Cognitive neuroscience and the soul

[guanophore]

Science cannot even speak about the soul: it is beyond its empirical method. It can just empirically study objective (third-person) phenomena in terms of structure and function.

I can see that it may be difficult to conduct scientific experimentation on the soul, but since soul is a phenomenon of human existence, how does it not fall within the bounds of scientific inquiry?

Do you discount the research of Carl Jung, unquestionably the most prolific modern researcher of soul? Do you deny that he used the scientific method in his research?

 

[grannymh]

I can see that it may be difficult to conduct scientific experimentation on the soul, but since soul is a phenomenon of human existence, how does it not fall within the bounds of scientific inquiry?

Do you discount the research of Carl Jung, unquestionably the most prolific modern researcher of soul? Do you deny that he used the scientific method in his research?

The rational spiritual soul does not emerge from the physical/material blood and guts of a decomposing human anatomy. Therefore, it is outside the bounds of natural science. All individuals, of course, are free to offer theories of the soul…

In my humble opinion, because Catholicism believes in the existence of a personal God, its approach to the spiritual soul makes the most sense.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Using person in the original rather than the psychological sense, the person exists from the moment of conception. In a sense, the DNA conveys the “memories” of other mother and father and combines them. DNA carried a huge amount of information, and as the cell divide, and taken in new information, the DNA is also bound to change but always within bounds set by the original pattern. As the senses develop, more information is added to the total body as well as to the brain. It being the center and the processor of this incoming data, it is essential. It controls the expression of our growing personality, but it is certainly not the whole of it. The bran develops as the sense develop rather than create these sense. So even materially, the soul is more than an epiphenomenon of the brain. Its very structure and its powers are a productive of the creative force that shapes the whole body in conjunction with its environment. and what the body experiences. Now as to the spiritual aspect of the soul, we need to ask, what is the source of the
“geometry” that is there from the beginning. One of the great questions of our times are what is the nature of mathematics? How is it that the world perceived by our senses conforms so closely to our perceptions that we can formulate it? How is is that when we peer deeper and deeper into the microscopic works, and out into the macroscopic world we see something that is both intelligible to us and a mystery? Intelligible is that we can create formulae that allow us to predict events related to those worlds, but which seems as we peer deeper that things change and change and change? I am not saying that mathematics is the key to understanding but that if it is not a delusion, but a window into the spiritual, the other aspects of our lives that are not crudely, need to be taken into account. What is logic, for instance, so productive?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I can see that it may be difficult to conduct scientific experimentation on the soul, but since soul is a phenomenon of human existence, how does it not fall within the bounds of scientific inquiry?

Do you discount the research of Carl Jung, unquestionably the most prolific modern researcher of soul? Do you deny that he used the scientific method in his research?

My point is that God and the soul as such, being immaterial, are invisible to the method of the natural sciences as it evolved and is used in doing science today; and so the natural sciences cannot be called upon to justify or deny the existence of things that are outside of their method.

In the history of psychology there has been a long and ongoing debate concerning the proper method for psychology. The problem is that the method of the natural sciences evolved to gain empirical, mechanistic, atomistic, quantitative knowledge of physical objects–the empirical study of third-person objects in terms of structure and function. This is the method used in technical scientific research literature like Nature, Science, The Journal of Biochemistry, The Journal of Analytical Chemistry, The Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, etc.

On the other hand going back to Aristotle’s De Anima psychology studies inner first-person reality of consciousness (and the unconscious) in a largely phenomenological way. An attempt was made in the history of psychology by people such as Wundt and Skinner to make it a strict natural science, but that has been problematic precisely because the first-person subject matter is not entirely amenable to those methods as you note. The field is now eclectic drawing on the scientific findings of cognitive neuroscience, experimentation with psychological phenomena, and more humanistic methods as well. Certain knowledge can be gained by humanistic methods, but that is not properly natural scientific knowledge.

So once Jung admits into his study the existence of something immaterial and imperceptible, the soul, as a given that is unproven, he does then proceed in the manner of the natural sciences. But yet while the scientific method is used as the sole process in the natural sciences to justify the existence of something through what must always resolve into empirical observation (with experimentation, mathematical analysis, and modeling), no such justification can be given for the existence of the soul in the natural sciences and none is given in psychology. The soul, or at least psychological phenomena, is the starting point and simply assumed in psychology.

 

[Jaaanosik]

As **Jaaanosik **suggested, we are back at post 93.

**Here we find this concept which needs tweaking. “There is only one Spirit. God is the Spirit. God has no dimensions.” **

The word dimension refers to a measurement of spatial extent, especially width, height or length. At times, the dimensions of a physical object can include time or space. Determining an object’s dimensions can only take place when an object is recognizable physically or because of technology. So far so good.

When we describe God as a pure spirit, it is by definition that He does not have material dimensions because He is not a material physical being. Normally, one can describe this Being as transcendent, i.e., beyond our ordinary world. The American Heritage College Dictionary adds this statement about transcendent. It is “In Kant’s theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.” Without serious thinking, it is easy to accept this statement limited by the material world or by some form of the philosophy of materialism.

With some serious thinking, it can be reasoned that a pure spirit exists in a separate spiritual world which does not have the restrictions of physical measurements, i.e., dimensions. Catholicism teaches that God is a pure spirit; but, Catholicism does not stop with that teaching. Catholicism teaches that God created the material universe and its material inhabitants. (Genesis 1: 1) Genesis 1: 26-27 gives an unique description of a peerless creature whose nature is in the image of the spiritual Creator. That does not mean that the human person is the same as God–which is obvious because we have the physical dimensions of height, etc. and when we fall from an apple tree, we hit the ground. It means that our very being shares in a marvelous yet mysterious way in the nature of God and the spiritual world. We know that God is beyond the limits of our material world but contrary to Kant’s idea, God is knowable. Catholicism is specific when it teaches that we are not two natures (spiritual and physical) combined; rather it is the very union, itself, which forms the single nature which is human’s.

The reason we can know God in our limited manner is that God Himself created human nature as an unification of* both* the material world and the spiritual world. The human creature is not the same as its Creator; however, the human creature can be created with aspects of the spiritual world of God. Catholicism teaches that God calls each person to share in His divine life through knowledge and love.

It is our rational spiritual principle (soul) which gives our material brain its unique capabilities or functions.

Being individually created by God, there is no material reason for the spiritual soul to have material height and width. God being God the sole, unique Creator is not limited or restricted by His material creatures which do have height and width. This should be obvious since God is transcendent or supernatural.

Correct, this is a key to our discussion.

God is outside of any dimensions. God creates dimensions. This is a huge simplification but it should work for us.
It appears we can agree on spacetime dimensions - (x, y, z, t).
Some spiritual dimensions (s, p, i, r, …) must exist if we believe in a spiritual soul that is God’s creation and it’s immortal. If the spiritual soul would not have any dimensions then it would be the same as God. Do we believe in that?
Then there are going to be some dimensions in which our glorified body will exist. Are they the same as spiritual dimensions? Who knows? Are they the same as physical spacetime dimensions? It does not look like that, but again who knows?

Why do I say this? Just a glimpse:

The Thomists, on the contrary, hold that in God alone essence and existence are identical, that in all creatures there is a real distinction, because in creatures existence is participated, diversified, and multiplied, not by reason of itself but by reason of the essence which it actualizes. There is much controversy not only over the question itself, but also concerning the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas,** although there seems very little ground for denying that in the work “De Ente et Essentia” the Angelic Doctor holds a real distinction between essence and existence.**

From here.

This is a foundation of the catholic teaching and this is what I believe should be discussed:

the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;

though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;

From here.

This is a proposed framework for our discussion. Any comments?

 

[grannymh]

Correct, this is a key to our discussion.

God is outside of any dimensions. God creates dimensions. This is a huge simplification but it should work for us.
It appears we can agree on spacetime dimensions - (x, y, z, t).

snip

This is a proposed framework for our discussion. Any comments?

Yes, a few comments about what exactly is a “dimension”.

My understanding is that it refers to the measurement of a physical/material object which exists in our own material world.

We see a cardboard box. We measure the height of the box and it is 3 feet high. We put away our tape measure. But we need to know the width so we take out our tape measure and lay it along the width and it is 2 feet wide. We measure the depth in the same manner and find it is 5 feet deep. Therefore we say in our words that the dimensions are 3 feet by 2 feet by 5 feet. The dimensions do not exist separately from this particular box. If we want to keep the dimensions separate from the box, we write them down on a material piece of paper or we let our brain cells memorize them as being the dimensions of a particular box which is not 4 feet by 1 foot by 6 inches.

In other words, dimensions being a “measurement” do not exist by themselves in our material/physical world. We do not have a pocket full of dimensions. Is this understandable?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, a few comments about what exactly is a “dimension”.

My understanding is that it refers to the measurement of a physical/material object which exists in our own material world.

We see a cardboard box. We measure the height of the box and it is 3 feet high. We put away our tape measure. But we need to know the width so we take out our tape measure and lay it along the width and it is 2 feet wide. We measure the depth in the same manner and find it is 5 feet deep. Therefore we say in our words that the dimensions are 3 feet by 2 feet by 5 feet. The dimensions do not exist separately from this particular box. If we want to keep the dimensions separate from the box, we write them down on a material piece of paper or we let our brain cells memorize them as being the dimensions of a particular box which is not 4 feet by 1 foot by 6 inches.

In other words, dimensions being a “measurement” do not exist by themselves in our material/physical world. We do not have a pocket full of dimensions. Is this understandable?

There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.

 

[davidv]

There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.

What dimensions do we use to describe the existance of angels?

 

[grannymh]

There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.

This is where we differ.

As I look at a cardboard box which exists on my floor, I see a real object that has dimensions of height, width and depth which I can measure with an existing tape measure. The box, floor, tape measure, and my old anatomy exist in a material/physical world created by God. Yes, each material thing has its own existence; but it is the material physical object itself which has the dimensions of height, width, etc. We really cannot remove “existence” from a box in order to measure its dimensions.

God is not in the same category as the box, etc. God is spiritual, not material; therefore He does not have measurements describing His dimensions as 6 feet tall, etc.

Humans can share in God’s spiritual life. Here it is important that we note the difference between sharing and being the same as or equal to God.

Let’s take another look at your comments in post 106.
“There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.”

It is correct to say that dimensions of different boxes can distinguish one from another. When the dimensions of two boxes are the same, we can still distinguish between the two because as material, not spiritual, boxes they occupy their own material space on the floor.

The real difference between God and material objects which we measure is that God is not material. He is not limited by material dimensions such as height, etc., because no part of God is material. This is basically the same as your statement above. Therefore, we cannot use material dimensions to describe the existence of God.

Thus, I would amend your last sentence in post 106 to – We **can **use dimensions to describe **only **the existence of **material/physical objects in a material/physical world. **

Thus, I would amend and shorten your first sentence in post 106 to --There is no material/physical existence without dimensions. I would add --God’s existence is spiritual and as Creator, He can create a material being who is capable of sharing His spiritual life.

Once the differences between God the Creator and His creation can be generally understood, then, and only then, can the human being be described as an unique unification of *both *the material world (body) and the spiritual world (soul).

 

[inocente]

God is not in the same category as the box, etc. God is spiritual, not material; therefore He does not have measurements describing His dimensions as 6 feet tall, etc.

As the thread is about cognition, I’ll protest that God does have dimensions and they are infinite - He removes our transgressions as far as east is from west, His love is wider than the widest ocean, He is eternal, and so on.

Thus, I would amend and shorten your first sentence in post 106 to --There is no material/physical existence without dimensions.

Why not the taste of chocolate, the smell of a baby, a hug, a kiss?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Why not the taste of chocolate, the smell of a baby, a hug, a kiss?

Doesn’t that all require the senses of an organism? In other words aren’t those things contingent upon a material and physical world? Gas itself is part of the physical world. The physical world being essentially chemical.

Then again… maybe I don’t understand this term “dimensions” well enough, especially as it is used in philosophical locutions. So, carry on…

(Have I ever told you how much I hate philosophy? Great discipline and field, I respect it, I just hate doing it. I just spent ungodly number of hours typing up a two part paper essay exam for a philosophy course. I’m sure I’ll get D’s on the paper . I think this is the last Philo course I’ll take. I’m tired of twisting my brain around the incomprehensible.)

 

[inocente]

Doesn’t that all require the senses of an organism? In other words aren’t those things contingent upon a material and physical world? Gas itself is part of the physical world. The physical world being essentially chemical.

Hi. Yes, I’m just playing with what it means to exist. Suppose that from birth you couldn’t see or hear or sense in any way. Mercifully, your body would probably quickly give up, but suppose it didn’t. You’d have no way of knowing whether anything or anyone else exists, you might never even conceive that there are other people. So perhaps for a human being, existence is in what we experience, take away our senses and we cease to exist as such.

*Then again… maybe I don’t understand this term “dimensions” well enough, especially as it is used in philosophical locutions. So, carry on…
*

I don’t know about philosophy but in physics a dimension is a basic quantity, usually mass M, length L, time T and (in electrics) current. All other quantities can be derived from these, e.g. velocity is L/T, force is ML/T[sup]2[/sup], energy is ML[sup]2[/sup]/T[sup]2[/sup], etc.

(This doesn’t necessarily mean that mass, length and time are more fundamental than anything else, they’re just convenient to use as a base).

(Have I ever told you how much I hate philosophy? Great discipline and field, I respect it, I just hate doing it. I just spent ungodly number of hours typing up a two part paper essay exam for a philosophy course. I’m sure I’ll get D’s on the paper . I think this is the last Philo course I’ll take. I’m tired of twisting my brain around the incomprehensible.)

Then we are kindred spirits. Here’s everything you need to know about philosophy (it’s only a minute long):

youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

 

[Jaaanosik]

What dimensions do we use to describe the existance of angels?

Our universe - spacetime has dimensions (x, y, z, t) that are know to us. God’s creations in our universe have these dimensions.

Angels exist in a different ‘universe’ - different dimensions. Are these dimensions identical to those of our souls - spiritual dimensions? Maybe, who knows.

Is our glorified resurrected body going to exist in the same dimensions or different ones? Again, we don’t know.

Having said that we assume these dimensions exist otherwise there would not be any separation/borders between entities. We recognize many angels. Where would be a separation between two angels if they did not have dimensions? That’s why some kind of dimensions are a prerequisite for an existence of God’s creations.
This is a way how St. Thomas’s teaching

The Thomists, on the contrary, hold that in God alone essence and existence are identical, that in all creatures there is a real distinction, because in creatures existence is participated, diversified, and multiplied, not by reason of itself but by reason of the essence which it actualizes. There is much controversy not only over the question itself, but also concerning the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas, although there seems very little ground for denying that in the work “De Ente et Essentia” the Angelic Doctor holds a real distinction between essence and existence.

can be understood.

That’s the reason I say:
There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.

It does not make sense to me to change it only to be more specific fore better understanding:
…
We use dimensions to describe an existence of God’s creations.

 

[davidv]

Our universe - spacetime has dimensions (x, y, z, t) that are know to us. God’s creations in our universe have these dimensions.

Angels exist in a different ‘universe’ - different dimensions. Are these dimensions identical to those of our souls - spiritual dimensions? Maybe, who knows.

Is our glorified resurrected body going to exist in the same dimensions or different ones? Again, we don’t know.

Having said that we assume these dimensions exist otherwise there would not be any separation/borders between entities. We recognize many angels. Where would be a separation between two angels if they did not have dimensions? That’s why some kind of dimensions are a prerequisite for an existence of God’s creations.
This is a way how St. Thomas’s teaching

can be understood.

That’s the reason I say:
There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.

It does not make sense to me to change it only to be more specific fore better understanding:
…
We use dimensions to describe an existence of God’s creations.

I think you dodged my question. Angels are one or God’s creatures. Correct? If, as you say, we use dimensions to describe an existence of God’s creations, what dimension are used? Since angels are pure spirit and occupy no time nor space, I believe your assertion above only applies to the material world.

 

[Edward_G]

There is no existence without dimensions except God. Any God’s creation has to have some dimensions otherwise it would be identical with God.
We use dimensions to describe an existence.

I think God is both monistic and dualistic. Everything is from God’s substance–it has to be. But God creates a line between that which is created and that which is Himself. Of course, a line is a mental construct and has no width.

This is a paradox, but I think God is both monistic and dualistic at the same time.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I don’t know about philosophy but in physics a dimension is a basic quantity, usually mass M, length L, time T and (in electrics) current. All other quantities can be derived from these, e.g. velocity is L/T, force is ML/T[sup]2[/sup], energy is ML[sup]2[/sup]/T[sup]2[/sup], etc.

(This doesn’t necessarily mean that mass, length and time are more fundamental than anything else, they’re just convenient to use as a base).

Okay, well you see how much physics I know.

Then we are kindred spirits. Here’s everything you need to know about philosophy (it’s only a minute long):

youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

Pretty funny.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The key element of the human nature is capability to reason/think. Our conscience and reasoning are supposed to help us to discover the natural law and we will be judged by our conscience.
Now we are discovering that reasoning and conscience are part of our physical brain.
How does the spiritual soul control our physical brain and conscience? How does a spiritual soul come to a point that it’s going to suffer for something that is happening physically in our brain and it would not have a control over it? There must be something but what is it?

Think about it, a person is going to be judged by conscience and I am asking how would that person’s conscience look if he/she were not able to see/read and hear. Can somebody sin if that person can not see and hear?
We are formed by our senses and it’s clear that our soul as well.

Thank goodness we have good men before us. Read the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Questions 75-89. newadvent.org/summa/1.htm .Also, see Philosophical Psychology by Raymond Anabel S.J.

Science has not proven that reasoning, willing, memory, appetite, etc. reside in the brain. Some scientists make wild speculations that are absolutely unjustified. Of course there is interaction between the brain and the powers of the human soul. Man is a unit, his body depends on the soul and the soul depends on the body. But it is the soul that directs all of man’s activities, including all his vegetative, sentient activities, which coordinates all of man’s bodily functions for nutrition, growth, reproduction, physical integrety, and maintains life.

The powers of the soul are all the intellectual operations of man, will, memory, and appetite. But the full function of these powers depends on the body which is designed for the soul so that man can function as God intended

Persons deprived of one or more senses will have these mitigating circumstances taken into consideration when it comes to judging their moral culpability for various acts. It is hard to see how even persons so deprived would be incapable of sin altogether. The human mind can dream up all sort of sins which man commits just by thinking about them with full consent. But I am not a moral theologian and neither are you.

One of the sadist things today is that young people get exposed to all kinds of scientic hocus pocus without proper philosophical/theological training. If you are going to study science, you need a good grounding in philosophy and your faith.

 

[TimeEntrance]

One of the sadist things today is that young people get exposed to all kinds of scientic hocus pocus without proper philosophical/theological training. If you are going to study science, you need a good grounding in philosophy and your faith.

A lecture the other day my philosophy professor for intro philosophy of science gave… has significantly impacted me. I don’t want to exaggerate but lets call it a small revolution in the intellectual life of a man. Small moments like these only come once and a while for me.

Speaking about Thomas Kuhn my professor lectured on how science textbooks only briefly provide history and when they do they only provide the brief history of the heroes in science.

I don’t know why I never recognized this before. It immediately reminded me of the very first history book I read on the Catholic Church. A small 300 pages for 2,000 years of history - largely international - the book was what is termed “triumphalistic.” When I read that book I thought I knew everything - about Church history. Bit the more books I read - even one anti-Catholic history book written by Hans Kung - the more informed and the broader my perspective became. And science text books when they present very brief aspects of the history of science is “triumphalistic” I can now see.

Science it appears is arguably conservative and resists change. Usually the heroes of science presented in science books actually broke with the prevailing views of their time on some issue.

When you know this it makes you a little hesitant to think dogmatically true every prevailing view held in science today. You also may not be so quick to think every hypothesis put forward - those with great applause - is in fact true beyond any doubt.

 

[inocente]

When you know this it makes you a little hesitant to think dogmatically true every prevailing view held in science today. You also may not be so quick to think every hypothesis put forward - those with great applause - is in fact true beyond any doubt.

Science is not about dogma, it is never about believing something because someone famous said it or because others believe it, it is always about making up your own mind based on the evidence alone. That should have been your first science lesson, and if it wasn’t then your science teacher has failed you badly.

Science has not proven that reasoning, willing, memory, appetite, etc. reside in the brain.

Science teachers really should teach the obvious fact that science works by disproving bad theories, not by trying to prove theories as philosophy does. That simple difference is why medicines and computers come from science and philosophers can’t make anything.

So, science isn’t at all interested in proving that reasoning, willing, memory, appetite, etc. reside in the brain. The most obvious hypothesis was that they do, based on common sense, on what was known about the effects of brain injury, etc. If that assumption had been wrong then it would have been disproved and another hypothesis put forward. I write that in the past tense because there are now mountains of evidence that the common sense assumption was correct, and no evidence whatsoever that it was wrong.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I think you dodged my question. Angels are one or God’s creatures. Correct? If, as you say, we use dimensions to describe an existence of God’s creations, what dimension are used? Since angels are pure spirit and occupy no time nor space, I believe your assertion above only applies to the material world.

Well, if it seems so then it was not my intention. Let me explain.
If you go back to my post #104 I suggested a spiritual dimension (s, p, i, r, …). An entity in those dimensions would have 10 units of measure of s dimension, 20 units of measure of p dimension, … till all dimensions have some values. This is not important and I am positive the number of dimensions, their type and values are not correct.
What is important is that some kind of dimensions must exist so God’s creations have their ‘universes’ where they can exist.
Our spacetime is only one type of dimensions.
Angels have their own dimensions.
Souls have their own dimensions - maybe they are the same as angel’s.
Glorified resurrected bodies have their own. These are not the same as our spacetime and it seems they are different from the spiritual dimensions.

My point is that if we recognize different dimensions/‘universes’ then we can have a discussion how these dimensions relate and interact with each other.
This brings us back to soul - body relationship - one human nature.

The quote:

the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;

though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;

The bold part does not have to be accurate though.
I said earlier in the thread that I don’t have a problem to believe that our soul is physical (our brain and nervous system) and it moves to the spiritual dimensions only after our death. It even multiplies my admiration for God’s design.