Cogito Ergo Sum

[Exsanguin8]

closertotruth.com/episodes/consciousness-fundamental

 

[Aloysium]

. . . What is the relationship between the Mind and the Soul?

Hoping that somewhere in this there’s an answer to your question.
Here’s my spin on it:

Central to everything is God.
In Him, we will know everything and it will be obvious.

Whether we are talking about the mind, the spirit or the brain, we are addressing what it is to be a person.
That’s you and me, possessing the capacity to be aware, to know and understand.
A person perceives, feels, thinks and acts; we can know beauty, truth and goodness.
We can love, i.e. give of ourselves, willing the good of and thereby uniting with who and what is other to ourselves.

The person is relational being, a unity that is self-other, composed of a multitude of parts and interactions, whose complex structure can be classified in accordance to three dimensions: the physical, psychological and spiritual.

The person being a unity of spirit and matter, the mind and brain are one.
I would go so far as to say that the anatomy of the mind includes receptors, neurons and their supporting structures, neural tracts, neuromuscular junctions, synapses, all sorts of feedback mechanisms;
its physiology, such processes as action potentials - progressive ion shifts down an axon, the release of neurotransmitters and the like.
We are participants in a physical universe with which we are continuous, and to which we exist in relation.
There is no actual physical border that separates the light source from the photon, which enters into the eye and strikes the retina, the optic nerve, the thalamus, the occipital cortex - all are parts of the material universe.
With matter providing the shape of experience, it is the spirit that is at the root of our being in the world.

The physical structure that underlies the universe and shapes our bodies determines certain basic mental events, but it is in the realm of the psyche that we find the richness of experience.
In day to day life and in our dreams, we have mothers, fathers, siblings, dogs, cats, cars, bosses, pleasure, needs and wants, passions, bosses, presidents, terrorists, being rich and famous means something, and so on.
There is a structure to the mind that psychoanalysts described in terms of of drives, conflicts and archetypes; modern Cognitive Behaviour Therapy works on understanding one’s situation rationally.
The person being whole, these are physical phenomena, patterns of neuronal connections, which are formed as we think, perceive, feel and act.
We learn and as this happens, we change mentally as the physical reality of the brain assumes new connections.

As to the spirit, using this moment as an example, that category would involve its very beingness, the meaning of its elements that include reflections of our behaviour as morality, goodness and evil, as well as the beauty inherent in existence, the truth - Love.

There is a physical structure to the person as part of the totality that is the universe.
A mental reality I would see as including pretty much everything we experience, mathematics, science, art, music, all the fruit that this garden of our being human provides, all the wonders of creation, brought into existence by God.
And that is where we come to the spiritual - our relationship and journey to Him.

 

[ynotzap]

I understand the statement above. That understanding is an internal part of “me”.
Would this understanding be classified under the category “qualia”?
It would seem that all sensory perceptions are “processed”, that their shape, however basic, involves cognition. Everything we know involves complex processes that bring about experience. The structuring of experience involves the physical and mental realities of our being participants in a world that is both physical and psychological in nature. A third “dimension”, would be that of spiritual reality which involves our existence as relational beings. We are self-others even to ourselves, to the structure that shapes our consciousness, that spark between two mysteries.

Qualia, as I understand, is like the redness of a rose, if one never saw a rose, he could not know what redness is, or if one never experienced heat could never know what warmth is. It depends on sense experience. A mental concept is associated with the sense experience in humans. So you are right in saying that sensory (not perceptions) experiences involve cognition. Animals do not have mental concepts associated with sense experience, but they do have sense memory, and what is called sense knowledge (I see them as biological computers programed by God to do what we see as “intelligent action” eg. animals using tools to acquire food and demonstrate instinct. From birth an animal lives by a distinct pattern, and it can be predicted.

Humans can know that they know, a non-physical action, the power of reflection. He can go against what he knows is good and right for him because of the power of choice. Intellectual knowledge is non-material (I call spiritual because it has a spiritual source, the soul which animates the body and the mind) It is the nature of knowledge that is a clue as to the spirituality of the soul. Knowledge is acquired by reasoning, and reasoning is not a physical property of the body. If it were, it would have been discovered by now. No physical property can accomplish what the human mind can. What puzzles scientists is that they do not transcend the physical, it is not in their field of study for a lack of metaphysics which studies the nature of things, and final causes and effects. They do not understand the “extrinsic” dependence of the mind on the brain, and therefore can not separate the two, and treat the brain as the source of intellection.

 

[inocente]

What is the relationship between the Mind and the Soul?

The soul has several different meanings. The bible uses the word variously, summed up by the CCC: 363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

I’m no expert but think that in Aquinas, the soul and rational mind are treated as one. The soul is the form of the body, a substance which cannot exist alone, which is specially created: 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.

In Descartes, Aquinas’ incomplete substance becomes a separate substance, a thinking substance separate from material substance. Many people seem to find this easier than Aquinas, but it is discredited as it has the major problem of how the two interact. Descartes tried to fix it by making the pineal gland the mediator, his “seat of the soul”. Indeed.

Modern science ignores all talk of two substances - the mind is what the brain does, and there is lots of evidence for that (for example, one summary of the anatomy here).

Science doesn’t refer to soul of course, and I’d imagine a Catholic neuroscientist would find her science is completely compatible with the bible and Aquinas.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Modern science ignores all talk of two substances - the mind is what the brain does, and there is lots of evidence for that (for example, one summary of the anatomy here).

If the mind is only what the brain does, how do we account for the brain imagining the mind of God? Would a neuroscientist who is an atheist call that the malfunction of the brain? But how could he prove that to be so?

 

[ynotzap]

If the mind is only what the brain does, how do we account for the brain imagining the mind of God? Would a neuroscientist who is an atheist call that the malfunction of the brain? But how could he prove that to be so?

I too question the statement that the mind is only what the brain does. The brain is the center of the nervous system, it is physical, how does it abstract knowledge from physical entities. Do thoughts occupy space, have mass? As you said, how do we come to the contemplation of God or truth or goodness or evil? Are these physical. It is true that when a person thinks or senses there is activity demonstrated by the brain in certain areas, just as there are brain localities when he moves, or when he sleeps,or when he listens. Activity in those areas are indicators of what is being ultilized by the mind and will. Some even think that by understanding the activity that they can tell what one is thinking. Some, maybe not all fail to see the brain as an organ that sends and receives sense impulses dictated by the will of man, and by external stimuli. What is “will” to an empirical scientist who does not transcend from the material or physical in his thoughts? And who will deny that man has this power, and what is it’s source? These are questions they fail to answer because of a lack of metaphysics when dealing with these problems. What is the source of life in the human body? This is explained in scholastic philosophy under the heading of “rational psychology”

 

[inocente]

If the mind is only what the brain does, how do we account for the brain imagining the mind of God? Would a neuroscientist who is an atheist call that the malfunction of the brain? But how could he prove that to be so?

Your appear to be disagreeing with both Paul and Aquinas. They argue that we first know God empirically by sense experience, and from there by reasoning a posteriori.

For Aquinas’ argument see www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm#article12, Paul’s argument is more brief: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” - Romans 1

But even if Paul and Aquinas are wrong, knowledge could still be innate, ‘pre-programmed’.

 

[inocente]

I too question the statement that the mind is only what the brain does. The brain is the center of the nervous system, it is physical, how does it abstract knowledge from physical entities. Do thoughts occupy space, have mass?

Compare the mass of a blank CD and a CD containing Beethoven’s 9th. They are the same. The information, which in this case is roughly five billion bits, weighs nothing as it’s contained in microscopic changes to the form of the material. If you now transcribe the music to a flash drive, the information is encoded instead by magnetism, again weighing nothing. If you remember the music, it is encoded in neurons, and again weighs nothing.

Interestingly, all sense information is encoded before entering the brain. For instance, the only information leaving your eye along the optic nerve is a digital bit stream. - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness

• As you said, how do we come to the contemplation of God or truth or goodness or evil? Are these physical. It is true that when a person thinks or senses there is activity demonstrated by the brain in certain areas, just as there are brain localities when he moves, or when he sleeps,or when he listens. Activity in those areas are indicators of what is being ultilized by the mind and will. Some even think that by understanding the activity that they can tell what one is thinking. Some, maybe not all fail to see the brain as an organ that sends and receives sense impulses dictated by the will of man, and by external stimuli. What is “will” to an empirical scientist who does not transcend from the material or physical in his thoughts? And who will deny that man has this power, and what is it’s source? These are questions they fail to answer because of a lack of metaphysics when dealing with these problems. What is the source of life in the human body? This is explained in scholastic philosophy under the heading of “rational psychology”*

You appear to be using Descartes substance dualism rather than Aquinas. If that’s so then you have the major problem of explaining how the thinking substance and material substance interact. For instance, how does that digital bit stream from your eyes get transferred from material to immaterial substance? Where does it happen? In the pineal gland as Descartes tried to argue? Whereas this isn’t an issue for a neuroscientist, and willing to move your arm is a neuronal network sending a signal to the arm.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Compare the mass of a blank CD and a CD containing Beethoven’s 9th. They are the same. The information, which in this case is roughly five billion bits, weighs nothing as it’s contained in microscopic changes to the form of the material. If you now transcribe the music to a flash drive, the information is encoded instead by magnetism, again weighing nothing. If you remember the music, it is encoded in neurons, and again weighs nothing.

Interestingly, all sense information is encoded before entering the brain. For instance, the only information leaving your eye along the optic nerve is a digital bit stream. - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness

The only issue is that the information does not play out as anything unless it is transmitted to audio or visual equipment. We have neither of those types of equipment in our brain but yet the information plays out subjectively, so the mystery still remains.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your appear to be disagreeing with both Paul and Aquinas. They argue that we first know God empirically by sense experience, and from there by reasoning a posteriori.

For Aquinas’ argument see www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm#article12, Paul’s argument is more brief: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” - Romans 1

But even if Paul and Aquinas are wrong, knowledge could still be innate, ‘pre-programmed’.

I notice that with both ynotzap and me you are pitting Aquinas against us.

You need to get off that failed old strategy and try something new?

 

[Aloysium]

If the mind is only what the brain does, how do we account for the brain imagining the mind of God? Would a neuroscientist . . .

A brain is required to participate in the physical world.

A well respected neurosurgeon, Eben Alexander wrote an interesting book about what he experienced while cerebrally incapacitated by meningitis.
He called it a near-death experience because he was pretty close to death. He has his own explanations.
What I find remarkable is that he is able to recall events that happened when his brain was covered in puss.
It is not possible for the brain to form memories under such conditions,

What seems to happen is that we imagine things, we think, observe, reflect and know.
This comes from us, we who do not bring our consciousness, our being into existence.
We are made this way and we transform ourselves into who we are by what we do.

Dr Alexander recalls because he is now making the neural connections to be able to translate experiences he carries within himself, into images and words that he can communicate to us as we all travel and connect in time.

The brain is necessary for this here to be happening, just as the workings of computer and monitor are necessary for this to appear on our screen.
“Meaning” however, has determined the pattern of these lines and squiggles, a meaning which is part of who I am and is being communicated through these means that we may share something of value.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Meaning” however, has determined the pattern of these lines and squiggles, a meaning which is part of who I am and is being communicated through these means that we may share something of value.

It is precisely “meaning” that a neurologist cannot explain. A neurologist who happens to be an atheist cannot explain how it is the Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus” has the profound effect it has, even upon anyone who does not understand the “meaning” of the words but is totally moved by the music which conveys the meaning in just as profound a way as the words.

Neurons cannot know God. Only the mind and heart can know God. Spirit to Spirit.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

 

[ynotzap]

Compare the mass of a blank CD and a CD containing Beethoven’s 9th. They are the same. The information, which in this case is roughly five billion bits, weighs nothing as it’s contained in microscopic changes to the form of the material. If you now transcribe the music to a flash drive, the information is encoded instead by magnetism, again weighing nothing. If you remember the music, it is encoded in neurons, and again weighs nothing.

You are approaching a metaphysical problem from an empirical perspective. It is true all learning starts with the senses, and all that you stated lies In the material or physical world although empirical scientists use measurement (math)and scientific principles in their experiments which deals with the second degree of abstraction which you do not seem to understand.
Innocente:

Interestingly, all sense information is encoded before entering the brain. For instance, the only information leaving your eye along the optic nerve is a digital bit stream. - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness

The five senses are receptors that transmit electrical impulses to the brain via the nervous system. If you observe, change always takes place in a physical medium, eg sound waves, light waves, pressure, and chemical reaction, what the brain does it records these sense impressions which are giving the mind sense data. It is the mind that interprets the data, it gives the data meaning. eg words made up of vowels and consonants which are sounds given meanings. Because the soul is united to the body, the intellect, a power of the soul depends “extrinsically” on the physical for sense data. It is the power of “abstraction” that makes it possible to gain knowledge which is of an non-material nature. You missed this in your reference to the teachings of St.Thomas
Innocente:

You appear to be using Descartes substance dualism rather than Aquinas. If that’s so then you have the major problem of explaining how the thinking substance and material substance interact. For instance, how does that digital bit stream from your eyes get transferred from material to immaterial substance? Where does it happen? In the pineal gland as Descartes tried to argue? Whereas this isn’t an issue for a neuroscientist, and willing to move your arm is a neuronal network sending a signal to the arm.

St.Thomas recognizes the spirituality of the soul by it’s powers, intelligence and volition. Every power has a source, and he reasons that that power is the soul, the form and immanent, animating force of life in the human body. That force, or soul makes man a rational animal, a homo sapien (a knowing man) He also speaks of the 'phantom", an image that forms in the brain from which by the intellectual power of the soul abstracts the idea. This image or phantom Is made up of sense data it seems much like the electrical transmissions and frequencies that form a TV image. By touching the brain with electrodes music was heard. As Thomas might say the brain is like a " tableau raza" (spelling?) meaning “a blank page” eg a blank CD

 

[ynotzap]

Innocente:
The scientific world is under the spell of that nineteenth century mode of thinking originated by Auguste Comte a French philosopher, known as “Positivism” which eliminates all metaphysics from philosophy and restricts scientific knowledge to facts and relations between facts. They say that the scientific method is one of exact mathematical measurement, but things like ontology are of no consequence. Positivism confines itself to the data of experience and it excludes apriori or metaphysical speculations and emphasizes the achievements of science. Positivism is closely connected to empiricism, pragmatism. Auguste Comte deified man as the “Be all, and End all” and denies a personal God. It smacks of humanism,a modern nontheistic, rationalist movement that hold man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct without recourse to supernaturalism.

 

[Norwich12]

Being a novice on this Catholic Answers Forum, on April 5th when I posed the basic question about the Mind and the Brain, I didn’t expect a major erudite in-depth philosophical,
theological, and neuroanatomiical discussion!

And on Divine Mercy Sunday I am thankful for the 51 replies and over a thousand views.
But let’s return to my second simple question: are the Mind and the Soul the same thing?
Or is the mind a function of the soul along with intellect and will?

 

[ynotzap]

Being a novice on this Catholic Answers Forum, on April 5th when I posed the basic question about the Mind and the Brain, I didn’t expect a major erudite in-depth philosophical,
theological, and neuroanatomiical discussion!

And on Divine Mercy Sunday I am thankful for the 51 replies and over a thousand views.
But let’s return to my second simple question: are the Mind and the Soul the same thing?
Or is the mind a function of the soul along with intellect and will?

As I understand, the mind of man is a combination or union(but separate entities) of the physical brain and intelligence (which is a power of the soul along with volition). It includes memory,reasoning,imagination So in this light the brain is just part of the mind of man, the soul is the source of intelligence and the will. The soul can act apart from it’s earthly union with the body at death, but not in this life.
When the soul is separated from the body, no longer dependent on sense data, knowledge is not acquired by reasoning but is infused into the soul of man via his intelligence by God like the angels.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Or is the mind a function of the soul along with intellect and will?

I would not separate the mind from the intellect and the will. Mind I think might metaphorically be viewed as equivalent to a spiritual drawer (soul) with several compartments, all of them useful to keep the functions separate and not confused or even chaotic. Will, intellect, imagination, desire, etc. are all compartments in this drawer. When the chest in which the drawer is contained is destroyed (as the human body will be destroyed) the spiritual drawer survives intact as a soul without a body.

 

[ynotzap]

As I understand, the mind of man is a combination or union(but separate entities) of the physical brain and intelligence (which is a power of the soul along with volition). It includes memory,reasoning,imagination So in this light the brain is just part of the mind of man, the soul is the source of intelligence and the will. The soul can act apart from it’s earthly union with the body at death, but not in this life.
When the soul is separated from the body, no longer dependent on sense data, knowledge is not acquired by reasoning but is infused into the soul of man via his intelligence by God like the angels.

I noticed that I use the mind and intelligence interchangeably, this will cause confusion. When I say mind, I am thinking intelligence. The mind of man is as I explained. Forgive me for the confusion

 

[inocente]

The only issue is that the information does not play out as anything unless it is transmitted to audio or visual equipment. We have neither of those types of equipment in our brain but yet the information plays out subjectively, so the mystery still remains.

It’s only a mystery in Cartesian substance dualism, which now has to explain how its purported immaterial thinking substance has a digital interface in the pineal gland.

 

[inocente]

I notice that with both ynotzap and me you are pitting Aquinas against us.

You need to get off that failed old strategy and try something new?

Ad hominem. Your attempts to suppress the bible and Aquinas on a Catholic forum are very funny.

I joined the thread to discuss the OP, and my post to the OP included Aquinas. You asked me a question about my post, and I replied to you, again including Aquinas. What do you expect me to do, censor my own posts to stroke your ego? Sheesh, enough already .