But you wont find intellect in the brain

[grannymh]

Something not material does not necessarily mean something supernatural, do you agree?

Here are two distinct ways of looking at supernatural. (The American Heritage College Dictionary) The first way “relating to existence outside of the natural world.” Is there a smilie for period, end of sentence?

For example. Appreciation of music is not a material item in nature even though sound is a physical item in nature. Regarding music, one can say there are both material and immaterial qualities. Or if one takes the simple definition given above, music appreciation exists outside of what is considered natural, so therefore it is supernatural. Are you with me?

The rest of the dictionary’s definitions expand to a “power” beyond natural forces or relating to a deity or to divine power or to miraculous. This kind of extrapolation would be considered a second way of looking at supernatural.

Regarding your question – Immaterial/spiritual aspects of human nature can be recognized and accepted by anyone regardless of their worldview. Human nature as spirit/matter, rational/corporeal is as plain to me as the nose on my face and the love in my heart. I can see the nose on your face and know you are also capable of having love in your heart.

Do either of us have to continue to the next step of a supernatural God? If you don’t want to go there, that is fine with me. Spiritual is spiritual no matter if it is called immaterial or soul.

Looking at the world around me and then looking in the mirror, I would conclude that one’s own human nature is a profound union of material and immaterial. Amazing! Immaterial and spiritual are the same as not material. Going from the not material concept to that of a supernatural God comes down to a matter of one’s own choice. I may not agree with your personal choice but that is o.k. Your human nature is not dependent on my affirmation.

In other words, if you believe there is a “not material” or spiritual part of a human being which is not necessarily connected to a supernatural God, I can accept that as your personal worldview even though I may disagree with the God part.

Obviously, I have been in hot water with those who do go from the spiritual in a person to a necessary God. Of course, when I defend human nature, I leave the door open for others to continue. The following two paragraphs come from an old post of mine.

When exploring the immaterial/spiritual of the human species, there is the risk of a circular argument. To avoid the circular argument, the spiritual element of the human being – all its qualities, faculties, actions, effects, that is, the spiritual shebang – is seen as a “whole” especially in contrast with other species.

Regarding the cause of the spiritual element often called a soul in humans, my intent is to stop short of any kind of abiogenetical theory. Philosophers can take over at that point. While there can be many opinions as to how Homo sapiens,sapiens originally came into existence, the fact remains they exist today. Hopefully, the fact of that existence and all that it implies can be explored in an independent manner.

If I may go back to one of your earlier posts, there was the impression that human nature was naturally bad. But when one considers that human nature is rational/corporeal, the helplessness of being naturally bad disappears.

If one can at least understand why the “intellect” would not be in the material brain per se but rather that it uses the brain in the cooperative function of spiritual/material, then one will see himself or herself as worthy of profound respect, the pinnacle of creation.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Moonstruck888]

For example. Appreciation of music is not a material item in nature even though sound is a physical item in nature. Regarding music, one can say there are both material and immaterial qualities. Or if one takes the simple definition given above, music appreciation exists outside of what is considered natural, so therefore it is supernatural. Are you with me?

I understand what you mean, but I don’t agree on this. Music is entirely natural. Osscilating vibrations that have rational proportions are pleasing to people. Major intervals are happy, Minor intervals are sad, major sevenths are light and airy, diminished intervals full of suspense and so on because they mimic elements of human tonality that are connected to non verbal vocalizations. There’s nothing about music that cannot be understood in natural terms.

The rest of the dictionary’s definitions expand to a “power” beyond natural forces or relating to a deity or to divine power or to miraculous. This kind of extrapolation would be considered a second way of looking at supernatural.

Yes. That is the usage I would expect of the word supernatural.

Regarding your question – Immaterial/spiritual aspects of human nature can be recognized and accepted by anyone regardless of their worldview. Human nature as spirit/matter, rational/corporeal is as plain to me as the nose on my face and the love in my heart. I can see the nose on your face and know you are also capable of having love in your heart.

The love in my heart and my spiritual connections come from my temporal lobes. It is not vouchsafed me from an infinite and undetecable source admist realms of whatever, wherever.

Do either of us have to continue to the next step of a supernatural God? If you don’t want to go there, that is fine with me. Spiritual is spiritual no matter if it is called immaterial or soul.

Spiritual is spiritual, no doubt of that.

Looking at the world around me and then looking in the mirror, I would conclude that one’s own human nature is a profound union of material and immaterial. Amazing! Immaterial and spiritual are the same as not material. Going from the not material concept to that of a supernatural God comes down to a matter of one’s own choice. I may not agree with your personal choice but that is o.k. Your human nature is not dependent on my affirmation.

What you have not done is demonstrated that the spiritual experience does not have a purely natural explanation.

If I may go back to one of your earlier posts, there was the impression that human nature was naturally bad. But when one considers that human nature is rational/corporeal, the helplessness of being naturally bad disappears.

I don’t think it is naturally bad, in the same way I don’t think it is naturally good. We are both good and bad, largely in accordance with prejudices and whims. I will never be better than you, in the same way I will never be lesser than you. We are both capable of cruelty and compassion, love and hate, generosity and greed, vanity and self depracation.

If one can at least understand why the “intellect” would not be in the material brain per se but rather that it uses the brain in the cooperative function of spiritual/material, then one will see himself or herself as worthy of profound respect, the pinnacle of creation.]

Given the way I think about human physiology, that would take a degree of self deception that I don’t feel capable of.

 

[grannymh]

I understand what you mean, but I don’t agree on this. Music is entirely natural. Osscilating vibrations that have rational proportions are pleasing to people. Major intervals are happy, Minor intervals are sad, major sevenths are light and airy, diminished intervals full of suspense and so on because they mimic elements of human tonality that are connected to non verbal vocalizations. There’s nothing about music that cannot be understood in natural terms.

I agree with your perspective; however, I was trying to get at the appreciation of music which takes place within a human person.

Yes. That is the usage I would expect of the word supernatural.

Thank you.

The love in my heart and my spiritual connections come from my temporal lobes. It is not vouchsafed me from an infinite and undetecable source admist realms of whatever, wherever.

I am trying to stay away from some outside source such as realms of whatever. I see spiritual as part of my unique nature. When my temporal lobes are dissected, there is nothing material which can be labeled love and sent to the lab.

Spiritual is spiritual, no doubt of that.

Thank you.

What you have not done is demonstrated that the spiritual experience does not have a purely natural explanation.

Can’t do with the current ban.

I don’t think it is naturally bad, in the same way I don’t think it is naturally good. We are both good and bad, largely in accordance with prejudices and whims. I will never be better than you, in the same way I will never be lesser than you. We are both capable of cruelty and compassion, love and hate, generosity and greed, vanity and self depracation.

I’m glad you cleared that up. We may or may not be on the same page regarding prejudices and whims. However, the way I see it, that discussion would involve free choice and be off topic.

Given the way I think about human physiology, that would take a degree of self deception that I don’t feel capable of.

Your reasoning is understandable, even though I don’t agree. Unfortunately, I can’t really address human physiology because I rely on modern research theories which are banned.

Please do not be offended, but I really don’t care what you think about humans as being or not being the pinnacle of creation. I will always respect the human person as the pinnacle of creation, regardless.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[RobNY]

How about we let the philosophers do the philosophizing and let the biologists get on with the biology?

I can agree to this.

Animals are classified according to a nested heirarchy of forms, not by ontological specifications.

in biology…, but if there are different senses in which one can use animal, then perhaps according to those sense we can arrange things differently.

I don’t understand. Surely there only is one correct way to use the word animal, to wit: a member of the Kingdom Animalia.

There are often many ‘correct’ usages of words. That is why dictionaries have multiple usages of words listed. The problem isn’t with the usage of the word, but rather the term.

If your problem is that you wish to restrict the term ‘animal’ to one sense, then you have a good sense of the need for univocity in order to proceed with discussion. The problem is that we actually have not one term, but two terms, both going by the same name.

Consider the word bank. One sort of bank is the sort where you deposit money. Let’s call this bank[sub]1[/sub]. Another sort is the side of a river, we’ll call this bank[sub]2[/sub]. Quite clearly, we’d be talking past one another if we started using different senses of the word. You be quite smart to put your money in the bank[sub]1[/sub], but quite crazy to put your money in the bank[sub]2[/sub].

What makes it so difficult in our case is that they are two different terms for the same thing. Two different competing conceptions of the same thing. On one, and you can correct me if I have the biologist’s side wrong, animals are all organisms descended from a certain common ancestor. On my conception, an animal is a being with the ‘sensitive’ powers in addition to the nutritive powers. (And like I said, I don’t think these two methods ‘compete’ because they really aren’t asserting contrary things. The biological system merely classifies things according to descent, whereas the ontological taxonomy according to what things are-- so I have been adequate allowing ‘biologists to do biology.’)

Your problem is that you seem to be insisting that the philosophical concept of animal be determined by the sense in which biologists use it. The problem with that, of course, is that the biologist system is philosophically useless. To know what something is you must have a definition of it, which includes having a genus and specific difference. For instance, a triangle is a polygon. That is its genus. But in order to distinguish it from other polygons (say, squares and chiliagons) we add its specific difference: a triangle is a three-sided polygon. That’s a definition in the classical sense, and as you can see, it has nothing to do with squares, circles and triangles begetting one another or descending from one another.

Biology intentionally does not do this, and as I said above, I don’t fault it for that. But biology is simply not providing a philosophical account of what things are. The problem is when you try to make the biological account the philosophical account. It simply lacks the credentials to be a philosophical account… no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Genomics has set the status of humans and apes beyond any reasonable doubt. The match in orthologous genes between humans and other apes is around nienty seven to ninety nine percent. This is precisely what one would expect in accordance with taxonomy.

I am not arguing this whatsoever. I grant wholesale the findings of contemporary biology. According to our genes we are extremely similar to other apes. But the idea that for this reason we must therefore be ontologically nearly identical… is not necessarily true. But this seems to be the whole problem in our discussion, no?

I must warn you though, we are flirting dangerously with a banned topic here.

I’m not arguing any banned topic. As I noted, I grant all the findings of biology.

-Rob

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am trying to stay away from some outside source such as realms of whatever. I see spiritual as part of my unique nature. When my temporal lobes are dissected, there is nothing material which can be labeled love and sent to the lab.

Agreed. Love is an emergent property.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Your problem is that you seem to be insisting that the philosophical concept of animal be determined by the sense in which biologists use it.

I don’t see how one can use the word animal with reference to taxonomy in any other sense than a taxonomical one. If you can explain this perhaps?

I’m not arguing any banned topic. As I noted, I grant all the findings of biology.

-Rob

We’ll see what the mods think of that. In my wayward and misspent youth I was involved in the warez scene and am clued up enough in covering my tracks to be unbannable from forums. I wouldn’t like to get anyone else here banned though.

 

[grannymh]

The human being is an animal. Is this in dispute? The classic Aristotelian definition makes “animal” the genus of the human being. It doesn’t follow that because the human being is an animal that it is only an animal, though. This is why the Neo-Platonic Aristotelian scheme sees the human being as the ‘bridge’ between two orders of creation. In any order there will be outliers which ‘bridge’ the gap between two orders. Think of how a venus fly-trap is somewhere in between plant life and animal life (its power of moving itself is very close to the locomotion which defines animal life). Likewise, the human being sits right in the middle between two orders. It is fully animal, and thus has animal as its genus, and yet its intellect makes it the lowest in the order of beings with intellects. Thus the common medieval trope that man occupies a ‘middle’ place in creation.

-Rob

Am I picking up traces of Cartesian extreme dualism in the idea of two orders, one fully animal and the other the lowest in the order of beings with intellects?

The source I use is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-368. The way the Catechism describes human nature would help explain the uniqueness of the rational/corporeal or intellect/brain in the single nature of the human person.

Blessings,
granny

human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

Agreed. Love is an emergent property.

I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless, I will bow out of the conversation out of respect for the ban.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless, I will bow out of the conversation out of respect for the ban.

I concur… One day, we may be able to explore this more completely

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The human being is an animal. Is this in dispute? The classic Aristotelian definition makes “animal” the genus of the human being. It doesn’t follow that because the human being is an animal that it is only an animal, though. This is why the Neo-Platonic Aristotelian scheme sees the human being as the ‘bridge’ between two orders of creation. In any order there will be outliers which ‘bridge’ the gap between two orders. Think of how a venus fly-trap is somewhere in between plant life and animal life (its power of moving itself is very close to the locomotion which defines animal life). Likewise, the human being sits right in the middle between two orders. It is fully animal, and thus has animal as its genus, and yet its intellect makes it the lowest in the order of beings with intellects. Thus the common medieval trope that man occupies a ‘middle’ place in creation.

-Rob

I’ll add the Aristotelian definition was that man is a “Rational animal”, and Catholic theology adds that man is the only animal that is rational and the only rational being that is also an animal.

 

[grannymh]

I’ll add the Aristotelian definition was that man is a “Rational animal”, and Catholic theology adds that man is the only animal that is rational and the only rational being that is also an animal.

Something sounds very odd about that kind of Catholic theology. I know Catholic theology refers to man as possessing the dignity of a person who is not just something, but someone. The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”.

Even though biologically, a human shares some characteristics with other creatures, Catholic theology says that man is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake. We, alone, are called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. This is because we are created “in the image of God.”

Are you absolutely sure about that animal thing?

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Something sounds very odd about that kind of Catholic theology. I know Catholic theology refers to man as possessing the dignity of a person who is not just something, but someone. The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”.

Even though biologically, a human shares some characteristics with other creatures, Catholic theology says that man is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake. We, alone, are called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. This is because we are created “in the image of God.”

Are you absolutely sure about that animal thing?

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

granny, I didn’t mean that man is merely an animal that is rational, but instead that because he is a union of spirit and matter that he is also the only animal (a body made of matter) that is also rational (because it’s in union with a spiritual soul with the faculties of intellect and will). I was using rational as one of the property of spirit. Let me quote my mentor Frank Sheed for the second time on this thread;

This mingling of spirit and matter in human actions arises from a fact which distinguishes man’s spirit from all others. Ours is the only spirit which is also a soul–that is to say, the life principle in a body. God is a spirit, but has no body; the angels are spirits, but have no body. Only in man spirit is united with a body, animates the body, makes it to be a living body. Every living body–vegetable, lower animal, human–has a life-principle, a soul. And just as ours is the only spirit which is a soul, so ours is the only soul which is a spirit.

 

[1234]

The intellect appears to reside within the brain. When the brain deteriorates, the intellect deteriorates. Diseases which attack the frontal lobes, in particular, attack the intellect. Memory and personality can be damaged or excised by surgery and accidents. These days, scientists are beginning to locate personality in certain specific areas of the brain and even in certain genes. Nothing is more disturbing is to watch a brilliant person’s intellect deteriorate due to dementia, an accident or a brain tumor. Not just abstract thinking, empathy and memory, but the basics of the personality deteriorate. There is some sparing of music and remote memories, but these, too deteriorate with time.

 

[grannymh]

granny, I didn’t mean that man is merely an animal that is rational, but instead that because he is a union of spirit and matter that he is also the only animal (a body made of matter) that is also rational (because it’s in union with a spiritual soul with the faculties of intellect and will). I was using rational as one property of a spiritual soul. Let me quote my mentor Frank Sheed for the second time on this thread;
This mingling of spirit and matter in human actions arises from a fact which distinguishes man’s spirit from all others. Ours is the only spirit which is also a soul–that is to say, the life principle in a body. God is a spirit, but has no body; the angels are spirits, but have no body. Only in man spirit is united with a body, animates the body, makes it to be a living body. Every living body–vegetable, lower animal, human–has a life-principle, a soul. And just as ours is the only spirit which is a soul, so ours is the only soul which is a spirit.

Thank you for your explanation. I do like Frank Sheed’s explanation for the difference between the animating principle in animals and the animating principle in humans. But I am not totally sure how that would translate into the statement in post 70. That’s no big deal. Nonetheless, I have enough of a hard time proving scientifically that we do not belong in the brute animal kingdom so I doubt I will use your phrasing.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[RobNY]

Am I picking up traces of Cartesian extreme dualism in the idea of two orders, one fully animal and the other the lowest in the order of beings with intellects?

The source I use is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-368. The way the Catechism describes human nature would help explain the uniqueness of the rational/corporeal or intellect/brain in the single nature of the human person.

Blessings,
granny

human life is sacred.

Nope, no Cartesian dualism here. The idea, I believe, is in St. Thomas. The human being touches both the material and spiritual realms, because its nature is soul and body. Because it has an intellect, it is at the top of the material realm, but for the same reason, its body, it is at the bottom of the spiritual realm (because the soul requires the body for its ordinary function).

Cartesian dualism would not find the human being in two realms. Since the human being is only a thinking thing, and not a rational animal, on Descartes’s view, it wouldn’t make any sense to judge the human being to be at the pinnacle of the animal realm. This position is possible precisely because of hylemorphism.

-Rob

 

[grannymh]

Nope, no Cartesian dualism here. The idea, I believe, is in St. Thomas. The human being touches both the material and spiritual realms, because its nature is soul and body. Because it has an intellect, it is at the top of the material realm, but for the same reason, its body, it is at the bottom of the spiritual realm (because the soul requires the body for its ordinary function).

Cartesian dualism would not find the human being in two realms. Since the human being is only a thinking thing, and not a rational animal, on Descartes’s view, it wouldn’t make any sense to judge the human being to be at the pinnacle of the animal realm. This position is possible precisely because of hylemorphism.

-Rob

Coincidence. Someone on CAF spotted my Cartesian dualism and directed me to hylemophism.

Personally, I like the Catechism’s point that in his own nature, man unites the spiritual and material worlds. These worlds are not seen as if they were on either side or on the top or bottom of some realm. Rather, they are a single nature. And from a realistic point of view, this would be a new nature, a profound, unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body.

CCC 365. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

There are people who debate philosophy and there are people who slug it out in the trenches. Both kinds of people are on the same team.

Blessings,
granny

Link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[greylorn]

I often see threads on religion forums on other sites along the lines of “You won’t find consciousness in the brain”, I really do, and they almost always break down into two camps, the Cartisian dualists and the reductive materialists. One camp thinks mind is independent of the brain and the other than it is solely a product of the brain.

But instead, the reality is it’s not a question of whether you will “find consciousness in the brain” (all conscious experience might very well be soley a product of the brain, though I’m not sure), the question is whether you will “find intellect in the brain”.

With regard to certain sensory conscious experiences, the action of the brain is possibly both a necessary and a wholey sufficient condition for their occurrence. But when it comes to the intellectual activity of the mind, the power of the mind that involves both ***understanding ***and judgment, specifically the mind’s understanding of abstract concepts and propositions, and the mind’s rational judgments on the truth of those propositions, then an immaterial element in the intellect must be postulated in order to provide an adequate explanation of the mind’s acts conceptual understanding and rational judgments of truth. The brain may be necessary intertwined in these acts of the intellect, but it is not a wholey sufficient condition for their occurrence.

One such argument for an immaterial element in intellect rests on two propositions and the conclusion that follows. The first premise points out that the concepts in which we understand what the different classes or kinds of things are consist of meanings that are universal. And the second premise points out that nothing that exists materially is actually universal. Anything that is constructed of matter exists as an individual singular thing. The conclusion follows that our universal concepts cannot be embodied in matter. If our concepts were merely acts of the brain, they would exist in matter, and would not have the necessary universality that allow us to think of the universal objects so very different from the individual things that are objects of senses. The power of conceptual thought has all the signs of being an immaterial power, and not one the acts of a material bodily organ like the brain.

And of course this matches exactly with the Catholic description of man. That man is a profound union of matter and a spiritual soul with the faculties of intellect and will. And that this union is so profound that the two become one being, man could be considered spiritualized matter, rather than a “ghost in a machine” or a soul driving a body. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, teaches that: “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body … spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”

While you are on a very intelligent track, you will soon be derailed, your insights buried beneath piles of dogma and religious opinions. Good luck nonetheless.

If you want to get anywhere with your ideas, bring them into the realm of honest physics.

Physics is a study of things which are “physical.” It began with a study of the behavior of matter, but quickly moved into the study of immaterial things which affected matter, such as electric charge and magnetic fields. The concept of energy developed as a way to connect the non-material with the material parts of physics. Awhile back, Einstein figured out that matter itself is also a form of energy. I.e. everything is composed of energy.

This post is simply to advise you to begin thinking about what “the soul” actually is, with the intent of putting a definition of it into the context of physics.

Anything which interacts with some part of the physical universe is, by definition, physical itself. Light bounces off matter, so it is physical although not material. Language, practiced by the ignorant, has confused “physical” with “material.” You don’t have the luxury of such confusions if you intend to think clearly, as it would appear you do.

If the soul interacts with the brain, then the soul is physical. The concept of “spiritual” is inherently meaningless in the context of a soul-brain interaction. Last I checked, Catholic dogma was elsewhere.

Think about that and find a way to deal with it, not with words, but in terms of conceptual adjustments to your thinking. You are on a good track.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

While you are on a very intelligent track, you will soon be derailed, your insights buried beneath piles of dogma and religious opinions. Good luck nonetheless.

If you want to get anywhere with your ideas, bring them into the realm of honest physics.

Physics is a study of things which are “physical.” It began with a study of the behavior of matter, but quickly moved into the study of immaterial things which affected matter, such as electric charge and magnetic fields. The concept of energy developed as a way to connect the non-material with the material parts of physics. Awhile back, Einstein figured out that matter itself is also a form of energy. I.e. everything is composed of energy.

This post is simply to advise you to begin thinking about what “the soul” actually is, with the intent of putting a definition of it into the context of physics.

Anything which interacts with some part of the physical universe is, by definition, physical itself. Light bounces off matter, so it is physical although not material. Language, practiced by the ignorant, has confused “physical” with “material.” You don’t have the luxury of such confusions if you intend to think clearly, as it would appear you do.

If the soul interacts with the brain, then the soul is physical. The concept of “spiritual” is inherently meaningless in the context of a soul-brain interaction. Last I checked, Catholic dogma was elsewhere.

Think about that and find a way to deal with it, not with words, but in terms of conceptual adjustments to your thinking. You are on a good track.

when you say “Language, practiced by the ignorant, has confused “physical” with “material.”” it looks as if you may be in the middle of a clumsy attempt (maybe you don’t know the terms?) to explain the difference between materialism and physicalism. Physicalism being an attempt at a more encompassing natural explanation of all reality, including the weirdness of the quantum world, where things aren’t “solid” and quantum wavefunctions of things like electrons are spread out in a “cloud” in space and time. And when you say “If the soul interacts with the brain, then the soul is physical” you are certainly at odds with the Orthodox Interpretation of quantum physics, which can first be traced back to John von Neumann, author of the “Quantum Bible” *The *Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, and many others like Henry Stapp today, all who say that it’s a consciousness or a nonmaterial element in a human observer that “knows”, different in kind than the material/physical world that all the quantum entities are “made of”, which causes the collapse of the quantum wavefunction.

anyway, your thinking here seems to need a lot of work

 

[greylorn]

when you say “Language, practiced by the ignorant, has confused “physical” with “material.”” it looks as if you may be in the middle of a clumsy attempt (maybe you don’t know the terms?) to explain the difference between materialism and physicalism. Physicalism being an attempt at a more encompassing natural explanation of all reality, including the weirdness of the quantum world, where things aren’t “solid” and quantum wavefunctions of things like electrons are spread out in a “cloud” in space and time. And when you say “If the soul interacts with the brain, then the soul is physical” you are certainly at odds with the Orthodox Interpretation of quantum physics, which can first be traced back to John von Neumann, author of the “Quantum Bible” *The *Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, and many others like Henry Stapp today, all who say that it’s a consciousness or a nonmaterial element in a human observer that “knows”, different in kind than the material/physical world that all the quantum entities are “made of”, which causes the collapse of the quantum wavefunction.

anyway, your thinking here seems to need a lot of work

Does it really?

Suppose we bypass the name dropping and authoritative blather and excerpt a simple aspect of your ideas about soul/brain interface— which, remember, are basically good ideas.

I’ll create a quick example:

Your open eyes observe something you do not wish to see, perhaps a gory movie scene, or an incidence of people inflicting damage upon one another, or another Nancy Pelosi press conference.

Your brain encodes that visual information and displays it within your brain, in the same brain subsystem that cats use for visual information. Yet, you perceive that information at the level of soul. How? How do physical neurons, passing electrochemical charge between themselves, enable YOU to see?

Next, you decide that you cannot stand to watch the scene, or listen to Nancy, or whatever. You decide to close your eyes and/or hit the mute button on your television control binky. How does your decision translate to actual closure of your body’s eyelids, or your desperate grab for the TV binky?

Do you really imagine that a non-physical “spirit” operates your brain?

If so, you are pushing what you imagine to be new and interesting ideas down a well worn donkey path.

I am disappointed in your response, for I initially thought that you might have something to contribute to a subject which needs resolution, but alas, you seem drenched in dogma. No need to reply. I’ll not pursue this conversation further.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I am disappointed in your response, for I initially thought that you might have something to contribute to a subject which needs resolution, but alas, you seem drenched in dogma. No need to reply. I’ll not pursue this conversation further.

Translation;
“I’m a fraud who thought I could dazzle people by pretending I have even a basic understanding of modern physics, and when someone showed that I had no idea what I was talking about I retracted like a turtle’s head back into it’s shell”