Cognitive neuroscience and the soul

[buffalo]

Vegetative patient Scott Routley says 'I’m not in pain’

A Canadian man who was believed to have been in a vegetative state for more than a decade, has been able to tell scientists that he is not in any pain.

     It's the first time an uncommunicative, severely  brain-injured  patient has been able to give answers clinically relevant  to their  care.


     Scott Routley, 39, was asked questions while having his brain activity scanned in an fMRI machine. 



     **His doctor says the discovery means medical textbooks will need rewriting. **



     Vegetative patients emerge from a coma into a condition where   they have periods awake, with their eyes open, but have no perception   of themselves or the outside world.

more…

 

[Jaaanosik]

Please, where are the citations for the neuroscience research papers?

Usually, a citation is given at the end of an article such as that in the link. Perhaps I missed footnotes in the article? I only had time for a brief scan. I did see references to research. And when I have some free time, I may be able to find the actual research.

Note: If anyone has the actual published research, would it be possible to share it with me? As we all know, interpretation of results depends on the evidence provided by the materials and methods. When a proper conclusion is extrapolated beyond the evidence, there can be misleading suggestions.

Thank you.

You can check some stuff here wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

 

[grannymh]

You can check some stuff here wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

Joshua D. Greene is an interesting person. According to his homepage, he is Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Harvard University. He gives the link to his paper “For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything”. In the paper’s Conclusion, he writes: “Free will as we ordinarily understand it is an illusion generated by our cognitive architecture.”

People who do not get hooked on the popular word “illusion” might wonder what Green ordinarily understands about free will, even if it is an illusion for a lot of people.

In the paper’s Endnotes, Green writes: “Our concern is specifically with interactionist versions of dualism according to which non-physical mental entities have observable physical effects. We believe that science has rendered such views untenable…”

Obviously, Green is making sense since he is working with the pre-supposition “Free will as we ordinarily understand it is an illusion generated by our cognitive architecture.”

At this point, one needs to make a “soul searching” decision. Does one believe in God as taught by Catholicism? This is a crucial decision because if one believes in God as taught by Catholicism then one needs to believe that we are created in the image of God which means that our human nature has both a material principle and a spiritual principle otherwise known as a decomposing anatomy and a spiritual eternal soul. It is our spiritual soul which enables us to share in God’s life on earth and eternally.

Apparently, Green has no use for non-physical mental entities which have observable physical effects and I do not blame him because to me this description sounds like an invisible rectangle box at the top of the head which floats between brain cells poking this one or that one. However, unlike Green, I do not dismiss the faculties (free will is one) of the spiritual soul because of a poor description.

To be fair, I believe that this description problem of a spiritual soul is due to the idea of “two natures or two entities” which is not what Catholicism teaches about human nature. Yes, the spiritual and the material are different from each other. However, spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures or entities united. It is their union which forms the single human nature.

A spiritual soul which not only makes our species peerless but enables us to be in the presence of the Beatific Vision is far more appealing in the long run.

 

[grannymh]

This is very interesting to me. I love the philosophy of mind. I personally have no problem taking a totally material view of the soul, though I am not convinced. For even if the soul were derived from purely physical means, thoughts and concepts are clearly non-physical entities.

If one takes a totally material view of the soul, that would make humans a material species. That being the case, how would this species communicate with a God, a Pure Spirit? .

Moreover, in the case of Phineas Gage. He was a great guy and a pious Christian. After his accident, his personality and character changed tremendously. His friends he was not even the same person. This is not Gage’s fault. Should the eternal salvation of his soul depend on an accident?

The soul, being spiritual, is not dependent on the material anatomy. Thus, a serious accident involving the anatomy would not touch a spiritual soul. The spiritual soul gives a person intellect and will which enable a person to seek eternal salvation and freely act to obtain it. The brain expresses our intellect and through the neural system our body expresses our choice of actions. When either brain or body or both are damaged, the functions of intellect and will are impeded. Yet, the soul, being spiritual, remains intact.

Only mortal sin or a complete rejection of God can remove God’s grace or presence from the soul. We cannot know the state of Gage’s soul before the accident. We should not underestimate the power of God to reach a soul in the midst of damage to brain and body. And we should not underestimate our soul’s power when we want to reach out to God.

did he really become a different person? If he did, our personhood is totally defined by our material brain. If not, why does it seem like the difference between a good person and an evil person be altered by physical alterations in the brain? This can be quite the dilemma.

Above you referred to Gage’s personality and character changing because of the accident. This is different from a person making an informed decision to freely choose evil actions. Part of the dilemma is that we often don’t know if a particular action is due to a free decision or due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Add to that the fact that a lot of our actions are habits rather than individual decisions.

Cognitive neuroscience can benefit humanity because knowing how our brain, emotions, memory, instincts work will help us deal with both good and bad situations.
My favorite four-letter word which begins with s and ends with t does happen. This is why it is important that we remind Jesus that He said “Come to Me, all you who are burdened…”

Natural science is a gift from God. It is important that we do not forget the Giver.

 

[grannymh]

There is pretty good evidence that people’s personalities and memories are very much linked with their brain structures. Traumatic brain injury patients can undergo loss of mental function and changes in personality and/or temperament.

This all points to mental function, emotion, and personality being inseparable from brain cells, tissues, and structures in a very physical way. I would dare posit that identity is dependent on our brains.

It seems to me that that takes the notions of personality and identity out of our souls.

Some ideas, any or all of which seem to be right or wrong depending on how I think about them. I’d welcome your thoughts.

1. Minimalist/existentialist soul: nothing about how we think of ourselves resides in the soul. It’s simply a record of our existence, as noted by God. The inescapable “surd” of existence described by Soren Kierkegaard, or potentially the self identified by Rene Descartes.
2. The maturing soul: everything that we think about ourselves is contained within our soul, and it acquires “memory” independent of the nervous systems. The soul starts as a blank slate (tabula rasa). An analogy would be that it’s the long-term memory and our brains are short-term memory that are constantly dumping into the long-term memory.
3. The screen play (or computer code) of our life: God knows all, “in our mothers’ wombs,” and our soul is our story at various points in being told.
4. The mirror: a spiritual (e.g., not observable) reflection of everything we do in the material world.

I think given neuroscience’s establishment of identity and personality in the brain, the notion that when we die, we’re going to see and meet all the people we loved in our lives is not a given. Maybe in the “mirror” soul or “screen play” or “maturing soul” we could remember things of our life, but it seems to me that God is so far beyond anything humans can comprehend or perceive with our physical senses that I’m not sure we’ll ever answer what happens when we die.

Have you considered adding point 5?

1. In our own human nature, at conception, God Himself unites (present tense intended) both the spiritual world and the material world.

Post 1 refers to our human physical senses – “but it seems to me that God is so far beyond anything humans can comprehend or perceive with our physical senses that I’m not sure we’ll ever answer what happens when we die.”

Surely, it would be important to add that human nature is not only a physical decomposing anatomy. Why skip point 5.???

Points 1, 2, 3, and 4, are attempts to explain human experience solely from a human perspective. Why skip God’s perspective in point 5.???

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
No matter how detailed our correlation of conscious mental acts with brain structure and function may be, there is still an “explanatory gap” between brain activity observed from the outside and the content of consciousness as experienced from the inside.
How do objective, publically-observable neuronal events or the brain as a whole produce/become inner, first-person conscious mental experience(s)? In other words, how does what happens in the brain become what happens in your mind? No one is even close to figuring out how to cross that bridge scientifically.
…

It seems it starts with processing of words.
This is an interesting development in mind reading.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Have you considered adding point 5?

1. In our own human nature, at conception, God Himself unites (present tense intended) both the spiritual world and the material world.

Post 1 refers to our human physical senses – “but it seems to me that God is so far beyond anything humans can comprehend or perceive with our physical senses that I’m not sure we’ll ever answer what happens when we die.”

Surely, it would be important to add that human nature is not only a physical decomposing anatomy. Why skip point 5.???

Points 1, 2, 3, and 4, are attempts to explain human experience solely from a human perspective. Why skip God’s perspective in point 5.???

How about 6. Our soul is temporarily built out of real matter.
The neuroscience research and Occam’s razor make sense to me.

 

[grannymh]

How about 6. Our soul is temporarily built out of real matter.
The neuroscience research and Occam’s razor make sense to me.

How about some details for number 6?

What does temporarily built include? A surgeon, scientist, carpenter or who can build it, whatever it is? Where does “real matter” come from? From a human person?

Thank you.

 

[Jaaanosik]

How about some details for number 6?

What does temporarily built include? A surgeon, scientist, carpenter or who can build it, whatever it is? Where does “real matter” come from? From a human person?

Thank you.

A brain with a nervous system is a soul.

When a sperm and an ovum connect and develop into an embryo that’s when everything is set for a new human being.
What else is needed?

 

[grannymh]

A brain with a nervous system is a soul.

When a sperm and an ovum connect and develop into an embryo that’s when everything is set for a new human being.
What else is needed?

Thank you for your explanation.

Regarding this statement in post 69: “A brain with a nervous system is a soul.”

Now, people of any faith or no faith can choose from a variety of explanations for the spiritual principle in human nature. Of course, most people do not consider the human material brain itself to be non-material i.e. a “soul”; however, anything goes in our current world.

I did notice that my questions “Where does “real matter” come from? From a human person?” in post 68 were somewhat overlooked. Or in the context of post 69, where does a sperm and ovum biologically come from? From the biological anatomy of the mating man and woman? Non-Catholics would probably call that splitting hairs and they could be right or wrong depending on the depth of the conversation.
Some Catholics would consider the fact that the biological embryo cannot develop into a spiritual soul which does not decompose like the human biological anatomy.

When one considers the thought-filled context of *both *post 67 and 68, it is sincerely understandable that some, not all, people would prefer Occam’s razor. Parsimony is like a free card to get out of additional tough work. For example, consider all the elements involved with a spiritual soul such as the existence of God Who calls each person to share in His divine life through knowledge and love. People who are into Catholicism like to take into account this purpose of the spiritual soul.

A good source of Catholic information about the spiritual soul is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, starting with paragraph 355. Enjoy!

To answer Jaaanoik’s question —

From Jaaanosik post 69: “When a sperm and an ovum connect and develop into an embryo that’s when everything is set for a new human being.
What else is needed?”

Here is the primary answer to your question “What else is needed?” Many, maybe not all, Catholics would reply to your question with God is needed.

 

[buffalo]

A brain with a nervous system is a soul.

When a sperm and an ovum connect and develop into an embryo that’s when everything is set for a new human being.
What else is needed?

The animating principle. The brain and nervous system express the soul.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Thank you for your explanation.

Regarding this statement in post 69: “A brain with a nervous system is a soul.”

Now, people of any faith or no faith can choose from a variety of explanations for the spiritual principle in human nature. Of course, most people do not consider the human material brain itself to be non-material i.e. a “soul”; however, anything goes in our current world.

I did notice that my questions “Where does “real matter” come from? From a human person?” in post 68 were somewhat overlooked. Or in the context of post 69, where does a sperm and ovum biologically come from? From the biological anatomy of the mating man and woman? Non-Catholics would probably call that splitting hairs and they could be right or wrong depending on the depth of the conversation.
Some Catholics would consider the fact that the biological embryo cannot develop into a spiritual soul which does not decompose like the human biological anatomy.

When one considers the thought-filled context of both post 67 and 68, it is sincerely understandable that some, not all, people would prefer Occam’s razor. Parsimony is like a free card to get out of additional tough work. For example, consider all the elements involved with a spiritual soul such as the existence of God Who calls each person to share in His divine life through knowledge and love. People who are into Catholicism like to take into account this purpose of the spiritual soul.

A good source of Catholic information about the spiritual soul is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, starting with paragraph 355. Enjoy!

To answer Jaaanoik’s question —

From Jaaanosik post 69: “When a sperm and an ovum connect and develop into an embryo that’s when everything is set for a new human being.
What else is needed?”

Here is the primary answer to your question “What else is needed?” Many, maybe not all, Catholics would reply to your question with God is needed.

Re - CCC 355 and onward - We are created in the image of Jesus’s human nature. When God set the universe in the motion He knew what had to happen to every single particle in order for Jesus to look as he looked. All the human kind is a ‘prerequisite’ for Jesus to walk on the Earth.
There is only one Spirit. God is a Spirit.
A spirit in a metaphysical understanding refers to the consciousness or personality. Now we are discovering that the consciousness resides in our brain. Where is exactly the issue?

Yes, correct, God is needed.
Did you miss my post #55?

This is not so obvious. God keeps the universe moving, there would be no matter without God.
Remember: “For in Him we live and move and exist”.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The animating principle. The brain and nervous system express the soul.

How do we know that animating principle is correct? What and where is the spiritual soul?
What if the brain and nervous systems are ‘the animators’?
These are just definitions that can be adjusted and changed.

 

[grannymh]

A brain with a nervous system is a soul.

When a sperm and an ovum connect and develop into an embryo that’s when everything is set for a new human being.
What else is needed?

This is not Catholic teaching.

 

[grannymh]

Re - CCC 355 and onward - We are created in the image of Jesus’s human nature.

This is not Catholic teaching. “Human nature” is deceptive.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

**355 **“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

 

[buffalo]

How do we know that animating principle is correct? What and where is the spiritual soul?
What if the brain and nervous systems are ‘the animators’?
These are just definitions that can be adjusted and changed.

**II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE” **
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore *willed *by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

 

[WmJackP]

There is pretty good evidence that people’s personalities and memories are very much linked with their brain structures. Some ideas, any or all of which seem to be right or wrong depending on how I think about them. I’d welcome your thoughts.

I think the concept of “soul” is a dreviative of the “ghost in the machine” concept made so famous because of DeCartes. The real question, seems to me, is what is the “self”.

This is what I think the self is— it is the subjective experience of a physical organism in the present.Quite a mouth full, I know.

This subjective experience is only possible as a result of a the particular psysiology of a functioning brain… What medieval scholars used to say were aspects of the soul (will, intellect, memory etc) are actually only functions of the physiology I have described.

Consider that whatever we experiece, it is always in the present. It is always subjective and it is always singular (I cannot therefore share my subjective experience with you except only to tell you how I feel or what I sense). It is always in the present, because once experienced, it is gone and the most I can do is to experience a memory of the past experience.

Hence, we don’t make choices–we experience our choices. You perhaps will not like the conclusion that this leads to because it obviates free will. This is because, there is no person (soul) inside of us which makes the decision to steal or not steal a loaf of bread. Rather what there is is a functioning human body which behaves in its environment with its given physiology, and, by means of a state of consciousness then experiences feelings, emotions, thoughts, behavior and, of course, its “choices”.

 

[Jaaanosik]

This is not Catholic teaching.

I know it’s not exactly the teaching but what is a conception?

 

[Jaaanosik]

This is not Catholic teaching. “Human nature” is deceptive.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

**355 **“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

What is deceptive about human nature? What is deceptive about Jesus’s human nature.
He is the image.

 

[Jaaanosik]

**II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE” **
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore *willed *by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

I read that before and still I am asking the same questions.
Again, human spirit is understood more as a consciousness or personality.

Another possibility is a definition of ‘spiritual dimensions’ in order to distinguish between God and its creations.
God is outside of any dimensions. God’s creations are in dimensions. Material world has dimensions - spacetime. Spiritual world has some other spiritual dimensions. Is our soul created/born right away in this spiritual dimensions at our conception? Does it have to be?
Can we move to this spiritual dimensions after death? Why not?