Do you think souls are real?

@CJWolf-st1qi

Жыл бұрын

Yep

@jssherrard

Жыл бұрын

Nope.

@md.noorulkarim5542

Жыл бұрын

Is there any solid verified proven reason to believe or not to believe? My intuition causes me to believe the existence of soul.

@docta2985

Жыл бұрын

Since everything that exists can be reduced to how fundamental particles interact with each other, souls are only real to those who believe in them.

@jeff-8511

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think it’s real

The Ancients in the East understood it much better: You are not a human being having an experience in the Universe, you are the Universe having an experience in a human being.

@gretchenchristophel1169

Жыл бұрын

Bingo! Hit the nail on the head. A-N-D....the "reason" for "karma" is to ensure the Universal energy has fulfilled its human experience properly. The energy keeps coming around until it gets it "right" and can move to the next universal experience whatever that might be. Just sayin' 🤗

@frojojo5717

Жыл бұрын

I call BS!

@gretchenchristophel1169

Жыл бұрын

@@frojojo5717 Neither of us has proof either of our points of view is right. BS is your opinion...universal energy and karma is mine. I respect your right to BS.

@danielkerr4100

Жыл бұрын

@@gretchenchristophel1169karma? Really ffs

@gretchenchristophel1169

Жыл бұрын

@@danielkerr4100 You got a better theory...let's hear it. Really.

I had a heart attack in 2020 and spent 4 minutes in cardiac arrest. It was a highly fascinating experience, I can tell you. But not in the way you might think. I was in the hospital, in quite a lot of pain (I barely noticed when they did a Covid test) Doctors were asking me lots of questions, they were working to treat me and I asked someone to remove my prosthetic leg. I started to explain how to do that when the nurse just did it. I was being impressed with the nurse and thinking he must have done this before when there was what I might call a discontinuity. There was no discontinuity in my thought. I was thinking the same thing after things changed as I was before, as if there was no interruption. I had no sense of waking up or coming to from unconsciousness. It felt like I was never unconscious, but several things changed. I was now laying flat, I was now completely naked and someone was messing with me down there (shaving my pubic hair, turns out) and someone was pounding the ever living hell out of my chest. I was very confused when I realized the pounding was someone performing CPR on me. I remembered my Red Cross classes and the warning to never perform CPR on someone who was awake, so I asked if it was a good idea for them to be doing that while I was awake. This alerted the doctor, who was actually getting ready to pronounce me! that I had come back. I had been dead for 4 minutes. But for me it was like no time at all passed from the time my heart stopped to the time it restarted. If that is what being dead is like, then it is no different that what I experienced before I was born. And so being afraid of what comes after life is quite literally being afraid of nothing. Is this what being dead is really like? I don't think I have the answer any better than anyone else who has had an NDE, even the more "typical" kind. Though you never really hear about the kinds of NDE I had, because it seems quite boring: What did you experience? I experienced nothing at all. Oddly, I find this just as interesting as NDEs when something does happen. It seems that with ever NDE I have heard about it seems to align with whatever the person believes. I am an atheist and believe nothing happens after death, so my NDE was nothing. I don't believe NDE's really tell us anything about life after death, because no one who has reported having an NDE has actually died in the biological sense. "Legally dead" is not the same as biologically dead. Biological death is "true death" that is, the permanent cessation of biological functions in an organism. Legal death is just the cessation of measurable biological functions in an organism. Yet there are many examples if the cessation of measurable biological function is just temporary. These functions can be restarted, even in humans if conditions are right. By definition, you can't come back from biological death, so anyone who has "come back from the dead" was never really dead.

@credence7777777

Жыл бұрын

absolutely nailed it, great analysis, i agree on every point

@lucaparmiggiani25

Жыл бұрын

Anyway, as you said, we will never know the real truth, but for sure we can agree that everyone has its own partial truth, whether you choose to believe in a religion or not

@psychobilly42069

Жыл бұрын

So using this comment and what she says in the video, do you think if after you died and someone one day in the future completely recreated your physical structure mathematically exact to how it is now, would you just wake back up and never miss a beat?

@denniscalero9396

Жыл бұрын

Actually not true. I’d you had done research into recent studies on recalled death experiences, you would know the variance by culture was very slim, with the majority of the experience in line with similar experiences numbering in the hundreds of thousands at this point.

@skidachilles3749

Жыл бұрын

Imagine when you are in a park enjoying the scenery, and someone suddenly kidnap you, knocking you out of cold, and then somehow you are inside of a moving train, and you are served with the best food and drink in front of you. What comes to your mind when you first open your eyes in that train? Do you enjoy the food and the drink without asking anything? Of course not right? It should be, why am I here? What happen to me? Where is this train gonna lead me to? Etc. This analogy is showing that everything comes with a reason and answers. You being born in this world, and where you gonna go after you die, it needs explanation and answers. So if you think that you are nothing before you were born, and you are nothing after you die, then the middle of the process should also be nothing. You are alive because of a reason, if you are nothing, then we should not do anything in this world while we are alive, that is worth the word nothing. But if we are breathing, seeing, smelling, hearing, moving, eating, doing activities, etc. It is called having a purpose and reasoning. So if somebody just declare to themself that they are living in this world yet they don't want to know the reason of of why they were born, and where to go after they die, that is because they don't want to know about the truth of their life. Of course the reason that we are comes into being and living in this world should have a purpose, if not then the way we are living this life is meaningless. And what do you think if all people in this world think that this life is meaningless and nothing? Then they will just all wait for their death instead of living with a purpose. And most certainly, if we are created purposefuly, then we need to know what is that purpose.

I saw a video on KZread a few years ago between two neuroscientists and they were discussing the idea that brains might just be filters that allow us to experience consciousness on an individual level, the same way our eyes are filters that allow us to experience reality. They argued reality doesn't cease to exist if you close your eyes or go blind, so perhaps consciousness is the same, maybe it already exists as some fundamental property of the universe that we don't understand yet.

@joegomez5463

Жыл бұрын

This is my theory tbh. Our body is more of an avatar for us.

@aniksamiurrahman6365

Жыл бұрын

I heard a lot about this kind of theories. Only, those neuroscientists never came out with any elaborate model, let alone experimental proof of how such actually happens. For all intends and purpose, a person with a dead brain has no conscious whatsoever.

@bloodymary__

Жыл бұрын

2 hits of acid taught me that

@delaney5721

Жыл бұрын

After doing psychedelics this is definitely what I think too since I experienced what you are saying for a few hours

@delaney5721

Жыл бұрын

@@bloodymary__ same

We as humans need to be a lot more humble about what we think we "know" about reality.

@bogdan78pop

Жыл бұрын

Yes, maybe never ask questions also ..ever ...!!

@who2449

Жыл бұрын

​​@@bogdan78popnever questioning our knowledge is the opposite of being humble about what we think we "know" about reality.

@supayambaek

Жыл бұрын

But certainly we have to have the confidence to present our findings, no?

@narrativeless404

Жыл бұрын

If we were like this, we'd still live in caves and fight for srvival each day

@Twestliw

Жыл бұрын

In science nothing is conclusive they are always working to find better answers. That’s where the humility comes from most scientists know they could be wrong which is why they call them theories…… dumbass

The Universe is far more fantastic than anything our minds can imagine

@aabp2317

Жыл бұрын

Yes but infinite God in which the universe exists is beyond anything. To me, a finite being, a fleeting pixel on a screen, another finite thing, is far more than this unimaginable complex, long lasting and enormous universe, being a finite thing, is to infinite God.

@narrativeless404

Жыл бұрын

@@aabp2317 Nothing is infinite Even "God", whatever that is, if it even does exist

@homie7218

Жыл бұрын

Not as fantastic as your mum

@yilmazaydin8095

10 ай бұрын

@@narrativeless404 If God is finite, then there is no God.

@chrisknight880

8 ай бұрын

​@@narrativeless404Kind of a meaningless statement.

Even if we don't have a "soul" just.. what we are is a wonder of its own.

@Leifthrasir

Жыл бұрын

What we are can summed up into a series of chemical reactions.

@sergiarts

Жыл бұрын

@@Leifthrasir chemical reactions don't account for qualia

@ivangohome

Жыл бұрын

Sure as hell the scientists wouldn't know...

@Saurabh.Nikhade

Жыл бұрын

thats what make science and exploring intresting 😁

@ivangohome

Жыл бұрын

@@Saurabh.Nikhade Too bad the majority of scientists are incompetent in meditation and trance states.

Our whole lives are made up of the qualitative, not the quantitative - when we say "I love you so much" how much is that? it can’t be measured, it has no definable boundaries or depth, that feeling can’t be pointed to and has no physical location, yet love is one of the most real things a human being can experience. All things are like this. The blueness of the sky, the joy your favourite song brings you, the pain of losing someone you love. these things are immeasurable, meaningful and deeply mysterious. To think this can all be explained away by particle physics is ludicrous. It is dangerous to use oversimplified scientific concepts to explain away your life when things are so clearly more mysterious than we could possibly ever imagine or know.

@livethemoment5148

Жыл бұрын

well....that clearly explained everything. Remember...just because things are "mysterious" to you due to your ignorance....does not mean they are caused by god or angels or spirits or whatever tooth fairy imaginary things you come up with.

@wdeltag

Жыл бұрын

You can't measure love and other things you mentioned because your brain's not digital. There's no zeroes and ones that would allow you to actually compute these values. Your brain is an analog neural network. You don't get to have the exact values from these.

@jacksmith1360

Жыл бұрын

@@livethemoment5148 I’m not suggesting that angels or tooth fairies have anything to do with this. There is NO evidence that proves that the brain creates consciousness. There is however lots of evidence to suggest that measurable brain activity is correlated with inner subjective mental states, but this is still not evidence that the brain creates inner experience. Sabine suggests that consciousness is an emergent by-product of very complex particle physics, but there is no evidence to support this. It is a big assumption and not scientific. This is called the hard problem of consciousness; how are inner subjective experiences (like the blueness of blue i.e. qualia ) created by physical mechanisms such as particle physics, neural biology etc. in other words why does a certain wavelength of light hitting my retina result in the inner experience of blueness? Nobody knows! It is a complete mystery! I don’t have the answers and neither do you, so we are both as ignorant in that respect. Unless you do know for certain what consciousness actually is? In which case I would love to know, please share! 😊

@andreab380

Жыл бұрын

Guys, what @Jack Smith was talking about is a simple distinction of categories, not an appeal to fairy-like beings or a statement about some imprecise mathematised network. "Qualia" or qualitative experiences are real (at least insofar as they are obviously objects of experience) and they are different from "quanta" or quantifiable objects. One is the subjective aspect, the other is the objective. You can measure the objective, but you cannot measure the subjective, in the same sense that you can count the letters of this sentence but you cannot count its meaning, only understand it. It's just different intellectual tools, like measuring temperatures and counting pebbles. You would not say that measuring a temperature is approximate or irrational/magical just because you cannot "count" it with an abacus. Similarly, you can only interpret and understand the subjective side just as you interpret and understand the meaning of these words, without measuring them in any sense. But this does not mean you cannot be rational or exact about it. There are irrational, meaningless or contradictory interpretations just as there are sensible ones, but not in the sense of being measurable or replicable through scientific experiments. Acknowledging this categorial difference, and the "mystery" it entails to the calculating mind, is not the same as believing irrationally in magical entities [against @Live The Moment's point]. Also this difference is not the same as the difference between exact and imprecise numerical values (which are different but in the same category), but it is a difference between incommensurable objects (which belong to different categories and cannot be directly compared, just like you cannot compare temperature and numbers of pebbles) [against WDeltaG's point].

@livethemoment5148

Жыл бұрын

@@andreab380 Nope. The comment was in response to whether humans have souls (whatever that fuzzy term actually means). Jack was clearly IMPLYING that souls DO exist and they are part of the "qualitative mysteries". The only people who believe in an eternal "soul" are religious people and spiritual woo woo people...who adamantly refuse to believe that when we die we die. So where does it stop? Do cows have souls, do pigs? If not, why not? They certainly experience qualitative things like love, joy, fun, and appreciate the blueness of a nice clear day out in nature. I am doing you a favor by letting you in on this truth, that your woo woo belief in souls is absolutely not true.

I like how she opened with how she would rather leave consciousness for neuroscience (s) and maybe the soul concept may be tied to that or not. Particles, in principle, make up everything but not everything is living. If living comes because of the arrangements or configuration of these particles, can we create (from scratch or by rearrangement of existing particles of a non-living thing or by using particles of a once existing living thing make another or the same thing? Maybe the science is not yet on that level or maybe there is something beyond the particles. I love science because it's a field where doubts and questions are entertained and nothing is written off simply because you can't prove it yet or do not understand it. Oh and that it can go back and correct what was misunderstood before. On this matter, if you are not one who ascribes to the concept of the soul, it's best to say it's not proven than to assert it doesn't exist.

Her book on existential physics was eye opening, a very non-dismissive and articulate book exploring topics on souls, gods, creation of the universe etc. Need more openness like this in the science world

@johnholly7520

Жыл бұрын

I agree

@supernatural_forces

Жыл бұрын

She seems intelligent. May Allah s.w.t. bless her with His Noor (light). If analogy is to be used, the soul is like a software program and a body is hardware of a computer. The hardware is useless without a software. Our hearts have been blessed with the conscience. Our body is created by a unique program/ code through our DNA while our soul took an oath outside the realm of this Universe that we will believe in One God & we want to get Tested. Then the soul is breathed into the body in the womb if a mother. This happens in a fraction of a second.

@expendablewater7474

Жыл бұрын

People do realize the 4th dimension is real right? it's required for the math to work out? You don't think it plays apart in our existence that it's just there and has no purpose and there's nothing to it i swear people are more stupid than they want to admit even these PHD people

@avs332000ify

Жыл бұрын

@Supernatural Forces honestly, which of these hypotheses seems more plausible and has more factual proof: All that shit you just said. Or everything she just said. Have a great day, bud.

@jhunt5578

Жыл бұрын

@Supernatural Forces If Allah is all knowing what is the point in him testing our souls considering he already knows whether the test will be passed or failed?

My fave cold hearted German physicist.

@alexdhoxha

Жыл бұрын

you never trust Germans.... this is just a true statement

@alienme2687

Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@danielabregoli

Жыл бұрын

She’s god .

@firstnamelastname4249

Жыл бұрын

I prefer cold hearted German artists but she is fine I guess

@josephwalsh7546

Жыл бұрын

@@firstnamelastname4249 The Wiemar Republic elected one. Let's NOT go there again !!!

Yogis of ancient India spent thousands of years in answering this question that I believe was finally cracked by Buddha. He gave a term “anatta” which translates “non-self” or “non-soul”. The ego is an illusion of identity created by a mind that is best understood in terms of complex systems.

@meerarawat1462

2 күн бұрын

The same buddha gave the term "samsara"..... Birth death rebirth.

Understanding is never ending. This is true because there is always more to learn. Be sure that we haven't found all there is to find.

We either as the human race have a soul or don’t. What is most important is that we treat each other with care because we are individually only alive on this earth for a short time!

@supernatural_forces

Жыл бұрын

We have that's for sure. That's from where the feelings/emotions comes. A physical touch, harm has something to do with the body but consciousness, conscience, choice comes from soul.

@adamstevens5518

Жыл бұрын

Feelings and emotions come from hormones and other neurotransmitters.

@expendablewater7474

Жыл бұрын

People do realize the 4th dimension is real right? it's required for the math to work out? You don't think it plays apart in our existence that it's just there and has no purpose and there's nothing to it i swear people are more stupid than they want to admit even these PHD people.

@lawrencefrost9063

Жыл бұрын

@@supernatural_forces No, that is bonkers.

@tschorsch

Жыл бұрын

@supernatural_forces zero evidence of that, unless you're calling the soul just an abstraction created by the brain

Imagine just being a fundamental particle but there is YOU. It is an incredible to be alive in a speck of time and space. Super grateful! Thanks, Sabine, my fellow elementary particles :D

@mateonikolic6984

Жыл бұрын

This cracked me up bro

@needheartranken

Жыл бұрын

@@mateonikolic6984 Just laugh, bro. That is also elementary particles dancing out there making sense of the comedy XD.

@waldwassermann

Жыл бұрын

There are no particles...

@needheartranken

Жыл бұрын

@@waldwassermann Only jiggling things, right?

@needheartranken

Жыл бұрын

@@waldwassermann Only jiggling things, right?

It's not wanting something else, its the fact that consciousness doesn't seem to need to exist in order to function in the universe. How did you get tuned into your head and not someone else's? There is something unexplainable about it, and that's good.

This series is beautifully shot and edited. Absolutely gorgeous work!

I don’t usually enjoy videos which combine such rapidly changing images but this one is very well done! The absence of music is also a plus! Whoever put this together is very talented, and Sabine’s delivery is very effective - professional, yet it feels like she’s talking personally to us.

@patrickfitzgerald2861

Жыл бұрын

I agree that it was well done, but I would point out that there is actually a quiet music track running through parts of it.

@youtubeviewer5017

Жыл бұрын

@@patrickfitzgerald2861 oh wow! I'll have to check my hearing!

@patrickfitzgerald2861

Жыл бұрын

@@youtubeviewer5017 You'll need to listen carefully, but it's there.

@govindagovindaji4662

Жыл бұрын

I don't like music background either. But why I wonder is she sitting in front of a screen~? I would love to live in a place like that. Looks like a loft maybe.

But there aren't just particles, there's also space, as well as the interactions between particles/waves, fields, and space. Also, the fact of the matter is we simply do not have an objective way to describe subjective experience.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

"we simply do not have an objective way to describe subjective experience." yes we do

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

@@Alienguy500 lol really? science

I do believe in the soul. As someone with a background in science, I realize that specialization and compartmentalization of subjects into physics, biology etc. (and their sub-divisions) is necessary. But a truly unified theory of the universe and understanding of the nature of reality cannot come unless there is a cross-disciplinary integration of learnings from each stream. What she says here @1:08 troubles me because physicists MUST probe the nature of consciousness, not just neuro biologists. The soul experience is an intimate experience that many people have and cannot be dismissed as something imaginary since it is not testable and demonstrable in a lab. That just means that it is something that cannot be proven in a conventional sense, not that it doesn't exist. We hardly understand the universe we live in and to say that it is not necessary to invoke anything other than the fundamental forces as we know them now is hubris.

I just stumbled across her KZread channel yesterday....the first video I saw was "Artificial Intelligence: What's Next?" And it FLOORED me. Hands down _the_ best summation, explanation, and honest appraisal of the AI situation as of now. No hype. No click bait. But thoroughly entertaining, fascinating, and super well presented. How had I not heard of her KZread stuff before? It's the best science and science adjacent content I've probably ever come across. I feel lucky that ALL her old videos are new to me.... :D

But if we put ourselves onto a computer, what happens with personal identity. Is it us, or is it simply a copy?

@dentistrider3874

Жыл бұрын

What's the difference? If you have all the same traits and memories, both will live on thinking they were you.

@monopolybillionaire5027

Жыл бұрын

It will say what it thinks you would say I guess, but let's be honest. Nobody is going to talk to you once you're dead and your family is gone. Your just another body rotting in the grave. Not an attack just the truth, me too.

@jhunt5578

Жыл бұрын

@Dentist Rider The difference is if your sense of self only remains in the body then when you die that's it. *You* don't get to live on, only your ego does.

@dentistrider3874

Жыл бұрын

@@jhunt5578 Well what am I? I am a human being who looks like me with all my memories and my personality. Even if the original version of me dies, if an exact copy of me from the moment that I died exists in my place, then that thing is in all regards me. I see your point, but it's somewhat of an arbitrary distinction, that the me who dies takes with it my "Sense of self" because in every way my successor has the same exact "Sense of Self", and carries on my will exactly. I mean, its a you who does all the things you would have done. Isn't that an equally valid definition for both the original you and the one who succeeds you?

@jhwheuer

Жыл бұрын

Can you actually perform a verbatim copy?

My question is: Why am I me? Everyone has a consciousness and a personality. But why am I this one among many and why do I experience myself?

@henrycgs

Жыл бұрын

every single human feels the same. as a matter of fact, every consciousness in the universe probably does. it's simple- what else do you expect? if you "experienced" someone else, you would be that person, and make the same question.

@TartempionLampion

Жыл бұрын

The most basic question should be : what is experienving what? You assume there is a me, an I, a counciousness, a personality... but how do you know? How can you be sure?

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

It's not that big a deal. Every life form experiences the same thing. We just whine about it more

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

Sabine has all the answers! She is expert on everything!

@templargfx

Жыл бұрын

because your physical body exists in a single place and time. other bodies exist at the same time but in separate places. That's why you are you. Your experience 'self' because you are a complex lifeform with many parts that all need to communicate and work together in order to function at the macro level

Thank you! I get so irritated with people who don’t understand how miraculous our world is. There has to be more but they don’t even know the first thing about how things really work.

@aarondixon7

Жыл бұрын

Maybe if you had a drug addiction or serious mental health issuesor lived a life of abject poverty you wouldn't be so irritated?. I agree with you that life is miraculous and at times incredibly beautiful. 5:03

@ThomasAllan-up4td

Жыл бұрын

Don't know what you're all worried about. You'll be dead soon enough. Have patience..

@kathyorourke9273

6 ай бұрын

@@SmithsGroveInmate in your opinion!

@Rotting12

5 ай бұрын

@@ThomasAllan-up4tdwhat a privileged pretentious mindset

@ThomasAllan-up4td

5 ай бұрын

@@Rotting12 brilliant, ain't it . ? To be so privileged and set in my mind .. I wouldn't change it for anything.

Thank you for this video ~ it is exactly what I’ve been searching for. 💜

I don't have soul. I am a soul.

@MrMukesh53

Жыл бұрын

Me too

@theScienceLabLive

Жыл бұрын

Exactly.

@vernonkroark

Жыл бұрын

false

I'd love sciente to solve the mystery of the consciousness, but I still can't handle the fact that whatever physical phenomena cause it, there's still an ethereal place where my senses produce images, sounds and other sensations. So, even when I could agree that consciousness is an emergent property of organized matter, I still find it perplexing that there's a critical point where matters starts projecting mental images *somewhere*.

@Djellowman

Жыл бұрын

It doesn't have to be in the nonphysical realm. If it's indeed an emergency property of brain activity, that doesn't mean your consciousness and thoughts are anything else than the electrical signals in your brain themselves.

@expendablewater7474

Жыл бұрын

People do realize the 4th dimension is real right? it's required for the math to work out? You don't think it plays apart in our existence that it's just there and has no purpose and there's nothing to it i swear people are more stupid than they want to admit even these PHD people

@sergiarts

Жыл бұрын

@@Djellowman but how and why do those physical reactions in the brain MUST cause a subjective experience of them? this is the fundamental hard problem of consciousness, there's no need for quantitative states of matter to produce qualitative states, yet there are

@memorabiliatemporarium2747

Жыл бұрын

I don't understand this reasoning. It's inside the brain. It isn't some ethereal place.

@TheMyguitarisblue

Жыл бұрын

Well I think that that is in large part because your concepts of time and space only exist in that "somewhere" as well. You don't see reality as it really is, you see it in a way your brain made up in that very "somewhere" that you have difficulty comprehending. Just like Newton's intepretation of gravity has absolutely no way of explaining black holes, your brain's intepretation of reality has no way of explaining your consciousness.

So when she says “all things are reducible to the elementary particles + gravity” why could it not be also the case that “all things are reducible to the elementary particles + consciousness”? Before gravity was formally theorised we didn’t dispute its existence, because it was intuitively true. Might it not be the case that we’re in the same position with consciousness?

I agree with her point that we have certain identity of our own based on a distinct atomic arrangement. If that information could be extracted by some means, we can build technologies that haven't been realised yet such as replication, teleportation etc.

@captainf2529

4 ай бұрын

If you teleport someone then the original person is dead, you just create a copy with the same information

A problem I have this view is that she assumes that other people have consciousness. You can observe other people's particles, not their consciousness. You can observe your consciousness but not particles responsible for it. It is a big leap of faith to assume consciousness emerges from particles as to believe in a supernatural entity like a soul.

@o-o8052

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment, really made me think a while about reality :D Now I get your point. However, I dont think that assuming "consciousness can be reduced to physics" (which's theories are fundamental in our world and can be confirmed by many observations) is as big of leap as "believing in something (e.g. a soul, a god, ...) that cannot be observed in any way other than the phaenomenon it is supposed to effect". We do observe the particles of other creatures, with consciousness. We can observe every particle they are made of, as well as the flow of electrons inside of a brain. However, we did not ever observe anything that doesnt comply with the laws of physics. And that is not because people havent looked hard enough, it is that wherever we try to find something supernatural, we only find physics, again. So, is it still as big of a leap to believe everything boils down to physics and not believe in a supernatural explanation? (and with not believing i do not mean denying the existence, but rather risiding only with the things that can be proven) Another problem (or question) people may have, is that you yourself can only experience your own consciousness, and must trust other people to have their own, because you cant confirm it. This eventually goes back to the question of what consciousness itself is, which is strictly intertwined with the concept of reality and therefore also with a lot of more things. And as it seems impossible for us humans to all agree on one everywhere-accepted truth, you can think and explain in your own ways about the things that nobody else can explain to your full satisfaction until now. I myself try to keep my thoughts as close to the widely accepted and confirmable truth; which is physics. Which is the subject of this video. And there, the loop closes. Have a nice day! :)

@karagi101

Жыл бұрын

You need to first define “consciousness” before claiming it can’t be observed in others. If consciousness is defined as a process, then yes, you can observe this process in action in others.

@btn237

Жыл бұрын

If you smacked me over the head with a large wooden bat, you sure would observe my consciousness fading - quite literally in the sense of me falling over and passing out, but also if you measured the brain activity in a more scientific way. It’s crazy to suggest that we can’t observe a direct link between consciousness and the activity of particles in our bodies.

@tristanbrandt3886

Жыл бұрын

And physics is ever changing. We might boot up a more powerful LHC, discover new particles that once again, change the standard model. Reductionists can be just as closed minded as faith based believers. Just admit that we don't know.

@o-o8052

Жыл бұрын

@@tristanbrandt3886 Well, reductionism changes with the underlying physics. They wouldn't deny the physically correct explanation of before thought to just be emergent effects. That would contradict their own philosophy. The thing that sets reductionism apart from other world views, is that you work with the things you know for sure, that are mathematically proven, without imagining and hypothecizing completely unfounded supernatural causes.

It is fascinating to know that elementary particles can arrange themselves in such a way that they can see colors, hear sounds, think and feel. I am the embodiment of the laws of nature. My experience of existence is really what a group of properly arranged particles experiences. I don't think there is a division between life and inanimate things. Each atom is a component particle of life and thus is the basic manifestation of life. Atoms will communicate and combine to create more and more complex life. My thoughts are literally the collective thinking of atoms.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

you think rocks see colors?

@thestuff1014

Жыл бұрын

@@scambammer6102 I do not think so. Stones are just a mass of chaotically arranged atoms, like a random crowd of people in the street. However, the same people can form a perfectly organized group of people working to achieve the same goal. Atoms can be like people, like ants, etc. Live individually or create teams that give them new functions and meanings. At least that's how I imagine it. And we humans, as a collection of organized atoms, can be an example of this.

@truthhunterhawk3932

Жыл бұрын

Who is the authority to make these laws? The universe, or God?

@johnmcwade1

Жыл бұрын

@@truthhunterhawk3932What if God is to the universe what our souls are to the body?

@AlexanderShamov

Жыл бұрын

@@truthhunterhawk3932 We don't know where the laws "come form" and why they are what they are. Personally, I think we would need to know the exact laws first, before even beginning to tackle this question. Usually questions of the form "why this mathematical structure, and not some other?" have satisfying answers within mathematics itself. But what we definitely don't need is imaginary anthropomorphic characters.

The word ‘soul’ is just a description we use to describe something phenomenological that cannot be nailed down to either material or something outside of it, but it perhaps could be something that works between the two! Again, it’s just simply a word to describe something in phenomena that has yet to be discovered, much like all things science uncovers in its language to describe phenomena!

@elijahochoa6517

Ай бұрын

Does the soul exist? Can it be measured? That is something both we as individuals and as a community must rise in consciousness to answer!

@swis537

Ай бұрын

@@elijahochoa6517Its immeasurable

@elijahochoa6517

Ай бұрын

@@swis537 For centuries the sun’s rays of electromagnetism remained hidden, as well did the laws that govern our energy based reality. If we are to understand science as a language that develops more intricately by every discovery, I am sure we will come upon such things as time continues. For it has just yet to be discovered. But ultimately through its discovery it would help all views and fields of study especially for the realms of esotericism that have long transcended and described these very ideas for longer than science has had the ability to be present enough to catch up to such things. And for everyone that is has faith into such ideas of “immeasurability” this discovery would help all realms of human phenomena especially to cause drastically less discourse against each sides of the speculation and spectrum of belief. For we cannot live without either subject of numbers and sacredness so what exists beyond both and combines them together is the sacredness of each number as it becomes and is our everyday reality!

@elijahochoa6517

Ай бұрын

@@swis537 For centuries the sun's rays of electromagnetism remained hidden, as well did the laws that govern our energy based reality. If we are to understand science as a language that develops more intricately by every discovery, I am sure we will come upon such things as time continues. For it has just yet to be discovered. But ultimately through its discovery it would help all views and fields of study especially for the realms of esotericism that have long transcended and described these very ideas for longer than science has had the ability to be present enough to catch up to such things. And for everyone that is has faith into such ideas of "immeasurability” this discovery would help all realms of human phenomena especially to cause drastically less discourse against each sides of the speculation and spectrum of belief.For we cannot live without either subject of numbers and sacredness so what exists beyond both and combines them together is the sacredness of each number as it becomes and is our everyday reality!

@elijahochoa6517

Ай бұрын

Do I believe in such things of "immeasurability"? I believe it's best to keep the most open mind! For without it, efforts towards newer discoveries in the field of science cannot be made, and was the very belief that fuelled all major discoveries in the pioneers of those specialities!

I don’t think people believe that people have souls, they believe we are souls, and they believe that our bodies are what we have.

Always great to hear Sabine's take on the world. I'm no scientist, but she certainly reduces and removes all the gobbledygook from the subjects that she talks about, and makes science simple.

@gianni1646

Жыл бұрын

That’s one of the best “subtle” snarks ever. 👍🏼🥂

@q8386

Жыл бұрын

@@gianni1646 I'm not sure what you mean?Wasn't meant to be 'snarky' in any way. I subscribe to Sabine's channels, both scientific and musical, and really enjoy them. She has a very dry sense of humour, and, given that English isn't her first language, has a great way of explaining things that even a dullard accountant like me can get some understanding of the scientific explanations she gives.

@gianni1646

Жыл бұрын

Please accept my apology. I watched her video twice and could not make any sense of what she was trying to convey. I found it hard to follow, hence your mention of “removing all the gobbledygook” made me think you actually were thinking what I thought. Which was that it really was gobbledygook. I’m glad that you and many others got something positive out of her video. Perhaps we’ll have another opportunity to discuss a future subject on Big Think! Gianni ✌🏼

@q8386

Жыл бұрын

@@gianni1646 Cheers. No worries. The reference to gobbledygook comes from Sabine's own Channel. It's her tag line. She really does take it away - but of course, even removing the jargon, most of the things she covers are still quite complex. I can't pretend to understand more than half what she talks about, but it's a half more than I would understand if the gobbledegook wasn't removed!!

@officialmusictracks

Жыл бұрын

cause she follows superdeterminist views, which make everything simpler by ignoring all the weirdness of the quantum

Don't go to a physicist to ask a question about souls... in the same way you don't go to a chemist to ask a question about baking bread.

@anypercentdeathless

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Only a level nine cleric can answer this question.

@Mr.PeabodyTheSkeptic

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Go to a magician to explain magic you see in religion.

@nellwhiteside3042

Жыл бұрын

Yes you do. Making bread is a chemical process. The soul is a dead concept.

@iranjackheelson

Жыл бұрын

@@nellwhiteside3042 So all bakers are now required hold PhD in chemistry?

@johnnastrom9400

Жыл бұрын

@@nellwhiteside3042 "The soul is a dead concept." -- That is your opinion.

Sabine has a very weird idea of a “hopeful message”. If we had computers that could reconstitute individual humans from their constituent atoms, then we would also have computers that could invent humans-any sort of humans-from scratch. There’s a reason Mary Shelley’s famous novel is classified as a “horror story”.

@arraikcruor6407

9 ай бұрын

Yes but reality is more nuanced than a horror novel.

Nice video but I think that, as there are higher dimensions too, one of the most scientific ways to study the soul is through the theory of information. Our inner voice and counciesness affects the quantum realm and Dr. Donald Hoffman has an interesting approach on it.

@BlueGiant69202

7 ай бұрын

Jaques Vallee might agree with you about the physics of information. The scientific community, however, seems to be very reluctant to seriously entertain ideas about the soul since Oliver Lodge's pseudoscientific research. Yet, even pseudoscientific research, such as was conducted by L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology in the 1950's and 1960's, can uncover some aspects of truth that are emerging in the more credible scientific studies of Peter Fenwick and Michael Persinger. A problem pointed out by Edwin T. Jaynes in his posthumously published book, "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" is that, for many in the scientific community, the probability of fraud is very high so most evidence will be doubted and explained away. Jaques Vallee talked and wrote about this with respect to remote viewing research and internet "consciousness". Reading up on Dr. Hoffmann, (Thank you for the reference) there seem to be quite a few similarities with the views of The Church of Scientology regarding Reality and Consciousness which science fiction writers and movie script writers have played with quite a bit. Several episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series explore this as do movies like Brainstorm(1983). I'm willing to keep an open mind because of things I have personally witnessed and experienced. Let's get the data and information on the table and have a discussion that Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the scientific community would be proud of. What evidence exists regarding the existence of higher dimensions? What evidence exists (outside of The Church of Scientology and others) that our inner voice and consciousness affects the quantum realm?

Is it possible that in the last minutes of life, a person’s brain could “switch off” the perception of time? And further, might it create or re-create dreamy moments of pure happiness for what could feel like an eternity?

@SVK91

Жыл бұрын

I do not know the precise answer to that question, but it's definitely reasonable to imagine that in the last moments of life, the last signals that our neurons would send to be integrated into a mental image by our cortex would feel like if time was altered, until brain functions fully stop and counsciousness vanishes for good

@vincentyt9585

Жыл бұрын

bro you should look up the effects of DMT. It is exactly the molecule that triggers the neurotransmitter that influences our perception of time and purity. Such states of eternity can be achieved in dreams, in your birth, and when you die. But it is a molecule, so such a compound can be made materiallicaly and can be smoked like a drug. It is extremely powerful. It binds everything together, and you feel everything at once. It also makes crazy visuals and sound effects. Plus it doesn't have bad side effects like heroin because it doesn't trigger dopamine, the neurotransmitter of instant pleasure and motivation.

@ForAnAngel

Жыл бұрын

A comforting lie is still a lie.

@trinodot8112

Жыл бұрын

When you die, unless you die instantly, it won't even matter if you live for an eternity or not. Your ego is usually the first part of your mind to go since it is the most energy intensive part of the brain, and it is responsible for the self-preservation mechanism. That is why a lot of people who experience NDE's report being afraid, and then suddenly being overcome with warmth and contentedness in their demise.

@bluzedogg

Жыл бұрын

Science has proven that time does not exist anyway. so, yes.

Wish I could talk like this every time someone asserts a 'soul' into a conversation...Just getting that person to explain what they mean by a 'soul' soon gets into a mish mash of 'feelings' and differences of opinion amongst the believers...I don't use the word unless I'm talking about music

@sonkeschmidt2027

Жыл бұрын

The soul is what transcends mortality. Depending on how far people have thought and felt this through it can mean different things to people though, since it depends on what they consider to be immortal. But let's say your soul is love. The feeling of love definitely continue to exist when you pass, so we already start to touch immortality. We can go when further and say ok when everyone on this planet is dead then there is no more love right? Well it still exists as a potential and since it happened once it will happen again. Just like infinite rolls of dice give you an infinite amount of 1's despite a one in six chance to roll it. That's the funny thing about infinity, it breaks all the rules since it is infinite. So the soul can be everything and therefore it's kind of everything. People just pick what they like, just like you pick your favourite number on a dice... Or you don't and neither matters since everything happens anyway forever.

@RobertsAdra

Жыл бұрын

@@sonkeschmidt2027 Wow. How very romantic and poetic ... totally lacking in any kind of useful information or substance. Do you write Hallmark cards for a living by any chance? For something to "be", infinite or not, it still needs some kind of properties. Yet every time people describe this "soul" the properties either change, contradict each other or can be attributed to other functions of our bodies/brains. I will even buy the idea that we are all parts of the universe and that "soul" is the connection to the whole. But that will totally take away the individual aspect of the concept that makes everyone claim to be unique.

@sonkeschmidt2027

Жыл бұрын

@@RobertsAdra infinity doesn't need any properties. Not even from a mathematical standpoint. Uniqueness requires comparison and that makes it finite. The infinite space is what made Einstein understand relativity, you only know the properties of something in relationship to something else. Infinity disassembles any concept of uniqueness, that is why the soul is rather impossible to define as any definition is relative. (I help people to grow through traumatic experiences for a living btw)

@RobertsAdra

Жыл бұрын

@@sonkeschmidt2027 So if any definition is relative... than no soul (value of 0) is also relative. Right? I'm usually far better at communication than this, but I'm having hard time understanding what you mean by soul. Slapping an "infinite" label on it seems more like a goal post moving where you just make the definition harder and harder to pin down until it engulfs everything. But even in math and infinity can be described or contained like Pi. I believe that what we think as a soul is just a mind trick, a by-product of language. Once language emerged it created a secondary, indirect link between the conscious and subconscious. The fact that we have language and think in a language form, which by its own nature depends on an interaction between at least 2 individuals, creates this false perspective where we "see/feel" ourselves as 2 different beings: the physical "me" and the thinking "me-me". Gives you the illusion that there is a YOU separate from the physical.

@sonkeschmidt2027

Жыл бұрын

@@RobertsAdra you get the problem, as soon as we touch infinity we have infinite problems. The question of the soul is also the question of how does a finite being deal with infinity? But as soon as you yourself are infinite, the problem just disappears. But then nothing matters anymore either.

"emergent" only makes sense if there is a conscious being that modells reality. without consciousness there are no emergent phenomina but just particles moving within spacetime.

Towards the end her understanding of the soul was more in line with what I imagine it to be. Not the particles that make us directly but the structure and the information contained in it! the soul is really the information that contains us! And that information could have in principle every medium on which it is encoded. Not only the neruons in our brain or the bits on a harddrive, but could even reemerge in different universes with different laws of physics! The information of our existence came to be once! Even without a medium, it will stay in the realm of the abstract indefinetly! In that sense the soul is truly indestructible! Think of it this way... The universe existed since 13,8 billion years. All that time had been passed before you suddenly came to existence. It happened once, and that's enough for it to happen again. You will reemerge again, no matter how long it takes, because the information that makes you is in its essence indestructible! You cannot destroy information!

@BlueGiant69202

7 ай бұрын

So THAT's what the bowl of Petunias was talking about!

@lauraana9994

6 ай бұрын

I used to wonder that too but how does it re-emerge

@1999yasin

6 ай бұрын

@@lauraana9994 How did it emerge the first time? _"I do swear by the Day of Judgment!_ _And I do swear by the self-reproaching soul!_ _Do people think We cannot reassemble their bones?_ _Yes, indeed! We are most capable of restoring even their very fingertips."_ -Qur'an [75:1-4] _"We built the universe with great might, and We are certainly expanding it."_ -Qur'an [51:47] _"Do the disbelievers not realize that the heavens and earth were once one mass then We split them apart? And We created from water every living thing. Will they then not believe?"_ -Qur'an [21:30]

@threestars2164

6 ай бұрын

What utter drivel.

Uploading memory and uploading our subconscious is entirely different thing. Modern physics and science is still at a very young stage to differentiate between soul and memory.

@OmniphonProductions

Жыл бұрын

That assumes there _is_ a difference. Whoever we are, our conscious and subconscious existence is defined primarily (if not entirely) by the effect that every _previous_ moment has had on us. Ask the family of any dementia patient; our memories (even those we don't consciously remember) make us who we are. Then again, there are some schools of thought that say, "Because a series of synaptic firings and chemical reactions have to happen _before_ we can _consciously_ remember anything...let alone make a _new_ decision...who we are and who we will be in the future are utterly _beyond_ our conscious control. Is _that_ the soul? If so, concepts of _judgment_ are inherently _unjust,_ and any afterlife is _pointless._

@user-dc4bl1cu2k

Жыл бұрын

@@OmniphonProductions In this life there is such thing as memory loss. But that does not constitute identity loss.

@OmniphonProductions

Жыл бұрын

@@user-dc4bl1cu2k As mentioned above, that may very well depend on the _degree_ of memory loss. Conditions like Alzheimer's have consistently been described as reducing people to someone whose loved ones no longer recognize...and who doesn't recognize them. Sure, they're still recognizable as human beings, but not as the individuals they once were. Without your memories, what is your identity...especially when you no longer resemble the _you_ that _others_ remember?

@angelahull9064

Жыл бұрын

Well...Thomistic philosophy has the memory as one of the faculties of the soul that is mostly dependent on the body/brain in feeding the soul information about the natural world. The intersection between body and soul operating may then be the mind. Memory is then a power or operation applied upon information of the world and experience. Memory is one of the ways the body and soul use information (the other two primary processors are known as the Intellect and the Will), so it is a process rather than a part. In that case, a person with dementia would not have their identity lost, but that their identity is inaccessible to the body for a time due to a faulty physiological analyzer that would be the diseased brain. The soul may then take over in the function of memory by continue to feed it supernatural information until, at least in Christianity, the body can be reunited with the soul.

@OmniphonProductions

Жыл бұрын

@@angelahull9064 Of course, in order to explore Thomistic philosophy in this context, one must first _assume_ that the soul exists, as Thomas Aquinas did. Occam's Razor proposes that the _fewer_ assumptions any given claim depends on, the more likely it is to prove true. Unfortunately, in the absence of consistently demonstrable and objectively observable evidence, _any_ philosophical discussion of the soul is...at least from an empirical standpoint...conjecture. Thus, while intellectually stimulating, it is of little practical use, in and of itself.

I am what stars are made of. I am a part of something so vast that I can not even wrap my head around the idea of it...that in itself, is enough of an explanation of where my soul comes from to me.

@pterygopalatine

Жыл бұрын

I love what you're saying

@sophitsa79

Жыл бұрын

That's what she's saying, it's just that she makes it sound reductive whereas you use language that's expansive

@pcbacklash_3261

Жыл бұрын

I feel exactly the same way. It's almost an axiom that people who gaze up into a night sky full of stars suddenly feel small. But I don't. I look up at all those sparkling points of light, some of them millions of light years away and dwarfing our own sun, and say, "I'm a part of this!!"

@howlrichard1028

Жыл бұрын

Sorry, I don't follow your logic here, your argument seems to be: 1. I exist as part of the universe. 2. The universe is bigger than I can comprehend. Conclusion: I have a soul. Not trying mock you here, I just genuinely don't get it.

@kymberlydawn1445

Жыл бұрын

@@howlrichard1028 no argument. Just how I view things and putting it out there. No need to understand anything.

In Indic philosophy of vedanta there are these two concepts of Atman and Brahman. Atman is the unchanging self that many would simplify to the idea of soul, brahman is the reality beyond all ideas of separation so you can think of it as a fabric and the creases and folds are all the different things we se as separate objects but are ultimately the fabric. The Atman referrs to the awareness of existing, so it is not exactly the mind, the mind is described as the ability to intellectualise, you would be still aware of your existence if all your senses were stripped of you, your ability to intellectualise be taken from you and your memory also taken from you. So the Atman is simply the awareness that you exist. In specifically the Advaita school of vedanta the Atman is described as being the same thing as Brahman, so this awareness is the only thing that exists while all the notions of difference and separation is considered false or maya. Vedanta makes it clear that the Brahman is something that cannot be intellectualised. Imagine looking at something, you can look at it from a separate perspective separately but not all perspectives at the same time so you cannot really comprehend the complete picture, you need to break the object down into separate perspectives and attempt to comprehend it, similarly there are infinite ways to see the Brahman but no way to understand it completely so the notion of a separate existence arises from a skewed awareness of our own existence. Basically everything there is is the awareness of existing its just that human beings are one packet of reality that happens to have a memory and intelligence so it tries to attribute qualities to the perceived separate objects seen by the atman.

There was a time when some believed that the classical elements earth, water, air, fire, and aether explained the world. Although the level of sophistication of current knowledge is greater, nevertheless, we cannot discount the possibility that a new system of knowledge containing currently unknown things will, again, replace the old one, as it has heretofore. The soul still has a chance.

The understanding of consciousness will solve it one day.

@adamlewis3729

Жыл бұрын

We may never understand it

@10mmfan

Жыл бұрын

@@adamlewis3729 I promise we all will understand one day

@JesseDriftwood

Жыл бұрын

@@10mmfan Weird promise to make but ok.

@Shivam-il2om

Жыл бұрын

@@adamlewis3729 have you looked for the explanation of consciousness in Vedanta?

@fortynine3225

Жыл бұрын

@@10mmfan bablabla

I have a meteorite. When I hold it, I like to remind myself that this peace of space iron is 'space dust'. When a star dies, it expels it's mass outward.....and that is often iron. The iron that is the space dust I'm holding.... is made of the same iron that flows through my heart. Without it, I die. .....the point is: in order for you to exist, stars had to form and die first, in order to make the particles that you call you. You are literally made of stardust! You're also conscious.....and you part of the universe. You're as much a part of the universe as everything else in the universe is. You are the universe experience itself subjectively. Think of how much matter the universe contains..... all made of the same things we are made of and, somehow, we are lucky enough to be a part of the universe that is conscious and self aware.

Thus we have to remember that beyond conscious desires and conscious ideas concerning the existence of the soul, Man carried unknowingly the impulses of his unconscious and these too were projected into the outer world of spirits and divinities. Then Man's untried intellect made valiant efforts to order and rationalize all his imaginative projections and so devised stories concerning the origin of spirits, gods, and men and their relationships one with another that became a part of the body of belief. -Jacquetta Hawkes, from History of Mankind

Absolutely, the way you act, your personality and how you treat people is your soul. That is why people are attacked in so many different ways so your soul can get affected by it.

I like the spliced in shot with the sand going through the person’s fingers. So many fine grains of sand. Easy to think of how the human body also has so many fine grains, but of all sorts of other particle types. It seems just logical and right that the assembly of the right types of so many particles would allow for the making of us.

@anypercentdeathless

Жыл бұрын

Spoken like a twelve-year-old.

@adamstevens5518

Жыл бұрын

I could have a graduate level discussion about statistics and analytics, but that’s not really the topic here.. just leaving an appreciative comment.

@alvaroq2024

Жыл бұрын

@@anypercentdeathless what do you have to offer on this topic? That’s what I thought!

@movement2contact

Жыл бұрын

@@pouya108 How are we "designed" for any other planet than Earth? And what about getting there..?

@movement2contact

Жыл бұрын

@@pouya108 Do you seriously believe what Musk says....?? 🤦‍♂️

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

@---yi6tq

Жыл бұрын

brudi, das liest keiner 😂😂

@publiclag

Жыл бұрын

The author, who claims to be a physicist, refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and physical/biological processes. The author argues that there is an indivisible unphysical element in us, usually called the soul or spirit, and that the concept of consciousness being an emergent property of the brain implies logical contradictions and is disproven by scientific knowledge of the physical processes in the brain. The author provides two arguments to support their stance. First, the author argues that all emergent properties are just subjective or approximate descriptions of underlying physical processes and that these descriptions do not correspond to actual entities. Consciousness, being a precondition for the existence of these descriptions, cannot itself be an emergent property. Second, the author argues that emergent properties, like all sets, are abstract concepts that depend on subjectivity and arbitrariness, and that consciousness is the precondition for their existence. Therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. The author concludes that on a fundamental level, there is no such thing as a brain or any higher level group of particles, and that emergence and complexity are just categories imposed by the mind. The concept of the brain is a conceptual model that does not objectively exist, and the concept of consciousness cannot be explained as an emergent property because it is the precondition for the existence of all emergent properties. ----- Summarized by ChatGPT, you're welcome.

@simongross3122

Жыл бұрын

I can see that this topic exercises your mind. I like your explanation of how approximate descriptions can give rise to what we call emergent properties. I think that everything we perceive is approximate, simply because our senses are imperfect. For our day-to-day purposes, this is sufficient to promote survival. But if everything we see is an approximation, and even our physical theories are only accurate to degree (first few terms of a Taylor's expansion), is it not possible that we don't yet have the tools to definitively say whether or not a soul exists? I disagree with Sabine. I think it is a bit arrogant to say that the standard model is sufficient to explain everything and that we could model everything on a computer. We can't even model a three-body problem accurately.

@marcobiagini1878

Жыл бұрын

@@simongross3122 You wrote:"But if everything we see is an approximation, and even our physical theories are only accurate to degree (first few terms of a Taylor's expansion), is it not possible that we don't yet have the tools to definitively say whether or not a soul exists? " The point is that what we say about consciousness cannot contain logical contradictions and my arguments prove that: 1) materialism/physicalism contains logical contradictions 2) even assuming that the laws of physics correctly describe an objective reality that exists independently of our mind, consciousness cannot be an emergent property of such objective reality 3) the laws of physics rule out the possibility that consciousness can be generated by brain processes, since the laws of physics describe brain processes as many distinct sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. 4) consciousness can only exist as a faculty of an indivisible and unphysical element.

@simongross3122

Жыл бұрын

@@marcobiagini1878 I think we're saying similar things, although you are obviously more precise. I think there is clearly more to reality than what our physical models can tell us. What that "more" is, I cannot say. It may be that our physical models can never say what that more is. If there are "emergent" properties of the universe, how are we to tell which properties are emergent and which are fundamental? Is time emergent? Is gravity? Are all forces emergent, depending on some underlying geometry? All we have to rely on is our theories, and I don't really think they are sufficient. If we can't even work out what may or may not be emergent, I think it's far to early to claim that a soul is. And of course, you seem satisfied that a soul, or consciousness cannot be emergent.

@2:25, “everything in particle physics plus gravity.” Perhaps “gravity” is the soul. It’s funny how people think that they have it all figured out. Personally, I know that I am a soul.

Not many know the soul and are so aware like this, sometimes for many of us it can be hard to live and comprehend with knowing. With me being so young I’ve gone through things at a young age. Now only being 14 and being aware and having awakening and have woke up, it’s taken months to accept it but I finally have I can live with knowing and I try not to overthink it. I know we are all here for a reason and to learn different lessons. We have to learn tings for our souls and to become better versions of ourselves. We will go through the worst and best times in our life’s but it has to happen for us to learn,grow, and there’s a reason why they happen and we should learn from them.

@SouthSidePlayas

6 ай бұрын

As a 17 year old I think a lot about this too, Except I don’t really believe in the soul, I think we are the Universe living life as a human.

I love when scientists try to explain our state of being when they don't anything about how we were created. It may have been a big bang. But how did that happen? They don't know, no more than they know anything about the afterlife....

@ashajacob8362

Жыл бұрын

Your comment does lack of Common sense there are a clear theory of how we came do some research

@OlandoMcCall

Жыл бұрын

@@ashajacob8362 do tell about you're research.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

OR how do I write a sentence about 3 completely different subjects

@markb3786

Жыл бұрын

True. Science does not have these answers yet. But this isn't justification to just fill in the gap with a made-up story that lacks evidence.

Regarding her concept of uploading the body into a computer here’s an easy thought experiment: Imagine there is an exact copy of you standing next to you - would you sacrifice yourself without a doubt? (For, there stays an exact copy of you in the world, there shouldn’t be an issue with that) - if you would say „no“ then you understand the problem with consciousness and why such thing as uploading your SELF into a computer is ridiculous- at least as long as it is not understood how „self“ arises. So yea, be indeed careful with false promises.

@Digifan001

Жыл бұрын

Hmm, someone played Soma.

@zualapips1638

Жыл бұрын

Time is an issue here, though. The moment the exact copy is made is the moment that the clone starts diverging from the original. After enough time, they'd be two different people because they've experienced the world in two different ways. If the time is short enough, then it actually gets very interesting. But then again, when you go to sleep, you are leaving behind a version of you. You are not the exact copy when you wake up again as you not only lose consciousness, but your brain structure chnages.

@ryandinan

Жыл бұрын

The clone would still be a separate person and have a separate consciousness because the particles making up that clone, exist separately in time and space. The clone would initially think and act exactly like you - but would start to diverge as time passed on - and as the clone had its own unique experiences. I agree, uploading your conscious self into a computer would not transport your current conscious self into a realm of digital eternity, but for all intents and purposes, it would preserve your likeness to any person that interacts with you (say, your loved ones).

@templargfx

Жыл бұрын

we are hard wired for survival. the longer you are alive the greater the chance of creating offspring. Even though there is a copy of you right there, that doesn't change the fact that your brain is hard wired to want to not die. Our brains did not evolve to understand this situation, so even though you see yourself next to you and you know its a copy of you, your brain still reacts to that copy of you as something else. Which it is because the second that copy is created it is existing in a different place to you and immediately diverges. By the time your brain has had enough time to process the information from your senses you and that copy are different and unique from each other

@igorsuslov

Жыл бұрын

@@templargfx I would really doubt that we are hard wired for survival. Especially suicide basically proves the opposite. If any, then to me it seems that we are hard wired to avoid suffering - even if this sometimes means some suffering in the short term. Which in of itself again raises the question of consciousness’ role in all of this. Additionally it’s not that anyone really feels forced to have kids biologically - so hard wired seems also not to be the case. Generally speaking I really propose to see yourself at least as organic and not as mechanic, as a subject rather than an object - and really question what consciousness is and whether it can fit in a purely functional/materialistic worldview. The fact of it being - whatever it is - and it‘s implications towards the fabric of reality itself.

If we don’t have a soul, if this is the only life we get, isn’t it doubly important to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for life, and that opportunity should begin at conception? After all, it’s the only chance we get we don’t have the right to deny it to anybody.

Ms Sabrine, we must include in our ideas about our Universe, also those incidents which we cannt explain. Else, we will be going around in small circles, defined only by our experiences. From experiences comes knowledge which is outcome of the memory of these experiences. 5 senses is too few to get an idea of the Universe, and few hundred years of it too, is not adequate. We are but infants, trying to grasp what we see and experience. Dark matter, for instance 😊

It's my (limited, to be sure) understanding that information can not be destroyed, merely converted. Therefore, the specific configuration of the particles that make up a living being have been measured, so to speak, and have become an information pattern - indestructible, but convertible. Somehow, I don't find this in conflict with the idea of a soul.

@howlrichard1028

Жыл бұрын

When we say that information cannot be destroyed, it's not about specific patterns being somehow eternal, it's about being able to predict the state of a system in the past and the future by knowing its state in the present and applying the laws of the universe.

@realitywave

Жыл бұрын

Energy...not information. Sorry.

I’ve never understood how mathematics fits in the world of physics. A mathematical formula does not have mass, nor speed. It is not made of atoms. The formula can be written with chalk on a board. The chalk is somewhere specific, but the formula it represents isn’t just on the blackboard……. So does maths not exist then?

@NoHandleToSpeakOf

Жыл бұрын

Simple. It is information. It can have many carriers.

@MrJohanFrederik

Жыл бұрын

@@NoHandleToSpeakOf I guess what I meant is that the physics I studied at the time only described material particles and objects. It did not explain what information is or what mathematics is and what laws these things like maths and information then follow. Or take language, meaning of words, or datamodels, etc. No Newton or Einstein laws for that, right?

This shows the inadequacy of physics alone. When two people love each other there is a psychological bond between them that connects them. For simplicity one could say that their souls are bonded together. The soul is an immaterial phenomenon that the conscious brain interacts with. The proof of this bond is discovered when two lovers breakup their relationship, because the pain of tearing apart this soul-bond is excruciating, based on my personal experience. One can survive this, however and love again.

I think "soul" is just a term that has sticked until today, from times that we didn't have another way to prove it (methodologically and technologically) other than our own senses. So without a method and technology to back up those affirmations that our senses don't reach, you could have think that there should be something that animates us and when we die that something goes away, must be the soul! No. But nowadays there is a term called Negentropy, which for me is more suited to describe that which "goes away" when we die, maximizing Entropy. In spanish, soul is "Alma", and the etymology of Alma is "Anima" which is the root of animated, and of animal. You see. We didn't have anything else to describe reality other than our senses; and the term has sticked because the scientific rigour is the ability less used by the total population. Reality is stranger than concepts like the soul; though consciousness is a whole other ticket.

Love Sabine and I'm several paygrades below her in understanding. I also believe we are embodied minds embedded in dynamic environments. Should we ever be able to upload ourselves to the cloud, must we simulate the environment too? The bacteria in our guts? Fatigue, hunger, pain? What good would consciousness be on a hard drive without the sensory and perceptual apparatus simulated too?

@j3ffn4v4rr0

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you wholeheartedly...frankly, I feel that might be the biggest stumbling block to true artificial intelligence, especially while we discuss how to make sure AI has compatible morals/values to humans (e.g., doesn't want to kill everybody). It's easy to make a machine sound like a regular human that can talk you through driving to Guitar Center, take airline reservations, etc. etc. i.e., smoothing the complexities of modern consumerist life, which is actually where mainstream AI seems to be headed. BUT to make a machine that has any chance of "consciousness" and actually relating to humans, it would have to feel fatigue, hunger, and pain, as you say. There is no other way!! It might even have to be born, live as a child, and grow for several years....i.e., for it to be "human" it would pretty much have to be a human. P.S. - You might enjoy reading _The Biological Mind: How Brain, Body, and Environment Collaborate to Make Us Who We Are_ by Alan Jasanoff. It's a pretty good book, wherein he explores many facets of your idea in detail.

@j3ffn4v4rr0

Жыл бұрын

@@distantraveller9876 You're correct, I am only speculating, as are you :)

@gacorley

9 ай бұрын

The environment or sense impressions of it would have to be simulated. I think that, to save resources, we might go with decreasing resolution as you get further from the body, possibly even just further from the brain and nervous system. Being among the first uploads could be a surreal and maybe frightening experience as all the kinks are worked out.

@erikbosma8765

8 ай бұрын

What about all the other animals? All other living things? Are we back to them being here for our amusement to do with as we see fit? I don't think so.

@zekielrodriguez5229

7 ай бұрын

Jeez. I used to want to live as long as I could and continue being active in shaping the world. Now ya’ll want to start synthesizing life, and it’s founded on the idea that humans are just balls of matter to do as we please. I’m gonna be so happy to die

YOU DO NOT HAVE A SOUL .. You ARE a the SOUL. YOU HAVE A BODY.

@albertosacco

Жыл бұрын

Right , you are a soul or a spirit , in spite of the Reductionism of modern physics .

@raghavendras4097

Жыл бұрын

I don't believe in soul but..... Wow!!

@agentbertmacklin9880

Жыл бұрын

This is what the Bible teaches in fact this is what early Judaism teaches, and what Christianity should teach… “For the living know that they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have a reward any longer, for their memory is forgotten.” -Ecclesiastes 9:5 (Hebrew Scriptures) The Bible refers to a resurrection where an elect few are rulers In heaven and judgment of the both good and bad people after the second coming and hell translates to the very different implicating word Gehenna in other words the common grave is hell. in fact hellfire as we know it today was a philosophical invention by Greek Philosopher Plato and did not originate within the original meaning of the use of the word hell or Gehenna which has entirely separate implications then hell which is associated with hellfire. Whereas Gehenna just means your dead.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

farts

@realitywave

Жыл бұрын

​@Agent Bert Macklin No, that is not what the bible teaches. Of course whatever an ancient fairytale book "teaches" is irrelevant to intellectual pursuits or conversations.

The soul is the information necessary to create someone. As information, you cannot destroy it!

If you can experience things, you have one thing in common with everything else in the universe capable of experiencing things. On some level, based on your capabilities, you are identical to everything else. You can observe and experience. Layered on top of that are your experiences; your memories, your desires, your emotions, your thoughts, your senses, etc. The fundamental particles are currently as far down as we have gone/can go. However, I maintain all objects inherit properties from that which comprises it. As the video says, the fundamental particles are responsible for everything. That's fine, but to believe there is no component from which the particles can inherit their properties is to claim they are made of nothing. Something made of nothing then inherits the property of nothingness, and so doesn't exist in the first place. It is the state of infinite divisibility and multiplicity that produces phyiscal existence. However, it's fine to say from our perspective, there is practically nothing smaller than the elementary particles. (Now that I think about it, energy comprises them, right? And then you can just say energy comprises energy...) This is echoed in basic mathematics. There is no smallest decimal, no smallest number. This is necessary for a whole unit to be a whole unit. To be is to be infinitely divisable. The above can be summed up with the following statement: Everything has components; Everything is a component. Which is further simplified into: everything is connetected. These days I answer questions such as these pretty simply. "Is there life after death?" "Is there a soul?" Short answer is yes. Things have died, yet we still live. We are the life after death. The soul? It's not a question of whether it exists or not, but a question of what. What is the soul? Because we can point to what we mean by the soul. So whatever is responsible for what we consider to be the soul, that's what the soul is. The soul is a variable. Is it immortal? Not known. Is it ectoplasm? No. Is it magic? No. Is it physical? Probably not. How about that classic question about free will and determinism? Can you prove determinism doesn't result from free will? Is my free will not one way in which determinism acts? My free will is dependent on determinism, but determism is in return dependent on my free will. In truth, there is no difference. My mind, body, identity, everything, is an emergent phenomenon. Everything on the level in which I lead my life. Every concept I understand. It's all emergent. It's not all about what something is made of, but how it is assembled. A car dissassembled weighs the same as it would put together. But the function is very different. A flurry can occur in snow, sand, grass clippings and fallen leaves. The matter that comprises me from one perspective is immense, but from the perspective of the universe, it is inconsequential. If such a small volume of space could contain enough detail to give rise to me... why can the entire universe not give rise to me again? Death is a profound change. I think it is a permanent one. But it is not true destruction. True destruction is known not to be possible. On the day before your death, the universe contains you. On the day after, this is still the case. Is the emergent phenomenon of life what gives rise to perspective, or is it what limits perspective into your identity? Treat death like a bus ride. Arriving too soon or late will just cause suffering. But taking the right bus when it is time will make the process easy. The only fact that can be surely said about death is that it is a change in perspective. Sure, after death, your eyes will never see again. Your body will never feel again. Your brain will never think again. But are those not just the phenomena by which you currently differentiate "you" from "everything else?" We know the universe has the capacity to experience itself. No death will ever change that. And we are pieces of the universe experiencing itself. What you happen to be is just one way we know of that it can do that. To me, it's foolish to assume, with the infinite information we lack, that you, or we, or even life as a whole is the only way experience can occur.

@ryder1658

Жыл бұрын

Also: the context and meaning of your life is layered over the physical particles that "give rise" to it, in the same way math is meaning assigned to archetypal symbols - what are really just different colored materials. Nothing inherent about the particles of wood that make up paper or the particles of graphite that stain it give rise to math. The graphite must be smudged in a particular way, such that an observer could reference their own versions of said smudgings, and within a certain margin of deviation, they must match, to evoke the agreed upon meaning in both writer and reader. I think a really big issue with perception is how we fail to understand just how much of our perception and ideation of reality is abstract. I think most people understand there are relevant aspects to existence that you can and can't touch. That you can and can't observe directly. Let me put it to you like this: why do our rockets work? Why can we get to the moon? Because we use physically nonexistant calculations to predict what will happen if we fuel massive metal containers in just the right way. And if the calculations are right, it happens quite exactly how we calculated. It's a cause-and-effect path that traces a parabola from physically existent, into the abstractly existent, back into the physically existent. So not only do we fail to understand how much of our reality is abstract, we fail to recognize the abstract is not unimportant. The abstract is immensely powerful. Eyes could look on what I've written and not gain anything from it. But if you've read this far, your brain has been changed in some way to reflect the MEANING of what I've written. And the observer at your core saw it all happen. This was facilitated by the physical, but it is not 100% physical. Abstract meaning riding on physical light particles. And so I guess that's what it's all about. Information carried by energy. That's the real fundamental. Energy and information.

In the OSI layer of communication, the physical layer is at the bottom most layer. It provides the foundation for communication just like the elementary particles. The higher levels are required to set the rules of protocols. It would not be too far-fetched to extend this to soul. Meaning of life cannot be explained at the level of the elementary particles as much as communication protocols can be explained by ones and zeros.

@6h65

10 ай бұрын

Exactly, just because one knows how to connect 2 circuits doesn't mean they know how an application is built.

@redstoneninja3375

4 ай бұрын

that is a great analogy but i think it proves her point, the physical layer is the electromagnetic signals that enable communication, everything in a network ultimatley boils down to those, the "protocols" are a way to make sense of those signals, the base layer is what it really is, every layer above it are just abstractions which make it easy to interpret the signals. Similarly everything could ultimatley be made of inanimate particles, and our "soul" could be an abstraction or a property that emerges from the collective interaction of those particles

@redstoneninja3375

4 ай бұрын

i am not denying the existence of a "soul", we all experience it, but we can't quantify a soul and the universe seems to function properly without a soul, which means that if a soul exist it should never interact with the physical world, that is not the case if our physical bodies can effect what our souls experience. Hence the soul should be some measurable property of the universe, it can be a fundemental property like spacetime or quantum fields, or the soul could also just be an emergent property that arises from the combined behaviour of other fundamental properties

Some rationalists have described the soul as the image of the body stored as a memory. I think that the mere question of what the soul is reflects the existance of it, maybe it can't be measured, and that's where logical positivism reaches it's limits.

Pain is what makes this real. My mother in law just died from the deadliest cancerform(called NEC) and there is no cure for it. Her stomach kept filling with hormoneliquids from the tumors and they had to put a tube into her stomach to keep emptying it and give her morfine 24/7. She suffered day and night for 1 month before passing away. In the end just stuck in her body without being able to move or speak. They couldn't do anything more for her and let the liquid push towards her intestines to eventually make them explode. We can all sit here and speculate about the works of the universe but there's no fiction about this world, and the suffering is real.

The question "do we have souls, or are we just particles?" already has a flaw built into it, because it assumes that particles do not have souls

I have a piano in my room from which I can hear Beethoven's pathetique. I will soon be able to explain how that can be by describing the piano by means of particle physics ....

@elarakamai

Жыл бұрын

Very good. Sounds like some things are just irreducible. Like maybe the soul....

@markb3786

Жыл бұрын

@@elarakamai Give it time. It will reduce. It always does. We just have to wait for real science.

@elarakamai

Жыл бұрын

@@markb3786 I'm not so sure. We may be reaching some upper asymptote of what reductionist methodologies can accomplish. Systems sciences are pointing the way forward. Like ecology, sociology. Complex systems are remarkable for not being reducible to just their component parts. They are greater than the sum of the parts. Consciousness so far looks to fall in this category. My bet it that it will NOT reduce.

- She forgets to mention that by some recent estimates, we call around 95% of the mass in the universe "dark matter", which stays for 'something we know very little about'. So particles may well not be the whole story. - Another thing that particle physics does not easily explain is the very essence of our life, the existence of our own experience, that is, consciousness. - A remote argument against reductionism and in favor of dualism is that in a similar way as two subatomic particles are capable of influencing each others' spin at a distance (see quantum entanglement), there might be a similarly "immaterial" connection between two different substances, for example, between the physical and the 'conscious' substances/universes without there needing to be any direct physical contact between the two substances. - Moreover, our understanding of the universe is extremely limited by what we can see and measure of it. For what we know, there might be other bubbles or multiverses, made of completely different substances, or where completely different types of logic yield. And so again, particles might not be the whole story. - One more thing. While it might be true that **in principle** we could deterministically calculate for example all the behaviors of a human during his/her lifetime, this is true only in theory but not in practice. In practice this cannot be possibly done because some physical processes are chahotic (search for chaos theory for further information) and cannot be predicted in the long run. I am a great fan of this channel, but I found this video quite limited. Otherwise, keep up the good work!

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

human consciousness is 99% stupidity.

@themanofshadows

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

@phr3ui559

11 ай бұрын

ok

I think it's about confusion between information and concept. Definition of human comes from the need to understand new concepts. Information is just the intersection of concepts with material world. The set of possibilities dynamically loaded with probabilities define the alive entity and is itself an implementations of concepts with the purpose to bring new concepts in this world. Soul is like a class of equivalence regarding the set of concepts thatan entity represent, a gate by which new concepts will come. Heaven, truth, religion, everything we invent is about harmony of concepts.

The English Language among all Metaphysics can not be reduce to or derived from physical laws, they are not matter ... strong emergence at work.

I don't know about a God or soul but I'd like to think that some type of 'perception' of an existence or environment continues to take place In some form after you pass. The idea that you just appear out of nowhere after billions of years to peer through these goggles for what amounts to about a half a second In the grand scheme of things only to disappear again back Into blackness for the rest of eternity seems like the biggest cosmic joke ever.

@problemchild8976

Жыл бұрын

Yeah how does "something" emerge from "nothing." If something emerges from heat, what caused the heat in the first place. How can anything even heat and light exist coming from nothingness.

@howlrichard1028

Жыл бұрын

@@problemchild8976 Nobody is arguing that something comes from nothing.

Thank you for this lucid and accurate explanation which explains what it means when something is said to exist but not in a material sense (soul, heaven, ghost, god, etc) yet it somehow affects us or is us or occupies a space within us. It means we do not require it in our lives. You might even say it is irrelevant.

@rdizzy1

Жыл бұрын

Most religious individuals believe souls exist in a physical sense, as they also believe in thing like spirits, ghosts, etc. If a spirit or ghost was non material, it would not be able to interact with the physical world, but this is not what they believe.

@rodschmidt8952

7 ай бұрын

@@rdizzy1But it has to be halfway! It has to be sort-of-physical and sort-of-not-physical so that, for example, I can sense a ghost and talk about it, therefore there's a connection (or in engineer talk, "coupling") between ghosts and the physical world in which I talk, and at the same time the ghost isn't "physical" in the sense that it is made of parts which can get out of order therefore it's subject to decay. We see the same need for halfway-ness in the idea that the physical universe (is this different from saying "the universe"?) was created by a thing that's sort-of-physical and sort-of-not-physical so that it can interact with physical things in the example of creating them, but it is also not made of parts and subject to decay (and it has to not be physical otherwise it itself would need to be created).

Caveat: My bachelor's degree is in biology so I know just enough to be dangerous. That we are made of particles is not the most amazing thing; the fact that none of the particles that were "you" twenty years ago are still a part of you is the most profoundly amazing thing to me. How did the concept of "me" survive the rejiggering? That's the thing that has me enthralled and curious about the world and everything in it.

@nutmeg0144

Жыл бұрын

Because it was an incredibly slow process. And there is no you, this illusion of self is the result of language

@fidelogos7098

Жыл бұрын

@@nutmeg0144 So language existed before self-consciousness? And it's estimated that 1 million cells in a human body die every second, which is equivalent to 1.2 kg. The concept of a perennial self is much more nuanced than attributing it to a slow turnover of cells.

The sole sum and substance of an organism's existence is the material soul. Lucretius points out that the soul dies with the body and that after that point, DEATH IS NOTHING TO US.

I tend to go with Sabine on the physics of "souls", there is no evidence as such for the existence of something separate from our physical bodies. Some days I feel there must be something else, some truth in the descriptions of an afterlife, but the important thing I think is to lead our lives as best we can, rather than to think of some future state which might be imaginary.

@kgdangar2

Жыл бұрын

i can clearly see the difference between dead person and the living ones. in Islam the erm "death" is when the soul departed from the body which makes much more sense

@thomasmaughan4798

Жыл бұрын

"there is no evidence as such for the existence of something separate from our physical bodies." Thre is, but it sort of depends on what kind of evidence you accept. Something not made of atoms and electrons cannot be detected by an instrument made of atoms and electrons.

@kedrednael

Жыл бұрын

@@kgdangar2 So you can see the soul? What does it look like? Do you see it leaving the body when it dies? Of course you can see the difference between a dead person and a living person. A living person can move on its own (heart pumping, blood flowing at a minimum). Those differences can be described and observed without a soul existing.

@kedrednael

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasmaughan4798 Gravity and light etc are not made of atoms or electrons and can be detected by instruments made of atoms and electrons. What makes something measurable is: Does it influence observable reality? What is the evidence for a something existing separate from our physical bodies? You are "conscious", and I do not know how that relates exactly to laws of physics. But I do know that our consciousness is extremely heavily influenced by our physical brain. You can change the brain chemically (with drugs), or electrically (via electrodes or magnetic stimulation). Why would our consciousness be changed so directly and predictably when that physical object changes, if our consciousness is something else than that brain?

@thomasmaughan4798

Жыл бұрын

@@kedrednael "Gravity and light etc are not made of atoms or electrons and can be detected by instruments made of atoms and electrons. What makes something measurable is: Does it influence observable reality?" An excellent observation. Gravity ITSELF cannot be detected; its EFFECTS can usually be detected and INFER from the effect, that there is a cause, and let us label that mysterious cause, "gravity". "What is the evidence for a something existing separate from our physical bodies? I can use the same logic you have applied to gravity. A soul cannot be detected by any known instrument, and yet I believe it must be detectable since the soul interacts, weakly I think, with a human brain and body. The sensitivity of the human brain is enormous because of the number of synapses. It would require an instrument of comparable sensitivity and complexity AND it would require a willing subject; a soul or spirit that wants to be detected. So what is my evidence? Well I have several but the most convincing for me was this man that worked for me was involved in a serious automobile crash that nearly killed him. When he was conscious again I visited him in the hospital. He described looking down on the crash scene from a vantage point 20 to 30 feet in the air, and described what the emergency workers had to do to get his body extricated from the wreck. I had seen the police report, he had not and it wasn't hospital business either. His description was accurate. But suppose he was faking it, and somehow had seen the police report? Well, as you write, gravity can be detected by its EFFECT and the effect of this experience on him was profound. He had been all kinds of disrespectful and "bad", antagonistic toward any religion. Suddenly he had many questions about religion and really changed his attitude and demeanor. "Why would our consciousness be changed so directly and predictably when that physical object changes, if our consciousness is something else than that brain?" They are linked. Even within Christianity, these spirits very much wish to have a body and everything that goes with it. It is an amplifier, a doorway to the physical universe. Spirits exist, they are conscious or semi-conscious, but they cannot (or just barely) affect physical matter. So the brain IS functioning and probably does not NEED a soul or spirit; I think of it more like clothing, sort of like a cybernetic exoskeleton that lets the spirit touch, interact, influence and control the physical world. So the spirit "talks" to the brain and body; and as you point out, so can scientific instruments, fMRI for instance and by stimulating areas of the brain you can trigger what seems to be religious experiences although I'm not sure what anyone means by that. HOWEVER, it is impossible for such experiments to actually reveal something urgent, factual and immediately verified such as the time a voice said, "change lanes now" and I did and by so doing averted a head on collision. I do not know with certainty whether every human has a soul, or animals for that matter, but I believe some do. Even within Christianity, when Jesus came to Capermanum (if I remember right) the devils asked permission to go into pigs, and was granted, and the pigs ran off a cliff and presumably died which made the citizens angry. So the ability of a spirit to inhabit bodies is not limited to humans; but they apparently prefer human bodies for various reasons.

I've never thought of a Soul this way before but it came to me while watching this vid that the human body is born as a body, and a Soul is 'grown' throughout it's life. And maybe not all bodies grow one.

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

and the evidence for this is?

@gordonbrown5901

Жыл бұрын

@@scambammer6102 A proposition. Does anyone have tangibile evidence of a soul?

@scambammer6102

Жыл бұрын

@@gordonbrown5901 James Brown. Aretha Franklin. Define soul.

@jasocala

Жыл бұрын

@@gordonbrown5901 yes. Out off body experience100%tru i can teach you how to open third eye rise your vibration and do a out off body experience so you can see your soul light.

@russbell6418

Жыл бұрын

@@gordonbrown5901 Yes, but no. Faith can bring about access to experience, but my experiment can’t be duplicated in your lab. From the physicist’s point of view, this comes to bear on the supposition of existence flashing into existence under circumstances we cannot understand, and under laws that defy our physics. Suddenly, the physicist is looking through a dark glass at theologians who have sat on this mountaintop for centuries.

It seems obvious to me that there are multiple ways of perceiving physical reality; the way we do so is defined by the characteristics of our sensory and cognitive apparatus. We know there are things we cannot perceive directly, but what we know we cannot perceive is limited to that which we can prove is there. I imagine that if we could see all there is from any perspective, we would discover some surprises about ourselves. That said: to my way of thinking, the soul strikes me as an unlikely version of what we cannot see of ourselves. Much like a god who knows each of us personally, it seems to me that the concept is mostly designed to answer questions that seem to trouble people about their own importance and permanence (or lack thereof). Of course, that I think so is a function of my own view of myself and the universe: the physical, natural world as I understand it fills me with awe, and I feel no need to be more than a part of what I perceive. For myself I am happier to be a finite and tenporary part of a vastly greater whole. If particles can be arranged to create all that I see and understand, what need would I have to be more than that?

I prefer to ask god about these big questions. "Blessed is He in whose hand is dominion, and He is over all things competent - [He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving " Holly Quraan. so whatever our consciousness is we have to be aware of our behaviors and act right on this planet.

How particles are arranged and interact to create consciousness is a mystery. Science has no competency to resolve the issue of soul at this stage. Giving any conclusion on the issue is deemed to be mere ignorance. It is ridiculous to think that uploading all information of a human body in a supercomputer will make the computer conscious carrying the identity of that man.

@spnyp33

Жыл бұрын

Your logic seems a bit cross-gated: Claiming science is unable to resolve the issue and ANY conclusion is to be taken as ignorance. Then, in the next sentence make a conclusion and claim of ridiculousness about the same matter at hand.

@md.noorulkarim5542

Жыл бұрын

@@spnyp33 I admit you are correct, but the comment was not from the scientific viewpoint, an intuitive argument.

Science describes how the universe is and the soul reveals why the universe is. How and why are very different questions. The truth of why rests in the awe-full silence of our spirit.

Death is the end of an individual; knowledge passes on; the sun is a star.

Do we have souls? No. It feels like we do, but no. It feels like "I" have always been here. What would this "I" be though? Put your finger on it. Our bodies (Made of particles) are constantly changing; they are being rebuilt like a fountain is rebuilt as different water passes through a nozzle. The nozzle gets worn as we age. Imperfect metaphor I agree. So not our bodies.. Our Mind? That seems to be generated by our brain. When the brain dies it takes all those memories with it. The thinking stops. The knowing stuff ends. There really is no more. The fact that this ends makes this all the more precious. How boring if it just goes on and on and on.

"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but it is the way those atoms are put together." - Carl sagan

How can we confirm that anything exists outside our personal experience, if no one can get out side of said experience?

@howlrichard1028

Жыл бұрын

We can't. All we can do is assume those things exist simply because it "feels" like they do.

@sonkeschmidt2027

Жыл бұрын

Why do you think you can't? Look at a baby, it can't experience the world like you du now but will it be forever stuck in that experience? It somehow, over time gains an experience that was previously outside of his experience. Why would that stop forever with you?

@MariaMartinez-researcher

Жыл бұрын

There are other people, who can confirm or not what your experience tells you. That's how science works.

@scotchhollow

Жыл бұрын

@@MariaMartinez-researcher How does one confirm something exists outside of human experience by using someone else’s human experience? How do you scientifically verify that?

@scotchhollow

Жыл бұрын

@@danielromerosol4158 Although that would suck, it would technically still within my (human) experience.

In my opinion, we do not have a separate soul from our body. It may be disheartening to think that once our physical body dies, our consciousness or sense of self also ceases to exist. There are many reasons why the concept of a soul does not make sense. Firstly, the problem lies in its own definition. Is being alive enough to have a soul? Does a mosquito have a soul, and if so, where does it go when it dies? Religions tend to simplify things by granting souls only to human beings, but why not to other animals like fish, turtles, dogs, or monkeys? And why not to our closest relative, the chimpanzee? What are souls made of? Are they composed of the previous souls of deceased individuals, or are they created anew each time? Where do they come from, and where do they go? The problem with the concept of a soul is that it raises more questions than answers. For example, if the soul is defined as a person's kindness, character, memories, etc., then it should not be subject to alteration because it is not physical. However, this is not the case, as a person's character and personality can change over time due to brain damage or other factors. Tragic accidents, such as when a metal bar enters someone's head, can cause damage to the brain and alter a person's personality. The person may still be able to perform the same tasks as before, but they may no longer be kind or become aggressive. This makes sense because the configuration of their brain has changed, and therefore, their "soul" has changed too. The same can be observed in people who have suffered from strokes or other brain injuries. All of this goes to show that what makes us who we are is our brain, specifically the configuration of its neurons and the sum of all its particles. The brain may give us an impression of something greater, like a soul, but in reality, it is just cells, bones, and flesh working together in a coordinated ballet to perform all of our movements, just as magic can be the movement of our hands, which is incredibly complex but ultimately nothing more than the sum of its physical parts.

Maybe if Sabine hossenfelder creates a definition of soul using physical theories without violating any properties she may deem fit, I would buy it. She is smarter than the metaphysician🙏👏

I love Sabine! She's such a bright light of knowledge and wisdom!

@galaxy999in

11 ай бұрын

😂

The more I learn about physics, the more I believe in souls. If consciousness is emergent from dead matter, then this dead matter must not be dead. It must be alive, energetic, and encoded with information. Is that not a human being as well? Is the universe, down to its most finite forms not a reflection of us? Therefore, a reflection of itself?

@grimhoneybee

6 ай бұрын

Could you expand on this? I’m very intrigued and I don’t quite understand

@threestars2164

6 ай бұрын

You do realize that the most accepted idea is that mind is emergent right? The origin of life is non-life. Vitalism is a dead idea.

@notinuse553

11 күн бұрын

@@threestars2164 break through on 5-meo-dmt and tell me the mind is emergent. The origin of life is non-life? Ex nihilo nihil fit. Similarly, logic should dictate, from non-life comes non-life, not life. If life exists, it comes from a source that has life inherent in its essential essence. Also read about Spinoza's "god"; that's more logical than life is from non-life.

@notinuse553

11 күн бұрын

@@threestars2164 And before you say vitalism is dead according to scientists, Einstein believed in Spinoza's god (he was a peerless genius, not to appeal to authority though as the logic of Spinoza's god stands on its own feet)

"There's no observation we've ever made which contradicts the idea of reductionism." And yet the observer cannot be explained by the properties of fundamental particles, unless consciousness itself is a property of such.

@markb3786

Жыл бұрын

"cannot be explained" .......................yet

@goblinsdammit

Жыл бұрын

@@markb3786 Consciousness is actually not in the domain of science. Science deals with objectivity, the objective world, the world of objects. Consciousness itself, pure subjectivity, is not an object. Science can study "states of consciousness" and how they relate to the brain (the soft problem of consciousness). But the subject is not an object. Using a word to describe it makes it into a conceptual object but that is not really the true subject. Pure subjectivity is being independent of all objects.

You may load into a computer all the data about human structure and processes taking place in the body, and maybe at most you will find chemical analog processes, a one to one of what happen in the brain when we feel our being/conciousness(spiritual feelings etc.), but how can one explain by those analogs the subjective feelings of existing, awareness and being a self. You will still remain with a cold mathematical, biophysical complicated analog system on the board.

Sabine is a hardcore physicalist and a Perma-skeptic just about everything. My question is: How can we reconcile entropy with the emergence of life, evolution and especially Consciousness which is the only thing that gives us access to reality?

@tylercriss6435

Жыл бұрын

The chemical process that is life is an investment of energy to create a system that produces a lot more entropy! Even though organisms seem anti-entropy, every moment we are radiating away heat and moving and causing entropy. Like, consider how entropic human civilization is alone. So much entropy, so much more disorder than would be present if there were no life on this planet

@JesseDriftwood

Жыл бұрын

Maybe I’m not fully understanding your question, but I’ll take a small stab at it. It’s good to remember that our planet is an open system that is constantly being fed energy from our sun, and not a closed system like how we’d describe the universe. Eventually entropy will lead everything towards chaos, but the existence of order along the way isn’t surprising given the circumstances. The question on consciousness is a trickier one. To me it doesn’t seem like an issue to assume it’s an emergent property of the brain, and it’s function has more to do with building mental models of the future as a tool for survival, but there are several theories that get tossed around and I’m frankly not smart enough to understand them all.

@russellmillar7132

Жыл бұрын

Funny that the laws of thermodynamics were formulated at roughly the same time as the theory of evolution by natural selection. I only hear the term entropy brought up in two contexts: 1. in discussions about certain topics in physics that confuse the hell out of me. and 2. when Christian apologists bring it up as a way to, supposedly call some scientific theory (evolution, big bang etc.) into question, or disprove it. Could it be that in the intervening 170 years that scientists have stupidly missed or ignored this obvious conundrum? Could it be that you have a misconception about the actual definition of entropy? Could it be that scientists have already reconciled entropy with all the other phenomena? Could it be that you have simply not been motivated to search for the real answer to your quest being that you like to use this sciency sounding question to wow the science illiterate into thinking you have outwitted the atheists at their own game?

@binarybotany3218

Жыл бұрын

Thomas Metzinger proposes some compelling answers to this idea of the consciousness. I think the book is called "Being No One".

@RYANTHEORY_

Жыл бұрын

@@binarybotany3218 Thanks for sharing. Any thoughts on Chris Langan's CTMU?

If you were to simulate the fundamental particles on a computer, you would need to use a random number generator each time a quantum wavefunction collapses, since their behavior is fundamentally non-deterministic. Maybe the soul in some way corresponds to that "random number generator" in reality. It is what "chooses" what becomes real/experienced out of all the possibilities.

@abdousekhi4933

10 ай бұрын

wait what do you mean by fundamentally non deterministic

@NSPRODX

9 ай бұрын

I think this way too. In Abrahamic religions there are angels which I believe in also, God made them to serve only to himself they can't choose anything but we humans are quantum computers we are reaponsible for every decision.

Aș Max Planck says: the Univers is self contemplating through our eyes!

you will still have to explain how symbols can be a window on the past, present, future, and how a dream can present a scene happening years later. While at it, how can you not see the environment around you made to "support existence", then that it has a purpose, or there wouldn't be an environment, nor yourself. And because you can be conscious of "reality", you are not an illusion, or there wouldn't be such symbols and dreams to give perspectives. That "reality" is "here" and happening "now", with you in it, for something that we can barely explain. This gives the shape of something "invisible", something more to the senses. You are not equal to "a script made for computer" when your consciousness and actions are more than technology; this is only inviting an univers where life doesn't count. This is like rejecting the values that you have and the wish to be considered by others, then the life you can bring. This is why Ai will never replace humans, even if it wins.

This is an interesting topic to me because I wonder what makes me me, what makes me unique in this universe. If we are simply a configuration of particles then there is no uniqueness in the universe.

@jyri-mattikauranen3686

8 ай бұрын

This is a fundamental question and one for which materialism or physicalism has no answer. Sabine thinks that we could be put into a computer and then we would continue our existence in the computer. But what if my body was not destroyed in the process. Would I then continue my existence normally but with a copy of myself, who however would not be myself. But how can somebody`s identity be dependent on whether somebody else has died, when the person was born. We could continue this kind of speculations on and on, which is a great proof of the absurdity of materialistic philosophies. Sabine also of course favors the old materialistic theory that there is ultimately nothing else than the basic physical particles and their properties. Then she explains that the color of metals is something that is produced by it´s physical constituents. She however fails to distinguish "red" as defined as certain wavelengths of radiation and as an experienced quality in the mind. It however happens to be that "red" as a quality in the mind is something that has no physical qualities at all; it is just something that is in the mind when we have the experience of it and we know exactly what it is, but we have no clue how it is ultimately produced. Knowing that there are correlations of experiences and neural processes doesn´t solve the problem, because this fact of course gives no answer to the question of how these phenomena are produced. If this so, there is no difficulty in believing in a reality that physics cannot grasp at all and therefore no real reasons refute the existence of non-physical minds, souls etc.

So like…. How do we know we aren’t already a part of some shape or form of computer containing the information required to make an individual? Isn’t this kinda what we call the universe?

@AdrienBurg

Жыл бұрын

What difference would it make?

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

@@AdrienBurg it would have implications upon and perhaps provide insight to our fundamental understanding of existence and everything we pervice to exist, no big deal 🦵💨

@woodman9083

Жыл бұрын

💙🌴💚💚💛

Given Sabines name to Government of India for dualism. The dual non physical aspect is Digilocker. They can contact Sabine for a mutual discussion and amicable settlement with physicists. 👍🙏🌹