There Is No Soul – Challenge Response

There Is No Soul - Challenge Response

There Is No Soul – Challenge Response

2009 Posts

104 views

0



Brett Kunkle answers this week’s challenge: “There Is No Soul.”

source

16 thoughts on “There Is No Soul – Challenge Response

  1. Crystal Brooks

    That is the cutest kid ever

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  2. Black Jack

    Hormones effects mood and feeling of love which is physical things,and sometimes psychedelic drugs induce euphoria that is a physical thing, if we physically cut some part of brain we don't function in that specific way that was indicated by the region of brain cut,physical drugs help live longer.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  3. Michael Peele

    I wonder if Brett Kunkle has ever, when he is sitting alone, contemplating things, has come to the conclusion that any of his arguments presented on YouTube are a complete load of crap.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  4. Albeiro Aguilar

    Destroy the brain with all its connections and see how much of a human behavior you keep on having. See how much love, happiness, etc etc, you have left, the brain is like the computer CPU of our bodies with out it there is nothing left except a pile of garbage with no use.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  5. WG Freethought

    1) 0:40 – "Physicalism can't account for our mental lives."
    2) 1:15 – "Physicalism can't give you free will."
    3) 1:39 – "Physicalism can't give you 'you'."

    This is one giant argument from ignorance. No proof. Just three arguments using one glaring fallacy.

    No one is claiming that our knowledge of the physical world and the brain in particular is complete. Anyone who does should be roundly scoffed. Therefore, the claim that physicalism can't explain these things is spurious. It just might explain them one day. It's possible that it never will. But that still wouldn't give you licence to say this proves your point.

    There may or may not be a soul but this video isn't the way to prove it. This just makes you look silly.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  6. KevZen2000

    I cannot say there is "no" soul, but there really is no credible evidence for it. Yes, materalism or physicalism have issues, but insufficient evidence is present to justify the soul hypothesis. The best position does not have to explain everything in regards to consciousness, and neurology, but at it stands materalism or physicalism are the best hypothesis on the brain.

    I appreciate the questions proponents of the soul bring up, because helps critiques my position, and we need these questions, but the soul hypothesis must not be accepted until more data is present to justify that. As it stand the "soul" seems to be more of a metaphor of a pre-scientific explanation of neurology.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  7. Beloroth

    our brain MAKES us feel happy, sad, etc. neurotransmitters and a little bit of electricity. nothing more, nothing less. i also like to ask the question: if we (humans) have a soul, does a dog also have a soul? what about a mouse? an ant? and what about bacteria? where do you draw the line?

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  8. Paul Graves

    I think this makes total sense. I don't know why there's so much hate on this. 

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  9. Re-Vera

    This is about the mind body "problem", and he pretty much just makes unsupported assertions.  

    It is quite an active topic, as the many questions regarding it on places like Quora.com demonstrate.  To think that he can put it to bed in a 5 minute video is ignorance.  There is an answer to every point he makes.  

    It comes down to arguing that the physical brain cannot explain the nonphysical mind.  

    Why not?  How can he claim to know that?  Doesn't the physical hardware we are typing on, explain the software with no mass that we are using?

    The mind is, what the brain does, in the same way software is, what hardware does.

    He makes the unsupported assertion that physicalism can't give us, us.   Can't give us self.  It can.

    And that since it can't give us free will (I disagree, another unsupported assertion) it must be false.

    As if free will vs determinism is a settled argument…. which it very much is not.  In fact most philosophers are determinists now, and if you think its absurd, its because you don't understand the argument.

    We can't crack a skull open and find love YET.  You can't claim just because we don't yet fully understand something, that we therefore CAN'T.
    And there are excellent neurological models that are making great progress, so it is quite premature to claim love as a property can't be explained by the physical.

    All of the non physical concepts he talks about, require the physical to exist.  Like software requires hardware.  We aren't saying they are physical, merely that they require the physical to exist, and the physical fully explains them.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  10. TheBelegur

    Great presentation. Truly this site is an oasis in the desert of you tube atheistic madness. It is undeniable that humanity is greater than the sum of our parts, and belief that humanity is a bunch of naked apes without free will simply doesn't begin to explain our reality. We are made in the image of God, and there is a spiritual eternal component to mankind.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  11. Daniel King

    sad dude, brainwashing his children, disgraceful

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  12. Mairìan

    With all respect, I don't think your evidence will not stand up under serious examination. One example: materialists will most likely argue that yes, you can find love in the brain by examining the chemical signatures in the body and the regions firing in neural networks and leave the discussion there. Regarding free will, this does pose a bit of a problem in that you are just being driven by biological mechanisms, and thus are not truly thinking for yourself or therefore able to examine with any objectivity the world around you (as one example) because your brain cannot generate thoughts other than those related to survival, because this is all we're wired for. In any case, I would encourage those who are reading these 'drive-by' comments (as someone earlier put it) to read up on modern research related to the mind question. In summary, more and more scientists are beginning to think that the mind most probably does not arise from the brain, but not for the reasons offered in this presentation.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  13. MrAudienceMember

    I would opine that there is no evidence of a soul.  First, you have to define what the soul is, what makes up the soul.  Then you need to devise a way to test for a soul based on the definition and makeup you have assigned it.  Then you have to show that the definition and makeup of the soul cannot be explained as being something else.

    Until you can prove the soul exists, it remains an abstract concept.

    As for mental properties, while you're describing 'human' mental properties you cannot forget that there are millions of other creatures on this planet with mental properties and some of those creatures manifest those mental properties in similar fashion to humans.  You cannot leave them out of the general experiment/discussion of mental properties.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  14. Thomas Remmers

     You can deny the soul; but you cannot deny both soul and spirit

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  15. BennyOcean

    1:00 "wouldn't be a physical property, it would be a mental property"… and everything we know from modern neuroscience tells us that 'minds are what brains do'. Calling it non-physical is question-begging.

    1:15 "physicalism can't get you free will"… so what? Maybe there is no free will, only the illusion of free will. This is by no means an answered question. Regardless, there are materialists who believe in free will and dualists who don't, so it's not at all accurate to declare 'dualism therefore free will'.

    1:50 "can't get you an identity over time"… based on what? If your brain has access to the same set of memories every day, that is going to provide a sense of continuity over time, without a need for any magical 'spirit stuff'.

    2:40 "her love is not part of the brain"… demonstrate this is true rather than simply asserting it. Emotions are produced by functioning brains. There's no need to assert a magical element to explain love.

    3:20 you seem incredulous toward the idea that physical material can produce 'selves'. However, your incredulity doesn't do anything to demonstrate the truth of dualism.

    This boils down to an extended argument from incredulity/ignorance. Certain elements of human existence are difficult to explain, but it seems they could be explained by 'spirit stuff', therefore 'spirit stuff' must exist. 

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply
  16. Clifton Harris

    It was very touching of you to introduce us to your family and for that I thank you, but it doesn't change my assessment of the evidence. Even if the points you made against materialism were true (which many philosophers, including Christians, would argue that they are not) they don't prove the position false. If your arguments obtain, it would merely mean that we need to abandon first-person pronouns, as well as beliefs about freedom of the will, but it wouldn't mean that materialism were false.

    August 15, 2021 at 7:46 pm Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.