Cognitive neuroscience and the soul

[Matt_Tiza]

(Part 2 of 2)
So how do dimensions fit into all of this if life and death is just a transition from imperfect to perfect union with God?
God is here right now… past, present, future, and through all of space-time because He transcends His own Creation. Why do we put Him into a different dimension?
Can’t we be in perfect union with God without traveling to a mystical spiritual dimension?
As suggested elsewhere, the difference between humans (corporal beings) and angels (incorporeal beings) is the body. We have creature comforts and desires that prevent us from being in total union and in complete focus on God. So if we believe that we exist in this dimension with angels, demons, God, etc. then why do we feel that there has to be other dimensions to justify and to explain all of the things that we already accept right now?
To simplify it, all is logic, all is physical. The soul is physical because we can experience our own existence. The soul is observable even if, we can’t quantify and test it using our limited methodologies today. We know through logic that atoms, protons, electrons, etc are real even though we can’t take pictures of them. If we can describe it through logic, then it is real and it is good because it is from God’s creation (CCC 159). Lies are bad because there’s no proof for something false, hence not part of God’s Creation.
Remember how people were told not to eat pork in ancient times? It’s not because pigs are bad (God made them, and they’re cute and tasty!), but rather because you couldn’t possibly explain germ theory (e.g. trichinosis) to people who had no idea about medicine or biology. It was safer just to say, “Don’t eat the pigs.”
The same logic is true for spiritual matters. It would have been tough to explain cognitive neuroscience to people 2,000 years ago because of the limitations of scientific and medical knowledge at that time. It’s safer to use a simple concept, like the soul, to explain this phenomenon.
Remember how Jesus taught us in parables? He wanted everyone to be able understand the basic ideas about morality and His coming Kingdom. You don’t have to be a scientist, philosopher, or a scholar to find Salvation. God is good, and His infinite wisdom touches all of us, great or small. May His Praise be forever on your lips. J

 

[Norwich12]

Thank you Matt.
My training (approaching a half century ago) was in neurosurgery and orthopaedic surgery but always with an interest in electrical stimulation.
I like your thought pattern about the spirit is present in reality and physical features.

I think there are millions of instances of intersections of Time and Eternity.

The most important 3 are:

1. The Incarnation of the Son into Jesus
2. The Real Presence in Holy Communion
3. Every human conception which stamps the soul with the image of God.

If you like, I can compare the New Jerusalem (as described by John in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation) with the neuroanatomy of the brain.

Thank you

 

[Matt_Tiza]

Thank you Matt.
My training (approaching a half century ago) was in neurosurgery and orthopaedic surgery but always with an interest in electrical stimulation.
I like your thought pattern about the spirit is present in reality and physical features.

I think there are millions of instances of intersections of Time and Eternity.

The most important 3 are:

1. The Incarnation of the Son into Jesus
2. The Real Presence in Holy Communion
3. Every human conception which stamps the soul with the image of God.

If you like, I can compare the New Jerusalem (as described by John in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation) with the neuroanatomy of the brain.

Thank you

I would like that!

If you’re interested, I’m doing research on DNA software which would explain lots of things that we consider miraculous and would give a proposed mechanism by which many “spiritual” concepts could be explained. I do believe that God uses His infinite knowledge to use the laws of nature, that He created, to do His Will. I don’t see why any supernatural means are necessary to accomplish this.

I think that the advent of DNA software will elucidate many things, and I do believe that the Church will embrace many of these ideas revealed through this technology just as it has for evoutionary science.

We must remember that DNA is the ultimate information storage device, and that God has been using it for billions of years. It only makes sense to follow in His image to use it for our own information technology.

 

[Norwich12]

I am impressed Matt!

Is your DNA interest and software part of the Human Genome Project?

Are you developing targeted interventions for cancer?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, your approach could lead to an issue similar with the Geo-centrism.

What’s your opinion? Where and how the soul exists and is immersed to body?
Is it a ‘cloud’ around the body, or inside the body, or …?

Please, show me Church’s irreformable teaching that the soul is incorporeal.

A very perceptive question. The Church has no teaching on " where " the soul exists " in " the body. I believe that Thomas A. taught that the soul is in every part of the body but not in the sense that we think of a physical object occupying space. You could read Thomas on that point yourself. All I will say for certain for now is that the soul is the form of the body and together they comprise a single personality, a single Person, a single Human Being, a unite of body and soul. Together they form One Person. And that the soul is the immaterial, spiritual form of the body. All spirits, human soul, Angels, God are IMMATERIAL. A spirit is an immaterial being. That is part of the definition of a spirit.

I don’t know what " geo - centrisim " is. Sounds like a mathematical principle one would find in geometry. Sounds bad whatever it is. Anyway, neither God nor the Church teaches it.

CCC #s 363-367

" Man consists of two essential parts- a material body and a spiritual soul. G" ( De fide, 4th Laterean Council and Vatican Council 1)

" The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. " ( De fide, Council of Vienne )

" Every human being possesses an individual soul. " ( De fide, Fifth Laterean Council )

• Unfortunately the Catechism often does not highlight Dogmatic teachings clearly. I suppose because the Church Fathers wanted to get away from the question - answer format of former catechisms. I think they thought by making it more readible, like reading a book, more people would actually start reading it. I think this has worked largely. But it can lead to problems like we see here from time to time. However, everything in the Catechism must be believed by all Catholics. Even if it does not say " this is Catholic Dogma " we still have to believe all that it contains to be faithful Catholics. And there are besides many things we must believe to be faithful Catholics - all of Sacred Tradition, all the saving truths in Holy Scriptures. We must constantly be INFORMING ourselves.

 

[Norwich12]

In the *Summa Theologica *by St. Thomas Aquinas, in Question 75 Article 5 which discusses whether the human soul has matter and form, I copy/pasted from the New Advent Encyclopedia:

"I answer that, The soul has no matter. We may consider this question in two ways.

First, from the notion of a soul in general; for it belongs to the notion of a soul to be the form of a body. Now, either it is a form by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be matter, if by matter we understand something purely potential: for a form, as such, is an act; and that which is purely potentiality cannot be part of an act, since potentiality is repugnant to actuality as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the soul: and that matter, which it actualizes first, we call the “primary animate.”

Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the human soul inasmuch as it is intellectual. For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the condition of the recipient. Now a thing is known in as far as its form is in the knower. But the intellectual soul knows a thing in its nature absolutely: for instance, it knows a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal idea, is in the intellectual soul. Therefore the intellectual soul itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of matter and form. For if the intellectual soul were composed of matter and form, the forms of things would be received into it as individuals, and so it would only know the individual: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since matter is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the intellectual soul, and every intellectual substance which has knowledge of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of matter and form."

The highlights are mine.

As a surgeon, I certainly favor the association of the mind (not specifically the brain) and the soul as being united and surviving death.

A couple of comments back, I was answering Matt and offering to show that the symbolism of the New Jerusalem (in Chapters 22-23 of Revelation) matched some of the anatomy of the brainstem and the interior of the base of the skull. I will need to work on that comparison and present it later.

Thank you,

Ed C., MD

​

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the *Summa Theologica *by St. Thomas Aquinas, in Question 75 Article 5 which discusses whether the human soul has matter and form, I copy/pasted from the New Advent Encyclopedia:

"I answer that, The soul has no matter. We may consider this question in two ways.

First, from the notion of a soul in general; for it belongs to the notion of a soul to be the form of a body. Now, either it is a form by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be matter, if by matter we understand something purely potential: for a form, as such, is an act; and that which is purely potentiality cannot be part of an act, since potentiality is repugnant to actuality as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the soul: and that matter, which it actualizes first, we call the “primary animate.”

Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the human soul inasmuch as it is intellectual. For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the condition of the recipient. Now a thing is known in as far as its form is in the knower. But the intellectual soul knows a thing in its nature absolutely: for instance, it knows a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal idea, is in the intellectual soul. Therefore the intellectual soul itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of matter and form. For if the intellectual soul were composed of matter and form, the forms of things would be received into it as individuals, and so it would only know the individual: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since matter is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the intellectual soul, and every intellectual substance which has knowledge of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of matter and form."

The highlights are mine.

As a surgeon, I certainly favor the association of the mind (not specifically the brain) and the soul as being united and surviving death.

A couple of comments back, I was answering Matt and offering to show that the symbolism of the New Jerusalem (in Chapters 22-23 of Revelation) matched some of the anatomy of the brainstem and the interior of the base of the skull. I will need to work on that comparison and present it later.

Thank you,

Ed C., MD

​

Very good. Do you happen to know where Thomas demonstrates the existence of the soul of man? Can’t locate it.

 

[Norwich12]

I could not find a specific proof for the existence of the soul, but this comes close in the
*Summa Theologica *in Question 90, Article 3 about the creation of a soul.

I am again copy/pasting from New Advent:

" It is written (Genesis 2:7) that God Himself “breathed into the face of man the breath of life.”

I answer that, Some have held that angels, acting by the power of God, produce rational souls. But this is quite impossible, and is against faith. For it has been proved that the rational soul cannot be produced except by creation. Now, God alone can create; for the first agent alone can act without presupposing the existence of anything; while the second cause always presupposes something derived from the first cause, as above explained (75, 3): and every agent, that presupposes something to its act, acts by making a change therein. Therefore everything else acts by producing a change, whereas God alone acts by creation. Since, therefore, the rational soul cannot be produced by a change in matter, it cannot be produced, save immediately by God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I could not find a specific proof for the existence of the soul, but this comes close in the
*Summa Theologica *in Question 90, Article 3 about the creation of a soul.

I am again copy/pasting from New Advent:

" It is written (Genesis 2:7) that God Himself “breathed into the face of man the breath of life.”

I answer that, Some have held that angels, acting by the power of God, produce rational souls. But this is quite impossible, and is against faith. For it has been proved that the rational soul cannot be produced except by creation. Now, God alone can create; for the first agent alone can act without presupposing the existence of anything; while the second cause always presupposes something derived from the first cause, as above explained (75, 3): and every agent, that presupposes something to its act, acts by making a change therein. Therefore everything else acts by producing a change, whereas God alone acts by creation. Since, therefore, the rational soul cannot be produced by a change in matter, it cannot be produced, save immediately by God.

Don’t waste time on it. I’ll continue to look for it now and then. I think the answer is that he probably just accepted it based on the works of Plato, Aristotle, and the Arab philosophers who had " established " the existence of the soul - but for the Greeks it was a material form not spiritual. So I think Thomas just ran with soul and many of the arguments for its existence but interpreted them to agree with his own Theology.

The Philosophy of Human Psychology books I have identify " soul " as " life " or the " " entelechy"’ of Aristotle, and go from there to define its nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

---

I could not find a specific proof for the existence of the soul, but this comes close in the
*Summa Theologica *in Question 90, Article 3 about the creation of a soul.

I am again copy/pasting from New Advent:

" It is written (Genesis 2:7) that God Himself “breathed into the face of man the breath of life.”

I answer that, Some have held that angels, acting by the power of God, produce rational souls. But this is quite impossible, and is against faith. For it has been proved that the rational soul cannot be produced except by creation. Now, God alone can create; for the first agent alone can act without presupposing the existence of anything; while the second cause always presupposes something derived from the first cause, as above explained (75, 3): and every agent, that presupposes something to its act, acts by making a change therein. Therefore everything else acts by producing a change, whereas God alone acts by creation. Since, therefore, the rational soul cannot be produced by a change in matter, it cannot be produced, save immediately by God.

Found it, or at least one place where he tells us what it is and how we know what it is.

It is in De Anima: dhspriory.org/thomas/DeAnima.htm#11

Book 1, chap 1, lecture 1
§ 1. in studying any class of things, it is first of all necessary, as the Philosopher says in the De Animalibus *, to consider separately what is common to the class as a whole, and afterwards what is proper to particular members of the class. Such is Aristotle’s method in First Philosophy; for at the beginning of the Metaphysics he investigates the common properties of being as such, and only then does he go on to the particular kinds of being. The reason for this procedure is that it saves frequent repetition.

Now living beings taken all together form a certain class of being; hence in studying them the first thing to do is to consider what living things have in common, and afterwards what each has peculiar to itself.What they have in common is a** life-principle or soul**; in this they are all alike. In conveying knowledge, therefore, about living things one must first convey it about the soul as that which is common to them all. Thus when Aristotle sets out to treat of living things, he begins with the soul; after which, in subsequent books, he defines the properties of particular living beings.

*

 

[Matt_Tiza]

I am impressed Matt!

Is your DNA interest and software part of the Human Genome Project?

Are you developing targeted interventions for cancer?

Thanks,
Ed

I am impressed Matt!

Is your DNA interest and software part of the Human Genome Project?

Are you developing targeted interventions for cancer?

Thanks,
Ed

Thanks, Ed, but all of the praise and honor are for God.

We just copy His designs. We watched fish, and learned how to sail. We watched birds, and learned how to build airplanes. We listened to His Words and learned how to govern justly and how moral principles are essential for developing civilization.

We analyzed DNA and built computers independently. Now we can see that computer science and DNA science are really one field, informatics.

DNA is often abbreviated by it’s component bases. Remember the film, “GATTACA?” They titled the movie by using DNA base abbreviations G, A, T, & C. Of course, with RNA and modified nucleic acids, many, many more combinations are possible, and that’s just scratching the surface of the PRIMARY structure of DNA. Folding and other secondary and tertiaryinteractions could also store information.

Computer science is based on BINARY logic, 1’s and 0’s. So from the outset we can see that DNA (G, A, T, C) represents at least 4-fold information coding power. Again adding in RNA bases and modified bases would magnify the coding power exponentially.

DNA software is the imminent means of informatics in the future. We can only make transistors on silicon wafters so small before you just run out of room to go any smaller. We must abandon computer hardware completely in the future.

Our own DNA will do our computing for us. That’s about 100 trillion cells in our bodies doing simultaneous computations. We cannot even comprehend the processing power of our own bodies!

To answer your questions about the Human Genome Project and about cancer research… this is only the beginning.

As explained DNA bases can be summarized by abbreviations, A, T, C, G, etc. DNA software will be able to proofread those bases in the same way that the F7 key spellchecks your typing in Microsoft Word. This will preserve the DNA in whatever configuration that you choose, and thereby elimate all viral and genetic-based diseases, cancer, HIV/AIDS, etc. We have already discovered DNA proofreading enzymes in our bodies, but we do not have direct control over them yet.

Remember that we can preserve whatever DNA configuration that we want.

So what’s the difference between a person as a baby and as an adult?
We keep the same DNA throughout our lifetime, right? So why do we look differently over time as we age?

The DNA is modified and expressed differently as we age. By preserving a desired DNA configuration, we will no longer age and will be able to customize our bodies however we like. Custom height, weight, build, hair growth, structural morphology, and animated tattoos are only a few examples of such customization that is possible with DNA software.

DNA codes for proteins that perform the functions of the body, right?
So with DNA software we will be able to design proteins to break down and reassemble any material.
Imagine touching an object and absorbing its material into your body to use as nutrients or to fabricate whatever object you need at the time.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of DNA software will be the unbridled learning capacity of the human body once we are able to connect to the internet via WiFi to learn subconsciously. All that you would have to do is to think about something to learn all of the information that is available on that subject. We would literally learn as fast as our DNA could process the information. There would be no more need for schools as all of the classes would literally be online. We could learn languages, entire fields of study, and years of schooling while we sleep. The DNA software would coordinate all of the muscle memory, experiences, and memory needed to learn any skill or field of study. Think of all of the research and experiments that we could conduct with the amazing computing power of DNA software.

All of this technology is already in the future. As humans made in His Image (i.e. our intellect), we are following God’s designs, and DNA software is the inevitable consequence of our accumulated technology.

All that is left is for us to apply existing computer science and programming to DNA science. Writing DNA software will allow us to control our own bodily functions and to allow our DNA to run autonomous maintenance processes to preserve our bodies in the way that we want them. Think of all of those computer processes that are running unseen in the background on your computer right now. With DNA software we’ll be able to do something useful with them besides spyware.

Great inventions change the world.

DNA software will change the way that we exist.

 

[Norwich12]

Thanks Matt for the excellent long intricate answer! I am only a surgeon, you are way above my head…

But Jung must have been right about collective unconsciousness. Just a couple hours ago I was thinking about how everything is binary in terms of muscle twitches, and maybe theology.

I am interested in electronic enhancement of learning by way of electrical stimulation.
It can almost wake people from near brain death.

Please send me a message and I can send you my website about the National Geographic program that I did.

I believe that the human soul and the human mind (not confined to the brain)
Are one.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

(Part 1 of 2)
My premise is that all is logical, and nothing is magical (e.g. illogical or beyond the grasp of logic). Though we can’t quantify infinity, there’s a mathematical concept of it, right?

I would disagree. Based on your definition, it would seem to exclude spiritual realities, the human soul, angels, God. And we do have a definition of infinity. However we can only know its actual existence ( God ) by inference, by an a posteriori argument. If you allow that, then I agree. In other words I reject any logic that excludes the validity of conclusions based on a posteriori argument.

Indeed, a posteriori arguments would be a necessary corollary to at least one Defined Dogma of the Church. " God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.( De fide, Vatican Council 1, in Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, & CCC # 286).

With that said all things observable, such as people, things, thoughts, ideas, data, electrical signals, etc, are physical. God the Father created nature & everything in it. I’m not sure why we feel we have to partition nature between corporeal & spiritual worlds.

I’m not sure who says we " partition nature between corporeal & spiritual worlds." We divide created from non - created reality or between God and his creatures. I think it would be more proper to say the spiritual world is wherever God is. He can certainly be in this world without being part of nature. And the spiritual soul exists in this world. And wherever departed souls and Spirits are is a spiritual world.

As many have stated, there is no scientific evidence for the metaphysical or “spirit world.”

That is a red herring intended to debase the validity of all metaphysical argument. As I said above some Catholic Dogmas depend on the validity of metaphysical argument or even common sense conclusions based on a posteriori conclusions. The kind any farmer, for example, might observe from starring at the heavens and declaring, " God exists. "

Protestants struggle to accept evolution despite mountains of genetic, morphological, & chemical evidence. Remember, God never created anything false. We can easily observe & document the mechanism of evolution. Therefore the Church is correct to embrace evolution as scientific fact. Those of you who aren’t familiar with the Church’s position on evolution should reference the Catechism (CCC, 159, 283, 284).

You cannot conclude that " the Church is correct to embrace evolution as a scientific fact " from CCC, 159, 283, & 284. The Church, based on those paragraphs, has no position whatsoever on evolution. They are merely an acknowledgment of the value of scientific endeavors.

Warning. Evolution is a forbidden topic. It can get you banned, it can get the thread closed. So it is unfair to raise a topic that others fear answering for that reason.

Questions arose about how we quantify emotions, ideas, etc. Well, you’re reading this now so you can see that thoughts, ideas, & data are in fact well-described electronic phenomena. We don’t know everything about the brain yet, but we do know enough to know we are organic electronic organisms whereby all of our senses, our memory, and our mind are based on electronic signals in the brain. We know that data & ideas are nonperishable if they have a storage medium, hence the idea of the soul existing after the physical body’s decay.

The " idea " of the soul " and its existence after death preceeded today’s science by at least 2,000 years. So the conclusion that the idea of the soul arose with modern science is not true. But more important, it is data from Divine Revelation and is Defined Catholic Dogma. The soul, while it is true that it depends for the functioning of its intellectual and reasoning powers upon data furnished by the senses, performs these functions under the mode of its proper and exclusive operations ( intellective and volitional).

Futher, without the soul, the brain does not function at all. Period. The body is DEAD.

Remember too that we believe in the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, therefore, if we reassemble our bodies as they are now, our soul, memories, etc. will remain intact. Just like your hard drive on your computer, our brains are finite and discrete. You can describe them at their most basic level, disassemble them, and reassemble them to the same configuration. This is just logic. Medical science just hasn’t caught up yet.

Not sure what you mean here. We aren’t going to reassemble anything, God will do that. And one assumes that the " data " of our lives some how survives in the separated soul and will be fully " revived " once God rejoins the soul with its proper body. I think we are proper in calling this a miracle, so only God has the answer to this riddle.

[QUORTE]So really our discussion on the soul involves the persistence of the mind, thoughts, etc. from life into the afterlife. This is where people have created the idea of “dimensions” to explain this transition from life into afterlife. Therefore we should define “life” and “afterlife” theologically.

I think the Church has made this question clear enough. It does define life and afterlife but according to Revelation, no science. And perhaps with an assist from philosophy.

Life = imperfect union with God through Faith due to the body’s desires and limitations. Afterlife = the “Beatific Vision” or rather the perfect union with God that no longer relies on Faith.

Contrary to faith on all accounts ! Where did you get this stuff ?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

(Part 2 of 2)
So how do dimensions fit into all of this if life and death is just a transition from imperfect to perfect union with God?

Whatever you mean, it is your interpretation only.

Yes He is and yes He does. We have to have some way to say He is in the " universe " of eternity and we are in the universe of created, limited, contingent beings. Eternity is wherever God is. He carries it around with Himself, so to speak, but we may not enter, even though he encompasses our being and all our world.

Can’t we be in perfect union with God without traveling to a mystical spiritual dimension?

Perfect union with God cannot be obtained in this life. So the answer is no.

As suggested elsewhere, the difference between humans (corporal beings) and angels (incorporeal beings) is the body.

Human being = a Person composed of a material body and a spiritual soul ( corporeal and spiritual) Defined Catholic Dogma, CCC #s 355-368.

We have creature comforts and desires that prevent us from being in total union and in complete focus on God. So if we believe that we exist in this dimension with angels, demons, God, etc. then why do we feel that there has to be other dimensions to justify and to explain all of the things that we already accept right now?

Don’t think of it as " dimensions," think of it as the eternal and the created.

To simplify it, all is logic, all is physical. The soul is physical because we can experience our own existence.

Contrary to Defined Catholic Dogma based on Divine Revelation. The soul is not physical, it is spiritual, non-material. Yes, we expience our own existence because we have a body which we can detect and a rational soul that thinks, understands, and judges whether or not what we conceive and understand through the body from the external world is true or not.

I would suggest you read the Catechism on Man. Also read St. Thomas’ commentary of Aristotle’s De Anima ( dhspriory.org/thomas/DeAnima.htm#11

), also the Summa Theologicae, Part 1, Ques. 75-102

The soul is observable even if, we can’t quantify and test it using our limited methodologies today. We know through logic that atoms, protons, electrons, etc are real even though we can’t take pictures of them. If we can describe it through logic, then it is real and it is good because it is from God’s creation (CCC 159).

It is not " observable. " We can know its existence only by Divine Revelation and by its actions. The nature of a thing can be known by its actions. See the references above or perhaps a text like The Philosophy of Human Nature by George P Klubertanz S.J., Man’s Knowledge of Reality by Frederick D. Wilhelmsen and Philosophical Psychology by Raymond J Anabel S.J. ( first the former, then the latter ), or A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Vol 1, Psychology, Parts 1,2,3. The last book is available for online viewing at archive.org and I think one other place.

Naturally the soul uses the body, that does not mean the soul is physical. Science is not measuring thinking, nor understanding, nor judgments. It is measuring or detecting the intellect making known to the body how to react to these non-material realities so the body can function by obeying commands or communicating to the outside world. It is also detecting the collection of data from the senses.

Lies are bad because there’s no proof for something false, hence not part of God’s Creation.

God does not lie. Neither does the Church.

The same logic is true for spiritual matters. It would have been tough to explain cognitive neuroscience to people 2,000 years ago because of the limitations of scientific and medical knowledge at that time. It’s safer to use a simple concept, like the soul, to explain this phenomenon.

So God and the Church just made it all up. You are very confused. You hold many things contrary to Catholic teaching. I think you are over sensitive to some of the militant materialists of our day and of the past. Perhaps you spend your working day with them and are trying to fit in. Don’t try it, you will loose your faith and you seem to have lost your way already. No faithful Catholic can hold the things you hold on the matters in your two posts above.

Remember how Jesus taught us in parables? He wanted everyone to be able understand the basic ideas about morality and His coming Kingdom. You don’t have to be a scientist, philosopher, or a scholar to find Salvation.

That is true but you can’t twist Divine Revelation or Catholic truth around so it makes you feel comfortable among non-believing associates and friends. :thumbsup

[/QUOTE]

 

[Matt_Tiza]

(Part 2 of 2)
So God and the Church just made it all up. You are very confused. You hold many things contrary to Catholic teaching. I think you are over sensitive to some of the militant materialists of our day and of the past. Perhaps you spend your working day with them and are trying to fit in. Don’t try it, you will loose your faith and you seem to have lost your way already. No faithful Catholic can hold the things you hold on the matters in your two posts above.
That is true but you can’t twist Divine Revelation or Catholic truth around so it makes you feel comfortable among non-believing associates and friends. :thumbsup

I’m not sure what your argument is other than to test the weight of my arguments with doubt.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply don’t see my point of view. I’ve never heard my ideas expressed before so I am not conforming to or copying anyone else’s standards (i.e. nonbelievers). You should also know that the VAST majority of every scientist that I have ever known is a conservative Christian or, to a much lesser extent, Muslim. Those who assume that most scientists are atheists have been mislead by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins.

I realize that my “outside of the box” thinking is often revolutionary and not well-received in all subject matters, but I do put a lot of thought into the logic of my arguments.

Before we say that anything is “Contrary to Catholic teaching,” we must first understand that Catholic teaching is continually evolving and adapting (NOT CHANGING, but adapting) to address modern scientific and social concerns. With that said we don’t know everything yet.

In the same way that dinosaur bones and DNA strands changed the way that we look at theology, each age and each social issue forces us to review our own theological explanations.

The bottom line is that WE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE MIND AND THE SOUL COMPLETELY. There is still a lot of theologic and academic research ongoing into the elucidation of the mind, the soul, and their relationship to the body.

The Church doesn’t have all of the scientific answers on the soul because the Church is not a scientific body, but rather a moral and spiritual body that is directed towards improving morality and the relationship of the faithful with God.

The Church will continue to reevaluate it’s explanations of the mind, body, and soul over time in light of all available information. Again the Church WILL NOT CHANGE it’s positions on these things but it will flesh out its explanations on them using all available information. More facts, less speculation is all.

In the same way that I don’t understand philisophical lingo, I don’t blame those who don’t understand scientific lingo. We may be saying the same things with different words if you follow me.

So let’s put this in a different way. We can all observe the soul everyday. It’s our personality, our mind, and our thought processes. We know for a fact that the soul exists. The debate is not over the soul (which some simply refer to as “the mind”), but rather over the perseverance of the soul after death.

Current scientific understanding tells us that all energy dissipates into the environment unless we contain it in a storage medium, and that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

We know from theology that the soul is not destroyed after death, but continues on.

So what becomes of our personality, our mind, our thoughts, etc. after death if this energy is not destroyed? Can it continue on in another form (e.g. conservation of energy)?

Theology tells us that the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD allows this to be so. Christ is neither liar nor magician so we know that God’s laws of nature allow this resurrection to occur.

Therefore we must acknowledge that it is possible to reassemble both body and soul after death. We have just yet to understand the mechanism.

Again we’re not required to understand everything in the world, but rather just to believe in Jesus Christ. As beings created in God’s image (e.g. the intellect) we are compelled to seek Him out both in our prayer lives and, for many, in our intellectual and scientific endeavors.

Remember that before the so-called “Enlightenment” that science was called Natural Philosophy, and we studied it for “the greater understanding of the Glory of God.” For many of us scientists, this has not changed. We still seek to find God’s designs in His Creation, Nature.

Those who deny God and claim to separate science and Faith are only fooling themselves. No one has yet to prove any other alternate explanation for the Creation of the Universe besides God. As Aquinas described it, there will always be the question of what came before, and what came before that. The only valid explanation is God who called Himself, “I AM.”

As scientists we believe this on the validity of the arguments made as well as on our Faith in Jesus Christ that He is the Word of God made Flesh. You could also view this as the physical embodiment of science and Faith united as one. Christ is both God and Man.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;10285046:

I’m not sure what your argument is other than to test the weight of my arguments with doubt.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply don’t see my point of view. I’ve never heard my ideas expressed before so I am not conforming to or copying anyone else’s standards (i.e. nonbelievers). You should also know that the VAST majority of every scientist that I have ever known is a conservative Christian or, to a much lesser extent, Muslim. Those who assume that most scientists are atheists have been mislead by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins.

I realize that my “outside of the box” thinking is often revolutionary and not well-received in all subject matters, but I do put a lot of thought into the logic of my arguments.

Before we say that anything is “Contrary to Catholic teaching,” we must first understand that Catholic teaching is continually evolving and adapting (NOT CHANGING, but adapting) to address modern scientific and social concerns. With that said we don’t know everything yet.

In the same way that dinosaur bones and DNA strands changed the way that we look at theology, each age and each social issue forces us to review our own theological explanations.

The bottom line is that WE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE MIND AND THE SOUL COMPLETELY. There is still a lot of theologic and academic research ongoing into the elucidation of the mind, the soul, and their relationship to the body.

The Church doesn’t have all of the scientific answers on the soul because the Church is not a scientific body, but rather a moral and spiritual body that is directed towards improving morality and the relationship of the faithful with God.

The Church will continue to reevaluate it’s explanations of the mind, body, and soul over time in light of all available information. Again the Church WILL NOT CHANGE it’s positions on these things but it will flesh out its explanations on them using all available information. More facts, less speculation is all.

In the same way that I don’t understand philisophical lingo, I don’t blame those who don’t understand scientific lingo. We may be saying the same things with different words if you follow me.

So let’s put this in a different way. We can all observe the soul everyday. It’s our personality, our mind, and our thought processes. We know for a fact that the soul exists. The debate is not over the soul (which some simply refer to as “the mind”), but rather over the perseverance of the soul after death.

Current scientific understanding tells us that all energy dissipates into the environment unless we contain it in a storage medium, and that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

We know from theology that the soul is not destroyed after death, but continues on.

So what becomes of our personality, our mind, our thoughts, etc. after death if this energy is not destroyed? Can it continue on in another form (e.g. conservation of energy)?

Theology tells us that the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD allows this to be so. Christ is neither liar nor magician so we know that God’s laws of nature allow this resurrection to occur.

Therefore we must acknowledge that it is possible to reassemble both body and soul after death. We have just yet to understand the mechanism.

Again we’re not required to understand everything in the world, but rather just to believe in Jesus Christ. As beings created in God’s image (e.g. the intellect) we are compelled to seek Him out both in our prayer lives and, for many, in our intellectual and scientific endeavors.

Remember that before the so-called “Enlightenment” that science was called Natural Philosophy, and we studied it for “the greater understanding of the Glory of God.” For many of us scientists, this has not changed. We still seek to find God’s designs in His Creation, Nature.

Those who deny God and claim to separate science and Faith are only fooling themselves. No one has yet to prove any other alternate explanation for the Creation of the Universe besides God. As Aquinas described it, there will always be the question of what came before, and what came before that. The only valid explanation is God who called Himself, “I AM.”

As scientists we believe this on the validity of the arguments made as well as on our Faith in Jesus Christ that He is the Word of God made Flesh. You could also view this as the physical embodiment of science and Faith united as one. Christ is both God and Man.

I don’t question you good will for a moment. But there are some things beyond the scope of science. We will never understand how God does some things, at least in this life. Linus2nd

 

[levinas12]

---

Now living beings taken all together form a certain class of being; hence in studying them the first thing to do is to consider what living things have in common, and afterwards what each has peculiar to itself.What they have in common is a** life-principle or soul**; in this they are all alike. In conveying knowledge, therefore, about living things one must first convey it about the soul as that which is common to them all. Thus when Aristotle sets out to treat of living things, he begins with the soul; after which, in subsequent books, he defines the properties of particular living beings.

“Soul” is used by Aristotle to explain why the disparate parts of the living body “operate” for the sake of the “whole” of the body. The “soul” explains this organic unity - this “for itself” character of life.

As such, the “soul” for Aristotle is the “same” in every human being.

It’s important to distinguish “person” from “soul”.

Each “person” is radically different (but not because of the “matter”). Contrast “person” with “rock”. The individuality of each “rock” is due to the “matter”. But this is not true of the “individuality” of the “person”. The individuality of the “person” goes much deeper than just matter; in fact, it is an excellence that is “deeper” than “form” (see Spaemann).

That’s why God Himself has to directly and specially create the person “out of nothing” (echo of the beginning of Genesis).

This creation is “out of nothing” because it is over and above the material specificity of the DNA.

However, it is not unreasonable to say that the DNA “reflects” the singularity of the “person”. As in a painting - the pigment “reflects” the portrait – but the portrait is not itself simply the pigment. The portrait is an event of disclosure of a person which is “fleshed out” by the pigment.

 

[levinas12]

As such, the “soul” for Aristotle is the “same” in every human being.

That is, for Aristotle, the “human soul” is the same in every human being.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Soul” is used by Aristotle to explain why the disparate parts of the living body “operate” for the sake of the “whole” of the body. The “soul” explains this organic unity - this “for itself” character of life.

As such, the “soul” for Aristotle is the “same” in every human being.

It’s important to distinguish “person” from “soul”.

Each “person” is radically different (but not because of the “matter”). Contrast “person” with “rock”. The individuality of each “rock” is due to the “matter”. But this is not true of the “individuality” of the “person”. The individuality of the “person” goes much deeper than just matter; in fact, it is an excellence that is “deeper” than “form” (see Spaemann).

That’s why God Himself has to directly and specially create the person “out of nothing” (echo of the beginning of Genesis).

This creation is “out of nothing” because it is over and above the material specificity of the DNA.

However, it is not unreasonable to say that the DNA “reflects” the singularity of the “person”. As in a painting - the pigment “reflects” the portrait – but the portrait is not itself simply the pigment. The portrait is an event of disclosure of a person which is “fleshed out” by the pigment.

When Spaemann says that God creates the " Person " out of nothing, that is not Catholic teaching. God creates only the human " soul " out of nothing and implants it in the human " egg " at conception. It is this union of Body and Soul that is the Person. Linus2nd

 

[Norwich12]

Hello Linusthe2nd,

I haven’t posted on this neurocognitive/soul thread for two months. I reviewed our good exchanges from late January about body/brain and mind/soul.

Recently I have been reading the very detailed work by St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio “The Journey of the Mind into God.” I know you are an expert on the works of St. Thomas Aquinus. This the first I have read about the ideas of St. Bonaventure, probably the 2nd most important Scholastic in the 13th Century.

In the 3rd chapter of “Journey” which is entitled “On the sight of God through His image marked upon the natural powers” there is an interesting paragraph which I will quote in part:

" However, nothing is superior to the human mind, except the One alone who made it…"

So are the mind (not the brain) and the soul (spiritual) united?