Are thoughts material?

[Lucius_Marius]

Greetings brothers and sisters,

I’ve started reading Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners, and have a question in regards to a statement he makes there about nature of ideas/thoughts.

He states that the immaterial spirit produces thoughts and ideas which are immaterial, and proves this by showing that ideas have no matterial attributes, such as weight, etc. So he goes on to say that a non-matterial thing - ideas - must be produced by a non matterial element, i.e. the sprit.

Makes perfect sense so far.

But as a past materialist (still recovering to a certain degree) I struggle to think of ideas as purely non-material because of the following reason: matterial changes in our brains affect our personalities to a large degree, as many head accidents and mental illnesses prove. How could a purely non-matterial mind be affected so terribly by purely matterial changes? It seems like there is a direct between our body and mind, and they have effect on each other all the time.

And is it important to consider mind/ideas as purely non-matterial?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

 

[hicetnunc]

Greetings brothers and sisters,

I’ve started reading Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners, and have a question in regards to a statement he makes there about nature of ideas/thoughts.

He states that the immaterial spirit produces thoughts and ideas which are immaterial, and proves this by showing that ideas have no matterial attributes, such as weight, etc. So he goes on to say that a non-matterial thing - ideas - must be produced by a non matterial element, i.e. the sprit.

Makes perfect sense so far.

But as a past materialist (still recovering to a certain degree) I struggle to think of ideas as purely non-material because of the following reason: matterial changes in our brains affect our personalities to a large degree, as many head accidents and mental illnesses prove. How could a purely non-matterial mind be affected so terribly by purely matterial changes? It seems like there is a direct between our body and mind, and they have effect on each other all the time.

And is it important to consider mind/ideas as purely non-matterial?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

It’s a fascinating question. Maybe an analogy will help: think of writing with a particular pen. The pen is a necessary condition for the writing, but not a sufficient condition. The person writing needs the pen; but the pen more so needs the writing person. Take away the pen, or damage it, and the writing is stopped. But we wouldn’t attribute the act of writing solely to the pen. The kind of pen you use also affects the kind of writing you might do (thick pens write thick letters, etc). So it is with the brain: we cannot think without our brains, and so the brain is a necessary condition for thought. But it is not a sufficient condition. The brain is, in other words, a tool by which we think. This way of considering the brain is derived from the notion of hylomorphism in philosophy: we are composed of both body and spirit, and both are needed for us to function fully as human beings.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

You may find the following helpful (note the bolded part):

Immaterial Aspects of Thought by James F. Ross (Warning: PDF file!).

The Fate of the Analysts: Aristotle’s Revenge by James F. Ross (HTML). Excerpt:

"Every physical process, no matter how long (even infinite), is indeterminate among incompatible pure functions; so, no such process can be identical with any of them, nor can it uniquely determine a function among processes that is identical with any pure function. [That follows from the arguments used by Wittgenstein, Goodman, Kripke and many others.] But we know beyond any doubt that *we *think in forms that are pure functions (addition, squaring, conjunction, modus ponens) and are not indeterminate among incompatible functions. Therefore, our thinking, in so far as it is the realization of a determinate pure function, cannot be any material process or any function among material processes. Thus, human thought, as intelligent, is immaterial.

". . . the argument is not to be understood to deny that the medium of human awareness is animal consciousness, [See Aristotle and Aquinas, both saying human understanding requires sensation], which is properly regarded as a physical (or physically based, anyway) process, explicable scientifically.

 

[GEddie]

Ideas are, per se, immaterial.

A thought in a head is, however, material. Administer a knock on the head, or a choke hold to the neck; or douse the brain with alcohol, and the thoughts disappear.

ICXC NIKA

 

[yppop]

Ideas are, per se, immaterial.

A thought in a head is, however, material. Administer a knock on the head, or a choke hold to the neck; or douse the brain with alcohol, and the thoughts disappear.

ICXC NIKA

GE
You certainly expressed my own thoughts in a very succinct way, so forgive me for expanding on them. Here are my thoughts, material or otherwise.

The question about the nature of thought is readily answered if we assume that the material component, as represented by the neuronal matrix, is immersed in a spiritual component represented by a substance often referred to as nous.

Then thought, which is a phenomena unique to humans, is the product of the object we call mind. The mind is the combination of the nous and the part of the brain, the neuronal circuits , that modulates the language instinct. Only humans think because only humans speak. Try thinking without words.

This doesn’t mean that animals are incapable of psychical activity. Quite the contrary, psychical activity such as awareness, ingenuity, concentration, and other forms of behavior related to the brain, is readily observed in animals along a spectrum of increasing ability with increasing cephalization (concentration of the nervous system in the head) reaching a maximum in the human animal. I refer to the “thoughtless” behavior associated with psychical activity, perceptual behavior. This is what I believe you were alluding to in your post. Perceptual behavior dominates thought every time we hit a nail with a hammer, plant a flower, hit a golf ball, drive a car, suffer intense pain, or admire a sunset. There may be some thinking going on while engaged in such activities, but not if you are doing it correctly.

Our mind has a spiritual part and a material part each with its own function; the mind does not function unless both parts are present and operating. The property of each part that is most important to the functioning of the mind is memory. Each part has its own memory: the “material memory” in the brain and “perceptual memory” in the nous. The material memory, consisting of neuronal circuits, stores symbols, signs, and signals in the human brain and just signs and signals in all other animals. The perceptual memory stores qualia, meaning, feelings, meanings, concepts, percepts and emotions in all animals but along a spectrum of increasing (with increasing cephalization) intensity. For example it appears that a dog has rudimentary emotions, but not with the intensity of a human.

This response represents only a part of a much larger and more complex theory, but it suffices to give the OP another view of the stuff we call thought. Take it for what it is worth and use as your own whatever part that you might find fits your our theories. I engage in this forum as a discussion contributor, not to proselytize a personal dogma, I believe in the existence of a “rational reality” that is evolving a “noosphere” through tangential insight, I believe in the free sharing of ideas, I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is at the root of all new ideas, of all creative thinking.

Yppop

 

[GEddie]

Pretty good, YP

I’d venture that our mind is the output of our soul via our functional head. The human soul generates the human mind, but needs the intact human head to do so; just as the soul is the life, but that life needs the body to hold and express it (via movement, etc).

Again, the thoughts per se are the result of the material process going on in our heads ( which is directed by the spiritual process keeping the whole thing alive and going). Because thoughts derive from a material process, they can be ended, via chokehold or head knock, etc. But because the mind is spiritually generated, it can resume even after death, via the pneumatikon soma.

ICXC NIKA!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s a fascinating question. Maybe an analogy will help: think of writing with a particular pen. The pen is a necessary condition for the writing, but not a sufficient condition. The person writing needs the pen; but the pen more so needs the writing person. Take away the pen, or damage it, and the writing is stopped. But we wouldn’t attribute the act of writing solely to the pen. The kind of pen you use also affects the kind of writing you might do (thick pens write thick letters, etc). So it is with the brain: we cannot think without our brains, and so the brain is a necessary condition for thought. But it is not a sufficient condition. The brain is, in other words, a tool by which we think. This way of considering the brain is derived from the notion of hylomorphism in philosophy: we are composed of both body and spirit, and both are needed for us to function fully as human beings.

Well put. Thomas would be proud. Linus2bd

 

[JimG]

It seems like there is a direct between our body and mind, and they have effect on each other all the time.

There IS a direct link between body and mind. Unlike angels, everything we know begins with sense knowledge. (name removed by moderator)ut comes in from the senses, is integrated by the CNS and the brain, and from there the intellect (non-material) abstracts it into ideas (non-material.)

But there is no doubt that our soul is not just a ghost inhabiting the body. It needs the body and the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. We are a composite being of body and soul, material and immaterial. Knock out the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, disturb the brain function, we can’t think clearly. But that doesn’t show that thoughts are material, only that they depend on bodily (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Forkfoot]

-Spirit is made out of magic.
-Thoughts are made out of magic.
-Thoughts exist, therefore spirit exists too.

Checkmate, atheists.

 

[devoutcatholic2]

Since we are a composite of body and soul, our minds are a product of both. Intellectual thoughts are “seated” in the soul so to speak, while emotions are seated in the physical brain. However, because of the link between body an soul, things that affect one can influence the other indirectly so long as we are alive.

 

[Lucius_Marius]

Wow, thank you for all the (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ll chew on all the information for a while and let my poor mind make sense of it!

One thing I can already sense is that before I wasn’t making a distinction between ideas and thoughts… maybe the key is somewhere in there. I’ll come back after doing some thinking

 

[Forkfoot]

If Christian theologians were smart they’d do like the eastern religions and try this argument with consciousness, not thought.

 

[Lucius_Marius]

Hmm… some of the arguments (coming from analytical philosophy which I am not aquainted with) are too complicated for me to understand without getting some sort of introduction into this way of thinking: not something I am interested in at the moment.

Here are my thoughts so far, please tell me if I am reasoning correctly.

i) Brain is necessary, but not sufficient to create ideas
ii) Brain is an instrument that in conjunction with the spirit produces ideas
iii) Because ideas are expressed through the union with the physical brain does not mean that ideas are physical.

This is similar to how the union between a musician and his instrument produces music. Now, music exists as an idea in the mind of the musician and is immaterial, but through the union with the physical instrument it becomes physical, in the form of sound waves.

So our spirit generates ideas, which through the union with our physical body create thoughts which manifest themselves in a physical way in the form of physical activity in the brain.

And because we are a combination of spirit and body, when the union is disturbed through damage of the instrument the result is also a distortion in thoughts.

Now I have some further questions.

Am I correct to make a distinction between thoughts (the result of the union of between spirit and body) and ideas (purely spiritual)?

Are the terms spirit and mind equivalent?

 

[JimG]

Hmm… some of the arguments (coming from analytical philosophy which I am not aquainted with) are too complicated for me to understand without getting some sort of introduction into this way of thinking: not something I am interested in at the moment.

Here are my thoughts so far, please tell me if I am reasoning correctly.

i) Brain is necessary, but not sufficient to create ideas
ii) Brain is an instrument that in conjunction with the spirit produces ideas
iii) Because ideas are expressed through the union with the physical brain does not mean that ideas are physical.

This is similar to how the union between a musician and his instrument produces music. Now, music exists as an idea in the mind of the musician and is immaterial, but through the union with the physical instrument it becomes physical, in the form of sound waves.

So our spirit generates ideas, which through the union with our physical body create thoughts which manifest themselves in a physical way in the form of physical activity in the brain.

And because we are a combination of spirit and body, when the union is disturbed through damage of the instrument the result is also a distortion in thoughts.

Now I have some further questions.

Am I correct to make a distinction between thoughts (the result of the union of between spirit and body) and ideas (purely spiritual)?

Are the terms spirit and mind equivalent?

As to the last two sentences, a couple of thoughts:

I’ve always taken the words thoughts and ideas as pretty much equivalent, in that both are products of the intellect, and the intellect is a faculty of the soul, which is purely spiritual. However, the process could be analyzed in more depth. What the intellect does with the integrated (material) sense perceptions is to abstract all the matter out of them in order to form generalized ideas, and I suppose a succession of ideas could be considered thoughts. In any case, it would be wrong to think of it as a discrete process, sort of like computer coding; rather it would be a more continuous process, the body and mind working together.

Spirit means non-material being. Mind is the term I would give to the workings of the human intellect. And as I mentioned, intellect is a spiritual faculty of the human soul.

 

[hicetnunc]

Am I correct to make a distinction between thoughts (the result of the union of between spirit and body) and ideas (purely spiritual)?

Are the terms spirit and mind equivalent?

Very interesting questions Lucius…

In everyday use “idea” and “thought” are used quite interchangeably, although they do have a subtle difference in philosophy. “Idea” is from the Greek, and in philosophy originally corresponded to Plato’s archetypes, and means the way things appear, or “ideal prototype”. The word “thought” is also a noun, but unlike idea, is derived from a verb (“thinking”) and so is the extension of rational activity. St Thomas describes ideas as the objects of rational inquiry (De Veritate 3) and he translates the Greek word ‘idea’ into ‘forma’ (ie, ‘form of the thing’) in Latin. Thought (cogitatio) on the other hand implies the activity of inquiry and is less specific than idea, which describes some object of study.

Thomas also distinguishes mind from spirit or soul. The mind is a power of the soul, which is its subject, and therefore they are not the same thing. The human spirit/soul is rational by nature, but the soul is also the principle of life. Our soul does not, for example, keep us alive through any rational activity. The soul is the foundation of the essence of what it means to be human, and this includes rational activity of the mind. What makes the human soul superior to that of animal souls is that we have a rational mind, and it is the mind which constitutes that element of us which we say is “made in the image of God.” (ST 1a, 93, a6).

 

[GEddie]

I’d rather say that mind is the product of the headed human spirit (or soul).

ICXC NIKA

 

[Forkfoot]

It’s just another “God of the gaps” argument. I don’t understand where thoughts come from, therefore God did it (just like we used to believe with lightning), therefore checkmate, atheists. Surely we can do better than this.

 

[hicetnunc]

It’s just another “God of the gaps” argument. I don’t understand where thoughts come from, therefore God did it (just like we used to believe with lightning), therefore checkmate, atheists. Surely we can do better than this.

I don’t think its a God of the gaps argument at all. The recognition that thoughts are not material is not an argument for the existence of God but rather an attempt to understand what constitutes reason. As you rightly note, a God of the gaps argument is based on ignorance. The immateriality of thought is not derived from ignorance, but from an analysis of thought itself. Thought has none of the properties of a material substance, therefore it does not seem to be material. This conclusion is even supported by a great many experts in the field of neuroscience–see for example, Raymond Tallis (a neuroscientist) Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity.

 

[Love4All]

I think, a human being is a physical spirit. Thinking this as I do, it is a little strange to see ideas like “human body, and human spirit, and a connection between the two.” There are not two disparate entities to require a connection, there is only the human being, the physical spirit. As spirit, we think, feel, reason, imagine, etc. As physical, we eat, sleep, drink, and carry on the life of physical creatures. But we are both. A human who is not both is a dead human.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I don’t think its a God of the gaps argument at all. The recognition that thoughts are not material is not an argument for the existence of God but rather an attempt to understand what constitutes reason. As you rightly note, a God of the gaps argument is based on ignorance. The immateriality of thought is not derived from ignorance, but from an analysis of thought itself.

Well said.

Thought has none of the properties of a material substance, therefore it does not seem to be material. This conclusion is even supported by a great many experts in the field of neuroscience–see for example, Raymond Tallis (a neuroscientist) Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity.

Yes, and Tallis is not just a neuroscientist, but an atheist too – one of the thinking kind who is not beholden to scientistic dogma.