Do Souls Exist? | Mike Huemer (Yes) & Graham Oppy (No) - ep. 183

Dr. Mike Huemer is an agnostic and a world class philosopher. Yet he argues that we have immaterial, immortal souls. Dr. Graham Oppy is an atheist and also a world class philosopher. He argues that we do not have immaterial, immortal souls. We're gonna talk about it.
If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here:
Patreon: / parkers_pensees
If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal:
paypal.me/ParkersPensees?loca...
Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: teespring.com/stores/parkers-...
Check out my blog posts: parkersettecase.com/
Check out my Parker's Pensées KZbin Channel:
/ parker's pensées
Check out my other KZbin channel on my frogs and turtles: / parkersettecase
Check me out on Twitter: / trendsettercase
Instagram: / parkers_pensees
0:00 - Is the mind supernatural?
4:47 - Is qualia evidence for souls?
18:05 - Is Graham Oppy a Physicalist?
24:30 - More on qualia and identity theory
33:05 - Is intentionality evidence for souls?
38:40 - Is free will evidence for souls?
56:54 - Are the past and future infinite?
1:12:25 - Oppy's Branching Modality
1:22:01 - What's at stake in the debate?
1:24:26 - Would Oppy believe in free will if he believed in souls?
1:26:02 - quantum indeterminacy vs consequence arg?
1:31:14 - Do animal have souls?
1:37:30 - Are souls equally likely on theism and atheism?
1:39:23 - How probable is theism? Best arguments for theism?
1:50:05 - when did souls evolve?
1:53:55 - when does consciousness emerge?
1:59:38 - does reincarnation effect the ethics of killing?
2:02:35 - is incarnation a net positive?

Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

[@chasetherushpodcast2534]

Oppy debating with an empty bookshelf behind him is gangster AF

[@ethanmartin2781]

He doesn’t need books it’s all in his head

[@rud69420]

@@ethanmartin2781 There were books at one point in time, he just absorbed them

[@Zictomorph]

@@rud69420 I just watched his Feser debate on Capturing Christianity from 3 years ago, they were definitely 2/3 full. 😲

[@broseyspringg4818]

🤣🤣

[@EmersonGreen]

I'm really glad that Huemer and Oppy spend so much time doing public philosophy.

Amen! Thanks for the super chat and interaction man!

[@MajestyofReason]

Spot on. They’re gifts!

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@MajestyofReason, Joseph, I interrupted the viewing of your latest video to watch this one instead. 🙃

[@RonaldhinoMcLean]

@@TheVeganVicarsame 😂

[@dylanjohnson4210]

Oppy didn’t read books. Books read Oppy. 😂 Thanks for this discussion Parker!

😂

[@uzairwaheed330]

I like how Oppy's library is completely empty Gave me a chuckle lol

[@legron121]

I think he's moving out.

[@dynamic9016]

The more I learn, the less I really know n listening to these two philosopher's made me realized this more...

[@dharmatycoon]

This is such a treat! I love how they have such opposing beliefs, yet are completely capable of discussing them.

[@gotterdammerung6088]

This was such a dream come true for me as a philosophy student! Thank you so much, Parker!

Same here! So glad there's others like me!

[@Zictomorph]

Great conversation. I started the video thinking dualists are whackos. But Huemer makes a solid case.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Great interview Parker. I raised the same problems Oppy did in a recent blog post about the knowledge argument!

Thanks man! In my recent episode with Tim Crane we talked about his piece on the knowledge arg. where he argues in a similar way, the arg is about knowledge rather than ontology of minds.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE, Nathaniel. 😆

[@tjcofer7517]

These debates are great! I love when professional philosophers are willing to come on and debate. I'd love to see more normative ethics debates too if anyone knows if anyone is doing them!

[@vinnyrac]

Two of my favorite thinkers. I've read works by both. Thank you for putting them together!

I was geeking out too haha

[@gingrai00]

Must watch content. This sort of thing is such a blessing! Thanks for putting it on and thank you to all who participated.

[@gingrai00]

Nice touch Graham! Empty bookshelf👊

[@juanmanuelgonzalez9341]

The closing you’ve made Parker 😂 Thank you so much, really good interview and so fun to listen

[@adriang.fuentes7649]

I loved this conversation. Thank you!

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

This is my first time listening to a full conversations on your channel and this was AWESOME Although from the branching modality section it does become difficult to follow

[@pogchamp-wz5ud]

Ah man, I arrived late so I was only able to send that last superchat about the ethics of killing. I wanted to ask a longer question about free will but it seemed the debate was already over when I joined. I hope this will be worth the watch though!

Thanks for the super!!

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

I’m confused about how averages can be conceived of in the case of infinitely recurring things..if averages are calculated by summing totals and dividing by the number of data points, how can any sort of average be conceptually coherent with an infinity of data points? I may be missing something but it seems like the concept of averages with regards to souls and other conceptually infinite things in Heumer’s view was taken for granted in this conversation generally.

[@landon5105]

Good discussion. I’ve just recently discovered Huemer’s work through this channel. Looking forward to reading some of his stuff.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉

[@rkdeshdeepak4131]

ancap stuff?

[@michaelpaulholmes9667]

I think they both can be right. Maybe the soul is just implemented in the hardware of the physical body, and in heaven it is implemented on new hardware. (if you can't tell, I'm a programmer haha)

[@JohnnyHofmann]

Great discussion!

[@GingerGames]

Regarding Oppy's view of (and I am going to rephrase it) *multiple different levels of reality*, I'd argue he's nearly at the point of a _naturalistic neoplatonism_ of sorts. Where the different levels of reality do "interact" with each other through forms of _emergence_ and _emanation_; this would be related (but not equivalent) to _upwards_ and _downwards_ causation. The main difference of the majority of neoplatonists is that they would say that this necessitates a monotheistic God, but there are some non-theistic neoplatonists such as _John Vervaeke_. Even if we take Oppy's _non-reductive (not necessarily physicalistic) naturalist_ view, it's not that far removed from a paganist viewpoint in that there could be "higher" level "things" which manifest and "guide" the "lower" levels---higher level patterns that emanate and manifest themselves within the world. In this sense, the idea of "spirits" would be perfectly sensible, of which I mean something akin to the _spirit of a school_, or the _spirit of a city_, or even the _spirit of the weather_ (to be even more abstract). And that because we are on our level, we could not analyse these "higher" levels very well. And I'd argue this is what was meant traditionally/historically by things like Angels and Demons, higher level spirits which have a will of their own and can manifest themselves downwards. P.S. I would have thought I was crazy stating this about 3 years ago but not so much now, but that's life I guess, and the more you read the more you are open to thinking your previous positions were wrong. P.P.S I am not stating I agree with Oppy either, per se, just interesting to see his thought and where its similarities lie.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

I would be happy if you explain your comments in a few simple lines to me, if you don't mind.

[@MrCmon113]

That's 100% not what's meant by angels historically. Historically an angel is a dude, who acts as a messenger or enforcer of Yahwe. None of the metaphysical hokus pokus at all.

[@user-eg4te4kq4f]

That mustache looks exactly like what I pull out of the shower drain

[@gregjanzen9354]

Huemer said somewhere, without a hint of irony, that David Lewis was crazy.

[@1001011011010]

I didn't watch the other video you have on it, but his argument for reincarnation here sounds very similar to a possible argument from absurdity against the infinite past.

[@NN-wc7dl]

I have a problem with the equal use of the terms "free will" and "free choice". To me, it looks like mixing up two quite different things, leading to confusion (at least in my head).

[@introvertedchristian5219]

What is the difference?

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@introvertedchristian5219 You can have the will to be Napoleon Bonaparte, but you can't choose to be. You can have the will to do just about anything, but your alternatives of actual choice is heavily limited, to say the least.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

@@NN-wc7dl I see your point. I think when most philosophers use the term "will" in the context of free will, they're referring to the faculty of volition, i.e. that part of our psychology that chooses.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

Huge conversation with two important guests. As a biblicist I'm watching, going, "If you both just started with the truth of the Bible as your fundamental epistemological presupposition, you'd already know the answer to this question." But it's cool to hear from those who believe and think differently. Good to know what perspectives are out there, and how they're being arrived at. And congrats to Huemer and Oppy-getting onto Parker's Pensees is no small feat, and something to be proud of!

[@TheVeganVicar]

Don’t believe everything you READ. 😝

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@TheVeganVicar I read that. Should I believe it?

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@TheThinkInstitute, well, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings. One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@TheVeganVicar I see! What standard do you use to judge mundane vs. transcendent truth? How do you tell true transcendent propositions from false ones?

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@TheThinkInstitute 🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” (“satyam”, “tathya”, “tattva”, or “siddhānta”, in Sanskrit) is one of the most greatly-misused words in the English tongue. Anything that has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, “F.I.S.H”, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, at least in the Absolute sense of the term. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is Absolute. A BELIEF is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and necessary. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. ‘One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything that is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wants to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the accomplishment of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgements, it is more appropriate to use the terms “moral”, “amoral”, and/or “immoral”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing that is INTRINSICALLY either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” (instead of “good/bad” and “holy/evil”) most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act that is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsā paramo dharmaḥ” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law), and “ahiṃsā param satyam” (non-violence is the epitome of truth). See the Anuśāsana Parva of “Mahābhārata”, 13.117.37-38. The ONLY Real Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of being, that is, the sense of “I am” (“aham”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one’s being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. Obviously, in the previous sentence, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this book, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” (accurate) that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing foundation of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief ‘I am the body’ and in the absence of the belief that ‘I am not the body’, what is left is what we really are. We don’t need to define what we really are. We don’t need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something ‘out-there, looking-in’, but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 & 8:32.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

Why is KZbin not letting me open the transcript? Have you got a setting set to hide the transcript? Maybe it's still processing.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Maybe it’s waiting for you to go VEGAN? 🌱

[@navienslavement]

@@TheVeganVicar 🤓

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@navienslavement, Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@navienslavement]

@@TheVeganVicar 🤓

[@cmpc724]

The echo was really annoying, I suppose someone had feedback from speakers lol

[@anglozombie2485]

Parker, what do you think about Huemer claim that omnipotence can't exist only a very powerful god might be possible?

[@donaldmcronald8989]

I'd always be smiling if I had a moustache like that.

[@radscorpion8]

wouldn't it get dirty every time you ate something though

[@alexp8924]

“If there is infinite time everything will happen”. This doesn’t follow.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

You missed a great opportunity to say, "It's my channel, so you guys can go pound salt."

[@s.muller8688]

The soul is a religious concept. so it will exist for religious people and not for atheists.

Huemer is not religious though..

[@s.muller8688]

that doesn't change anything about my answer.

[@steveclark8538]

Let me save you all some time. They don’t know.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

I prefer the question, “is postmortem survival plausible?” Related but not exactly the same question. But both questions are worth exploring.

[@legron121]

"Postmortem survival" is a patent self-contradiction. You (logically) cannot both die and survive.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@legron121There is no logical contradiction in saying that personality survives death of the brain, which Is what “postmortem survival” is gesturing at. All depends on what we mean by “you,” which is beyond the scope of my intention here, so I’ll just conclude by saying this: there are arguments for postmortem survival (as defined earlier) that are serious and worth wrestling with.

[@legron121]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns What is meant by "personality survives death of the brain"? Your personality is not a living thing, and so not something of which it could make any sense to ask whether it "survives" or not, no? 'I' am a human being. Are you? (Lol.) Surely it means nothing for a human being to survive after he or she has died, since 'to survive' means 'to not die'. In any case, what arguments do you have in mind?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@legron121 See Braude’s 2003 “Immortal Remains,” Sudduth’s 2016 “A Philosophical *Critique* of Empirical Arguments for Postmortem Survival,” and Feser’s 2006 “Philosophy of Mind: a Short Introduction” For some nice introductions to a variety of arguments from vastly different angles.

[@legron121]

​@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Thanks for that. I think it's a mistake, however, to consider post-mortem survival an empirical question at all. It presupposes a conception of human beings which is distinctively philosophical (and, I would say, definitely shown to be incoherent by Wittgenstein.... but, leave that aside for now). Feser's arguments are a recapitulation of Aquinas' argument. (I read his book, by the way.) He makes the same mistake of reifying the intellect, and confusing the incorporeality of powers of the soul (which are abstractions) with the incorporeality of the soul itself (conceived as an incorporeal part of a human being). It presupposes that thought is an activity or process, which is misleading at best. Still, a more Aristotelian perspective on human nature is necessary in light of the Cartesian confusions which characterise current philosophy of mind and cognitive science alike (e.g. inner/outer distinction, attribution of psychological properties to parts of human beings, etc.). See Peter Hacker's work, e.g. 'Human Nature; the Categorial Framework'. I really recommend taking a look at philosophers such as Hacker (as mentioned) following on Wittgenstein, if you're really after the truth. But, it's your choice.

[@STAR0SS]

I'm a bit confused about the red room thing : "what it's like to see color" isn't a proposition, thus there's nothing to know there. When we say "I know what it's like to see color" we just say "I've experienced color". Seems quite clear to me that knowing and experiencing are different things, thus one shouldn't expect knowledge to lead to experience. No ?

[@DaKoopaKing]

Does a dog know when its owner is home vs when they're not? Not all knowledge is propositional, if any of it is propositional at all.

[@STAR0SS]

@@DaKoopaKing Yeah but my impression is that the setup of the red room is that Mary has all propositional knowledge ("Mary is a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the science of color"). It seems quite trivial that it doesn't entail other kind of "knowledge" (presumably she doesn't know how to ride a bike either, right ?).

[@DaKoopaKing]

@@STAR0SS The setup from Frank Jackson is that Mary knows all the physical information: "She specialises in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like 'red', 'blue', and so on." Focusing on propositional knowledge is weird because if the language or formal logic we use isn't expressive enough, we won't even be capable of expressing all the true facts in the universe as propositions. For example, quantum logic was developed to reason about quantum measurement outcomes, but its rules of inference don't preserve truth when applied at the macro level. Similarly, classical logic is traditionally thought to be in conflict with quantum measurement results - this is why quantum logic was developed. So neither logic is sufficiently powerful enough to express all true propositions in the world. Taking a propositional knowledge route to understanding the world seems to doom you from the start, before you can even ponder "what it's likeness" in your desired system of logic.

[@STAR0SS]

@@DaKoopaKing He, I'm not convinced. It sure does sounds like everything she knows could be written in a book (granted "propositional" might be a bit too restrictive) : "She discovers, for example, just which wave-length combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal chords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence 'The sky is blue'. " And thus this exclude by definition things like knowing how to ride a bike or experiencing red (un-mysteriously, since those are things you do rather than know). That said I think this kinda goes back to Oppy point (she's excluded to put her brain in a state of "knowing how to bike" by definition or she's not, either way in unproblematic for the physicalist).

[@mega1chiken6dancr9]

@@DaKoopaKing is this a joke? what kind of shit is this lol? the fact that the owner is at home is propositional. the dog just doesn't know how to express it linguistically. for example a mentally disabled person that can't speak probably knows they exist but they can't say it. doesn't mean the fact that they know they exist isn't "propositional". jesus christ kid.

[@jmike2039]

Seems odd to think a brilliant music theorist (locked in a room only receiving musical information without a speaker, only through sheets of music) who knows every scale, every note, every sequence of notes, etc threatens any type of physicalism when she goes and plays a violin for the first time. She never was placed in a situation where she can exercise the ability to acquire what it's like to play the violin or to play the specific scale. You've prevented such an ability to be experienced exercised by its mere stipulation. I feel like you could change all of the language in the thought experiment about pooping and having her poop for the first time, and its just going to point out how absurd it is to suggest she knew all the poop facts but her taking a dump for the first time when let of out of the room threatens physicalism. She had never taken a shit before, so her knowing all the poop facts but gaining knew knowledge when she poops shows the qualia in that poop state is non physical 😅

[@bigbrownhouse6999]

I had no idea what Graham Oppy was trying to say the whole time. I like the guy but I was just not following him here. It sounds like he has a pretty clear understanding of this, but uses the vocabulary in such an uncommon way that it’s hard to interact with his view.

[@Pfuetzenspringer]

ONE soul exists!

[@AlbertoTaure]

How do you explain Creativity?

[@matswessling6600]

define creativity.

[@sasilik]

I don't understand why Mike went with literally "universe started with no reason". I am not aware that scientist in physics say that. They don't know the reason. And what is with a topic? I reached to 1 hour 22 minute point where the questions started and no one had discussed the souls really. I guess the biggest problem with a soul is that we don't know anything about it and we can't test or verify it.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can ever be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...

[@sasilik]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I got it, life consist of reality and your fantasies.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@sasilik In your own words, define “REALITY”, Slave. ☝️🤔☝️

[@sasilik]

@@thotslayer9914 have you read anything at all?

[@DeadEndFrog]

People hating on continental philosophy really should spend more time with philosophy of mind and religion, thats where the real obscurety is

[@jmike2039]

'I take a Hegelian, kantian, neodavidsonian view regarding the fundamentals of prestonomium altiminalinism, of course through a lens of post- Schopenhauerian expemplification'

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@jmike2039 as opposed to saying something simple like qualia or god and getting a million diffrent anwsers, choose your poison

[@jmike2039]

@@DeadEndFrog I mean if you want to take analytic notions for granted and talk past your interlocutor go ahead. At least you can understand you.

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@jmike2039 the irony here is that im not sure what you mean or how it relates to what i wrote. The point is that both nedlessly complex language, and naively simple language can be an obstruction to clarity If your taking about willfully misunderstsnding someone, that option is open to you regardless of approach, and more a question about riggerous definitions. What the hard sciences do best

[@MrCmon113]

@@jmike2039 Pretty sure Kant and Neodavidson disagreed on altiminalism.

[@kos8765]

what u think its all this fuss for nothing ?

[@manavkhatarkar9983]

16:33 26:47

[@Lightbearer616]

Only the ones spelt: Soles

[@pavlova717]

Physics is a knowledge relation between subject and object. Its tool is measurement. That's inherently a third-person perspective on existence. It is fine to say that everything obeys physics, but it is nonsense to say that everything is physical.

[@goldenalt3166]

I'd say obeying physics is the definition of "physical". How would you define "physical"?

[@JohnVandivier]

Two big brains right here

[@johnhammond6423]

Two big brains wasting their time on nonsense.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Big and small are RELATIVE. 😉

[@rebelape4257]

im suing you, my brain has grown so much my cranium split

🤯

[@CMVMic]

I think it's obvious the problem is obfuscation. When we use terms such as 'what it's like' or a 'state', these are phrases or words that do not stand in temporal relations. Using them completely ignores, that the mind is a set of temporal functions. It involves thinking, feeling, remembering, reasoning, etc... they are all actions. Without motion, there can be no consciousness and no mind but a substance is time independent. That is to say, even if everything was static, the substance would still exist. Substance Pluralism is completely false and defining consciousness as a substance, rather than a collective noun for temporal actions carried out by the substance is completely misleading.

[@JEQvideos]

I agree and it kind of boggles me that people still don't get this. I think if you took a current generation video game with decent graphics and sent it back in times prior to that sort of technology--people would look at it and conclude substance dualism based on exactly the same sort of arguments and intuitions.

[@MrCmon113]

If souls aren't material what are they? Imo being material is part of what makes a soul a soul. It's a tangible thing containing someone's memories and inclinations.

[@thejimmymeister]

If they aren't material, then they are immaterial. (Possible positive conceptions of the immaterial are the experiential, the conceptual, and the formal.) Historically speaking, almost no one would say that a soul is material or tangible, so I'm curious as to why you think those properties are essential to souls. I'm also curious as to what could separate a material soul from material things that are not souls. Is a circuit board a soul? It contains information about past states and information about tendencies towards certain behaviors; if there isn't something immaterial about souls, those kinds of information seem to me to be identical to memories and tendencies.

[@JohnVandivier]

One comment on the infinite value across lives: we must note that sums of infinite series can converge. In particular if we think a marginal life has diminishing marginal value then we have a strong reason to think infinite lives may not lead to infinite utility

[@sebastiannickel4377]

That would require a downward trend in the value of lives over time, though. (Not just in the marginal value.)

[@senatorpoopypants7182]

mike's vibe feels so similar to moistcritical.

[@plastic2666]

Gotta love philosophy, "My interpretation of the case is: When she looks at the 🍅..."

[@MonisticIdealism]

"What I am myself-that which I denote by the term I-is the same with what is meant by _soul_ or _spiritual substance."_ - George Berkeley, _A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge,_ page 271

[@TheVeganVicar]

PERFECT. ☝🏻 spirit/Spirit: This term is generally used in reference to the ESSENTIAL nature of a human being (and also of animals or even of plants, in some religious and metaphysical traditions). Although some theologians use the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably, those from the Abrahamic traditions usually consider soul to be a living being (a human person) while spirit is that part of the person which is non-temporal (the essential self). The lower case form of these words (spirit, or soul) is approximately equivalent to the lower case form of the Sanskrit word “ātman”, and obviously, the upper-case form (Soul) refers to “Ātman” or “Paramātman” (Supersoul, in English). Therefore, in the considered opinion of this author, the various terms denoting the realm of eternality, such as “The Ground of Being”, “The Unified Field”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Brahman”, and “The Tao”, are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS with those terms referring to the essence of the human being, such as “soul”, “spirit”, “self/Self”, and as mentioned already, “ātman/Ātman”, and “Paramātman”. In fact, one of the four so-called “Great Sayings (“mahāvākya”, in Sanskrit) of the Upanishads, “ayam ātmā brahma”, very succinctly says as much: “this self is The Unlimited”, or “the soul is The Supersoul”, or “the person is The Totality of Existence”. However, it seems that the overwhelming majority of religionists who use the words “spirit” or “soul”, use it to refer to a separate OBJECT (e.g. “The spirit of man”, “The human spirit”, “We are spirits in the material world”, “I am not a body, but a spirit/soul”). According to my research, most religionists believe that this object (call it what you will) joins with a human being at the time of conception, or sometimes at birth and that, upon the demise of the body, this object travels to another location (either heaven, hell, or purgatory) or else enters into the body of another living being (either a human, non-human animal, or a plant). Some theologies postulate that the soul and/or the spirit may be mortal, depending on the moral disposition of the particular person in question, can perish at the time of death (or even during one’s lifetime, known as a spiritual death, or sometime after death, known as death by hellfire). Depending on their theology, religionists assume that this object is located in various places in the human body, even though at conception, there are no developed body parts in which this fictitious object could possibly be positioned! Some believe that the entire body is pervaded by the soul/spirit, some that it is located in the pituitary gland, or situated in the heart. This word, along with the terms "soul”, “truth”, “ego”, and “love”, among others, is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and misused word in the English language. It simply refers to the SUBJECT, as opposed to objective reality, and more accurately, the Subject of all subjects (and objects). subject: the sense of awareness which perceives or has knowledge of an object, whether of gross objects or of subtle (abstract, thought) objects; the mind, intellect, pseudo-ego, or agent of whatever sort, that sustains or assumes the form of thought or consciousness. In “F.I.S.H”, the word “subject” is used almost exclusively as defined above. Following are other meanings in various other contexts: the material of which something is made and from which it derives its special qualities (in other terms, a substratum); one that is placed under authority or control, such as one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's rules; a department of knowledge or learning (“The subject of today’s lecture is geography”; “What subject do you study?”); an individual whose reactions or responses are studied, such as a dead body for anatomical study and dissection. Therefore, according to the first definition, the word “subject” is practically synonymous with “consciousness”. Thus, the mind (as defined in Chapter 05) is the subject which perceives gross, tangible matter. The intellect is the subject which perceives the workings of the mind. The pseudo-ego is the subject which perceives the objects contained within the intellect. The true sense of “I” (“aham”, in Sanskrit) is the subject (or to be more precise, the Subject) which perceives this false sense of self. There can be only ONE Subject, because if it was possible to refer to another, separate thing as a “subject”, then that “subject” would, in fact, be an object. Hence, the Subject of all (supposed) subjects is the Ground of All Being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Cf. “object”.

[@MrCmon113]

@@TheVeganVicar There's obviously no self/essence/whatever. That can be established purely phenomenologically as Buddhists figured out long ago. But there could still be souls - aliens could secretly be making backups of your brain with nanobots in the air.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

Thanks to Mr. Oppy for expressing the belief that the universe most likely had a beginning. And so, making such a good case for theism.

[@sasilik]

Universe can have a beginning without a god.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@sasilik uh. has nothing causal powers ?

[@sasilik]

@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom false dichotomy. There isn't just two choices, god or nothing, there are others. And honestly, god has causal powers only because you say so. No one has ever observed god causing anything so I really doubt that god has any causal powers.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@sasilik the key point is that in any God proposition, there is intelligence, and in the no-God proposition, there is no intelligence. All propositions can be devided into these two categories. No one has observed any alternative to intelligence creating the complexity that we see around us. So maybe seeing is not the right epistemological approach.

[@sasilik]

@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom yes, we have observed building blocks for everything to come together without any intelligence. Starting with atoms and molecules and so on. And talking about beginning of the universe we don't talk about complex stuff but the most basic elementary particles. You really should learn some physics and chemistry for a change.

[@MrCmon113]

We should build a larger particle collider to find out if souls exist.

[@davidbentley4731]

Do souls exist. Of course they don’t. Simples.

[@yagnapatel3912]

lol

[@juancarlosv5136]

May there be supposed good logical or philosophical arguments for the soul but there isn't any proof about how this entity affects physical properties of the brain

[@jasonunchained]

What is a rainbow considered for the sake of physical ism? We see it, but its not a physical thing.

[@TheVeganVicar]

It’s a visual phenomenon, and therefore, MATERIAL.

[@franzkiekeben4731]

Of course it is. A rainbow is something that one can explain in completely physical terms. Don't confuse physicalism (a.k.a. materialism) with the idea that everything is a physical object. No one claims that.

[@MrCmon113]

Rainbows are a result of photons being absorbed and reemitted by souls of different opinions about photons.

[@0The0Web0]

​@@MrCmon113😂 brilliant

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Huemer seems to have an interesting but weird view to me that can't be possible, especially with his infinite past. That he believes in souls, but is an atheist.

[@sebastiannickel4377]

I see no problem with the conjunction of souls existing and God not existing. If I understand your comment right, you're saying this seems impossible to you. Can you explain?

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

@@sebastiannickel4377 if god is necessary why does he feel omnipotent to be contradictory

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

@@sebastiannickel4377 how did a supernatural thing like souls get there without a fundamental mind that put them there. Also he seems to lean towards animals not having souls like we do. So did evolution create souls? I feel like graham is right about his infinite past and future being very unlikely too.

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf spirit/Spirit: This term is generally used in reference to the ESSENTIAL nature of a human being (and also of animals or even of plants, in some religious and metaphysical traditions). Although some theologians use the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably, those from the Abrahamic traditions usually consider soul to be a living being (a human person) while spirit is that part of the person which is non-temporal (the essential self). The lower case form of these words (spirit, or soul) is approximately equivalent to the lower case form of the Sanskrit word “ātman”, and obviously, the upper-case form (Soul) refers to “Ātman” or “Paramātman” (Supersoul, in English). Therefore, in the considered opinion of this author, the various terms denoting the realm of eternality, such as “The Ground of Being”, “The Unified Field”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Brahman”, and “The Tao”, are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS with those terms referring to the essence of the human being, such as “soul”, “spirit”, “self/Self”, and as mentioned already, “ātman/Ātman”, and “Paramātman”. In fact, one of the four so-called “Great Sayings (“mahāvākya”, in Sanskrit) of the Upanishads, “ayam ātmā brahma”, very succinctly says as much: “this self is The Unlimited”, or “the soul is The Supersoul”, or “the person is The Totality of Existence”. However, it seems that the overwhelming majority of religionists who use the words “spirit” or “soul”, use it to refer to a separate OBJECT (e.g. “The spirit of man”, “The human spirit”, “We are spirits in the material world”, “I am not a body, but a spirit/soul”). According to my research, most religionists believe that this object (call it what you will) joins with a human being at the time of conception, or sometimes at birth and that, upon the demise of the body, this object travels to another location (either heaven, hell, or purgatory) or else enters into the body of another living being (either a human, non-human animal, or a plant). Some theologies postulate that the soul and/or the spirit may be mortal, depending on the moral disposition of the particular person in question, can perish at the time of death (or even during one’s lifetime, known as a spiritual death, or sometime after death, known as death by hellfire). Depending on their theology, religionists assume that this object is located in various places in the human body, even though at conception, there are no developed body parts in which this fictitious object could possibly be positioned! Some believe that the entire body is pervaded by the soul/spirit, some that it is located in the pituitary gland, or situated in the heart. This word, along with the terms "soul”, “truth”, “ego”, and “love”, among others, is undoubtedly one of the most misunderstood and misused word in the English language. It simply refers to the SUBJECT, as opposed to objective reality, and more accurately, the Subject of all subjects (and objects). subject: the sense of awareness which perceives or has knowledge of an object, whether of gross objects or of subtle (abstract, thought) objects; the mind, intellect, pseudo-ego, or agent of whatever sort, that sustains or assumes the form of thought or consciousness. In “F.I.S.H”, the word “subject” is used almost exclusively as defined above. Following are other meanings in various other contexts: the material of which something is made and from which it derives its special qualities (in other terms, a substratum); one that is placed under authority or control, such as one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's rules; a department of knowledge or learning (“The subject of today’s lecture is geography”; “What subject do you study?”); an individual whose reactions or responses are studied, such as a dead body for anatomical study and dissection. Therefore, according to the first definition, the word “subject” is practically synonymous with “consciousness”. Thus, the mind (as defined in Chapter 05) is the subject which perceives gross, tangible matter. The intellect is the subject which perceives the workings of the mind. The pseudo-ego is the subject which perceives the objects contained within the intellect. The true sense of “I” (“aham”, in Sanskrit) is the subject (or to be more precise, the Subject) which perceives this false sense of self. There can be only ONE Subject, because if it was possible to refer to another, separate thing as a “subject”, then that “subject” would, in fact, be an object. Hence, the Subject of all (supposed) subjects is the Ground of All Being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Cf. “object”.

[@rud69420]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf I think Sebastian was just asking for the contradiction since you said it's not possible to be an atheist and believe in a soul. Given those are two propositions that don't seem to be logically equivalent, all you would get is the conjunction (P & Q), and not (P & ~P).

[@eu1531]

Its interesring that no one idea from usa phylosophy is relevant.

[@cristristam9054]

At 30:30 the host asks If Oppy and his dog both see red the same ,the answer is no ,dogs can't see red at all.

[@larrycarter3765]

Nope.

[@JD-ev1uj]

Oppy is sadly mistaken. The guy though has no qualms about coming across as a intellectual giant in his own mind though. Lovers of self fall further and harder.

[@chad969]

TLDR: this Oppy guy doesn’t share my worldview so he must be arrogant

[@JD-ev1uj]

Stating the obvious isn't hard these days.

[@jocr1971]

'what it's like to see red' is nonsensical. you never 'know what it's like'. you 'know what seeing a red thing is'

[@johnhammond6423]

There is as much evidence for the soul as there is for the tooth fairy.

[@gustavgus4545]

Yes john...🙄

[@johnhammond6423]

@@gustavgus4545 I am glad you agree my friend. 😊

[@gustavgus4545]

@@johnhammond6423 🙄

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@johnhammond6423, are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that? 🤨

[@johnhammond6423]

@@TheVeganVicar That old cherry again. 🙄 There is only one thing we can be 100% certain of.

[@merrybolton2135]

Do Souls Exist NO

[@rud69420]

Great argument

[@radscorpion8]

@@rud69420 imagine arguing otherwise

[@luizr.5599]

I mean, no evidence for souls. Huemer sounds like an acrobat of strange logics when he argues for them.

[@ashikpanigrahi]

It’s always kinda amusing to see a physicalist struggle when it comes to defending the nature of Mind.

[@MrCmon113]

Minds are easy to explain, only consciousness is not. And of course there is no struggle if you don't even attempt to explain stuff.

[@radscorpion8]

yeah meanwhile the guy who invents magical souls that are based on who knows what has no issues right lmao

[@gabbiewolf1121]

I disagree with oppy that indeterminism is necessarily a settled metaphysical property at the quantum level. There are epistemically live paradigms for quantum mechanics like superdeterminism and epistemically live deterministic interpretations like the Everett interpretation and the quantum darwinism interpretation. As it stands I lean 0.5 to 0.5 on whether QM is deterministic or indeterministic. And there are ways where the universe can be indeterministic in the sense of not being temporally deterministic while still having some properties as necessary products of or pairings with others. For example the universe could be a timeless universal wavefunction such that it's necessary that if the wavefunction has some specific property P (like me existing in it) then it has some other property Q (like my mother living in it). Or the universe could even be a timeless necessary wave-function such that every property it has is necessary.

[@matheus8413]

I think this indeterministic property that he meant was a relative one, not an universal condition. It is an inherent aspect of quantum reality as it is in the classical world, being ontologically objective, even relative though. Quantum Darwinism doesn't forwent the existence of an inderteministic quality in some level.

[@gabbiewolf1121]

1:15:23 Given Huemer was arguing for libertarian free will earlier it really undermines his case to be arguing for necessitarianism as the simplest metaphysical theory that explains all observations.

[@gabbiewolf1121]

58:37 I disagree with Huemer here The probability distribution for living at different times might favor us living now without the past being finite. It could be that the part of the past in which the actualization criteria for humans to exist are met is finite. And of course Huemer could ask why the actualization criteria were met as early as they were and not earlier, but I think that there's no discernible difference between them happening earlier and later. The only things we can measure are the differences or durations of time between events so no matter when the earliest time was when the actualization criteria were met, we would still observe the same rough duration of time between then and this time when we're contemplating it

[@mTsp4ce]

Absolutely. I didn't expect a somewhat respectable philosoper to be so wrong on such an easy issue. Firstly, the probability is not absolutely zero, but rather really really small, so that we call it 0 colloquially. And: if I choose a day in my life to drive to any place and throw a coin in the air, that specific coin landing on that place just at that moment has the same probability of nearly 0. Yet, I hope he would not doubt this can happen.

[@thejimmymeister]

​​@@mTsp4ceHe is explicitly arguing that the probability is nonzero. In fact, he's arguing that it's 1.

[@mTsp4ce]

@@thejimmymeister Yes, but states that it would be 0 for any single event in an eternal universe, which is false.

[@thejimmymeister]

@mTsp4ce Why is that false? The original comment makes an argument for its falsehood, but I think it depends on epistemic and not ontological conditions and is therefore not a sufficient response. Do you have a different argument? I also think you're misunderstanding Huemer's argument because of your comment about throwing up a coin. I think it's pretty clear that his position isn't that the probability is zero but that it is 1 and that it will happen an infinite number of times. That's why he readily concedes that his office can recur. He's also not talking about colloquial uses of language but real probabilities. He doesn't think the probability of us only living once given an infinite universe is zero because people say it is (people generally don't say that it is, so that obviously can't be his reason even aside from the fact that he's talking about probabilities and not language use) but because that entails a logical contradiction due to the nature of probability and infinity. It just seems like there's a lot in his argument that you're ignoring or misinterpreting.

[@mTsp4ce]

@@thejimmymeister He says at 57:40 "suppose that people could only live once [...] time is infinite in the past and future [...] so on those assumptions the probability that you would be alive now is 0. [...] you are here now, so the theory that assigned 0 probability to that is disconfirmed." but that is wrong, a correct way to say it would be " the probability that you would be alive now is really small".

[@alexp8924]

“If there is infinite time everything will happen”. This doesn’t follow.