which has many dimensios. It is dependent on the central nervous system. As you can listen here different manipulative methods can change our personality and lobotomy was used before antipsychotic drugs.
It is not that people have souls, people ARE souls.
So overpopulation is a problem of the soul….
Souls are mythology and nonsense.
And what about animals? They don't have souls?
Are souls and some arseholes! Do the latter have souls or are they NPC's ?😊
@@Bartskol every dog goes to Heaven.*
* Excludes Cujo and the three headed dog of Hell.
If he wasn’t into Christian Apologetics and wasn’t such a staunch proponent of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, perhaps his views on the existence of the soul might have come across as slightly more objective and believable. As it is, he is obviously biased and has no evidence to backup his views either.
There are people that have had some mental problem like a stroke or mental breakdown, sometimes drug induced in which the idea of the self is gone. In what way does the soul manifest itself that can't be a physical phenomenon? Is it memories or personality, the life story? It seems that I could loose my memories, my life story, and personality and would still exist as a person. What, if anything is left of that five year old now that I am 73? Is there any outward expression of that same soul shared by me at five and me today?
No.
What exactly is a Soul?
My ex wifes mother convinced me that Human beings do not have Souls....
lol
Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.
I have a serious difficulty with arguments that propose a non physical element. I don't think it is ever a consistent hypothesis. IF something that you might call non material interacts with the real world causing state changes in the material realm, like a soul interfering with the brain's functions, then it MUST have physical properties just like anything else. By definition! It must be subject to measurement, it must be able to move some kind of needle! The fact that we haven't come up with that gauge device means that we either will or that the soul just doesn't exist. It is not evidence for an "immaterial" soul, whatever that might possibly be. Like the electric field, for instance. It can interfere with the physical because it is part of physical world! When we didn't know how to measure it we thought it was magic, but now we know.
We all want to believe that chocolate is god for us
Chocolate is God. I will join your religion!
@@sentientflower7891 haha lol. Good 😁
People are so sacred that their existence is fleeting and when faced with oblivion, people invent all kinds of nonsense to sooth them.
That isn't the bad part. I take no issue with people taking solice in faith in some type of immortality. It's the people who then exploit those people's faith for their own benefit (and subsequently harm to others) that I think we should assertively oppose.
So scared they try to force their belief system down everyone and their children’s throat. Whether they like it or not.
Fascinating topic ! My question is what happens if people suffer from (A) schizophrenia, or (B) multiple personality disorder ? Schizophrenics can switch from one personality to another - but THEY KNOW that one or several other personalities exist within their body; people suffering from multiple personality disorder switch from one personality to the next WITHOUT KNOWING that other personalities are present and available. In both cases the corpus callosum is intact. I am intrigued by this question, as my sister is a schizophrenic, and my late first wife had multiple personality disorder.
The ‘soul’ as I understand it is a religious concept describing an immaterial spiritual entity or consciousness unique to every person that is connected to but ultimately separate from the individual, hence its immortality. It is not a scientific concept but rather an anthropological construct used to justify a belief in god. Discussing the soul is a complete waste of time.
A soul is a philosophical concept. By reducing it to merely a "religious concept" thereby dismissing it on that grounds is fallacious.
To experience this reality you need the ability to control the physical in the realm that you the physical can not comprehend because it's mind not matter that you seek knowledge of
Read some summaries of the literature in Psychology, Biopsychology and the Neurosciences and still claim, what’s physical cannot explain what experiences and consciousness are. People make these ridiculous claims without realizing just how much work has been done in these fields.
While I think Swinburne makes a decent attempt to incorporate information into his views here, and considers some alternatives, I think his view has many flaws. If there is a non-physical object or being (a soul) in communication with both of the detached hemispheres, then for it to be functional it seems to require both the transmission and reception of information from the brain. If it cannot communicate any information between hemispheres (as is suggested by experimental studies), then it is either only in communication with one hemisphere or it is unable to communicate with other parts of itself (I guess we would consider this to be separate souls). I agree with Swinburne on this.
However, we cannot (as of yet) determine whether or not a hemisphere is unconscious, in the same way that we cannot determine whether or not other people or other animals are conscious. We generally assume other humans are conscious because they appear to be similar to us and we believe ourselves to be conscious, but Swinburne suggests here that we cannot tell if a human is in communication with a soul in much the same way. Therefore, we cannot determine whether anyone else has a soul. They may just display all physiological signs of consciousness without being conscious or having a soul. Perhaps we are as well. Or perhaps people have an arbitrary or uncountable number of souls (why should the number of souls be discrete?). Or perhaps several people share souls without the souls having the ability (or desire) to transfer significant amounts of information. Perhaps the concept of a soul is so poorly understood or defined because we have no means to interact with it (known) that isn't hugely dependent on the physiological states of the body (including the brain), so we can't gauge its properties. Instead, we tend to speculate on the properties of a soul with no real progress.
Don't let your sight deceive you. If you've even on this style of devouring growth for some time.
Interesting. But then being a person is a changing, evolving thing. A soul would also have to be 'split' into many souls?
I think codex manuscripts are written in soul journey language.
Soul is just another word to signify the self. Krishna says in the gita: " this body, O son of Kunti is called the field of activities, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field."
Simply put, if there is no self or soul knowledge doesn't exist but since knowledge does exist the self cannot be denied to exist. In truth, we don't have a soul like it's some possession we in essence are the soul.
If there is a non physical component it would not be effected nor effect the physical. or vice versa.
Soul cannot be calculated where we do not find any logical reasoning. i believe there is a soul because we are able to create calculation, unlike computer that is designed to calculate.
Or are we souls and our embodiment is crucial to our "soulness"?
I'm amazed that still we not sure who's running the place the body rules the mind or mind over matter
You already have everything you need. Consciousness want you to be in control. Once that is done, you then have to conquer four elements at the same time. For certain race, they have the other 2 or 3 elements to complete the rite. The nonphysical is already in you waiting to go up, BUT you (humans) so filled with a type of impatient feelings you give in and remain in the realm of science alone - the longer you keep away from your acausal part that spirals up to the top of your brain when on the walk of journey or wandering you become to unlock parts of you. My ancestors knew you were good folks but you on the other hand don't believe in the enduring power that filters you till you become one with this whole creation in and around us. I wish your children will one day think for themselves rather than follow father who don't know their left from right.
That was the most ridiculous argument for a soul I have ever heard.
You have a personality and that is a soul brother
@giuseppeLizzi-rj3er You can call it that if you want. But the fact that I have a personality doesn't entail that any of the woowoo claims about the soul are true.
Sometimes a baby is born without a brain.
Does it have consciousness ?
Has it got a soul ?
The motor cortex
Lots of lofty proclamations in this comments section, and they’re even worse than this alleged “argument” for a soul
It can't be proven either way. Neither the Theologian nor the Atheist can claim victory.
Here’s the truth paraphrased from the bible. The soul is a persons’ body. It’s not a spirit. Air we breathe is spirit. Not a invisible ghost within our body.
Western settlers have egos do to unresolved guilt..
Sol is the mind which defeates spirit also known as ego
3rd world liberation for a better world..
Time to resolve our guilt
All that is created is through agreement and this agreement is what's unbelievable yet you have a chair as well as I do that's the agreement between you and me and other remember all is in agreement
You Are Asking Right Question to Wrong Persons or Vice a Versa , All They are Confused With mind and matter, Intellectual Consciousness and Awareness , Your Ego is your Soul, in reality your Persona which is collection of memories within your in coming consciousness you call it as DNA And Your Personal Experience in your life , its a kind of role you play , Yes Some unique experience in the exploration of your body and mind are Extracted when this body dies for the evolution of consciousness , Do People call it as Having Souls , I believe as I know upto now all are Equal Goddess & Gods Few Awaken Rest Enjoying Sleep in their Persona💔🙏
I thought the thumbnail was asking if Persians have souls 😂
the "soul" (this hole) as far as it exists at all sits between soil & sol (Earth & Sun) (to "soil" something is to make it dirty & S-O-L = speed of light)
Bravo Master Swinburne , Bravo
yup and we are all going to have thousands of lives....there are only two exceptions
Talking about a soul, but nothing to do with God?? I'm an agnostic but this is weak. He looked lost, and Robert knew it.
Heavens on Earth by Michael Shermer
No, people do not have souls. They have SOUL. Or not... xxx
So all jazz musicians go to heaven. Good! That’s a religion I could get behind.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
The mobile phone is the problem!
What is soul? Neurosience doesnt know how figure it out. Guys definies soul though keep out neurosience proceendings he soul definitions are wortheless neurosience. Rambling gibberich
I thought that was Johann Herbart calculus psychology, counter-faculty theory of soul, counter Fichte's pure ego, there's associationism (3:27) there's interaction (8:00) determinism (8:47)
All we experience is for the higher mind the ferma it controls what we experience in the form of time which doesn't exist we are in agreement as far as this construct goes
SOS Conscious Observer of wave function collapse
Its impossible to "sleep" if we don't have a soul. Peace be upon us all
What's the line of reasoning?
Nonsense
What?!
Hey Mr Kuhn! Have you ever considered interviewing the neo-neo-platonist and cognitive scientist, John Vervaeke? He's been getting sorta popular and I'd love to hear a discussion between y'all!
There is only one
Originally when children died their souls went to hell. Eventually when children died their souls went to purgatory. Today when children die their souls go to heaven. Would our theologian identify which outcome is correct?
I should also mention Limbo. Remember Limbo?
For gosh sakes is this becoming a religious channel? Talking about souls takes us back about 3,000 years.
So is it very advanced, on the other hand, to simply ignore the argument he's given?
@@Jun_kid I think he’s from Canada. 😊
I've never seen anyone explain where our "souls" were before we come into existence.
Soul is bs.
We talk about the physical as if we know what it is.
Physically is just how we experience reality by means of our sensory perceptual systems. And what’s good is that biological evolution has managed to make it that these experiences correlate quite highly with reality. Or at least correlate highly enough that we are able to adapt and survive in reality.
@@longcastle4863 If you are happy with that understanding, I shall not try to dissuade you.
@@jjharvathh Oh, I’m utterly ecstatic, I assure you, but please try to dissuade me. It’ll be fun.
@@longcastle4863 You are ecstatic? I don't know why you tell me, a stranger on the Internet. But, whatever...
@@jjharvathhYou seem to not understand word, but your intent is clear: you really had no desire to argue anything, to try and dissuade anyone of anything. Perhaps you’re too lazy; most likely you just know you can’t.
Do swine have souls?
Early on in the development of the human brain, a need arose to find a sense to one’s existence. The notion of ‘soul’ emerged from this need. Objectively speaking, nothing proves that Homo sapiens are the only living beings endowed with an eternal soul, nor does anything proves that the soul even exists.
The early development of the human brain was done in a fish.
His argument for studying the brain not telling us about the number of persons only works if we consider persons to be indivisible. He thinks they must be because he believes in souls. If we are divisible, for example if the severing of the corpus callosum does create two conscious entities, then his argument fails. So he's smuggling in this assumption, presumably unknowingly. I'm not suggesting he's arguing in bad faith, I have huge respect for him.
And that’s that!
One of the weakest arguments I ever heard.
Berkeley says we know the soul as the perceiver in perception. And Hume says perceptions (his own, anyway) never reveal any perceiver. (This is the disagreement between Hindus and Buddhists, from millennia prior.) I guess Swinburne is in Berkeley's camp. What the body does ... it's auto pilot actions and reactions ... never guarantee a perceiver is present in its operations, even its perceptual ones, but if you attend to your own immediate experience, you know that you're there... you just don't know if anyone else is attending to the other potential perceptual objects that your body / brain might be presenting. That's how I understand his points, anyway.
Berkeley is my favorite philosopher that I disagree with.
The soul is a ridiculous idea.
@@Jun_kid … and gone 😊
I knew I have been in his world before this 40+ years I have been here. And, there is a reason I won't dabble in woods till I find my peak while my feet is on this earth. The four must become one whether you like it or not. It is a fact you can't now or in the future.
Every noun is a soul.
He is full of you know what and too arrogant to say we dont know.
no
The source of consciousness is from the CENTER, which of the human body manifested in the form of the heart. The brain is another layer of manifestation from the heart. It is also the manifestation of the mind. The mind is of the soul. Mind and soul are both non physical. Brain and body are physical. Human can sense mind and soul as he sense brain and body.
People with heart transplants don’t have changes in personality or sense of self.
I have read reports to the contrary@@longcastle4863
Yes, of course, people have conscious immortal souls who are the free observing SUBJECT that receives what the physical brain conveys be it dreams, thoughts, pain and pleasure, emotions, etc., which serve as the OBJECTS being perceived..
Without the aware soul, you are nothing but an unaware animal just driven by natural instincts beyond control, not free and so not accountable, or just like an AI driven by a program..
People who do not think they have souls would likely become a democrat who think "FREE WILL to CHOOSE" does not exist because they believe that Darwin's IGUANA is their Original Mama, just evolving driven by nature.... but then, mysteriously march in the streets, screaming on top of their lungs, demanding freedom and human rights without free will to choose freedom, like an incoherent funny clowns... sigh...
Animals are not unaware. Most of them have the same or very similar sensory perceptual systems as us. Animals also make choices from the options available to them just like humans do.
Too many presumptive statements here for my liking. This isn't logical thinking but still an interesting theory.
Swinburne was old school when he was young. Now he’s like a corpse trying to reinvigorate apologetic talking points that have been dead and buried for decades, if not centuries, now.
Your sentiments i avoid, but because you been relpying to me I'm here to say: be a man for once in your life - no more verbatim.
It's ok for Robert to critique all, but when critiqued himself you get all defensive and try damage controlling.
@@S3RAVA3LM Actually, I was thinking you need to find the woman in you.
What is this term that is 'physical', both the concept of and contact, and what allows for or is the medium that enables contact or relations?
Because 'physical' or contact entails time and space, the temporal & spatial, i.e, mass & magnitude, so how then can this term 'physical' even be used as a principle or as entity?
The materialists always imply that 'everything is physical' - and they use this very term so indirectly precluding God, or anything beyond the existiential reality or a 'supernatural' realm. It's pretty clear if you use your God-given intellect that that which is susceptible to time and change can not be principle.
What does this 'everything is physical' really mean, what's the every Reason for this belief? Relativity isn't a principle, nor is contact a principle, nor is change a principle. You can't use the term 'physical' and shoehorn everything else to fit that belief. Everything physical is ultimately not principle.
How would the pure Idealists have scientists and engineers design automobiles without at least pretending that reality is physical? The question I can never get an answer to is, what good would come if suddenly all scientists agreed consciousness is primary or even if they just agreed that consciousness must be among the fundamental things that exist? What is all this angst about scientist not giving the non-physical enough credence all about? What are people wanting to happen?
I don't see what you're trying to say.
I don't care about your beliefs, you either know or you don't.
And they're mathematicians, not scientists.
@@S3RAVA3LM You do know your aggression speaks of fear… you act all self righteous, almighty and mad, but really are just afraid to speak clearly, lest others see your arguments are weak. You drop names of philosophers, but do you really understand them? If you do, then put their thoughts in 21st century language and duke it out. Quit hiding behind your “obscurity-speak”.
@@longcastle4863 No. That's just a misconception on your part. You cleave to the consensus, so feeling a false sense of validation when really you're insecure - thus you cling to the "popular" opinion.
You can't actually give any insight because you haven't any. It's easy to point out a 'sophist', because when you test them, they're only ever superficial, and when they themselves a confronted by this fact, the narcissist in them comes out.
@@longcastle4863 Again, I don't care about you or your 'beliefs' - you either have insight, facts, evidence, Wisdom, or you don't. Your little incoherent cry baby defense here is quite telling.