Cognitive neuroscience and the soul

[grannymh]

This fact by itself enormously multiplies my admiration for God’s design.
I don’t have a problem to accept that my ‘spiritual soul’ is temporarily completely built out of real matter.
I still believe that God knows every single particle in the universe and its movement through the time from the begging till the end.
That’s how God knows every single process in my mind, every single thought, that’s how He knows my heart.
When the time comes He will transform/move my soul to different ‘spiritual’ dimensions. That’s unbelievably amazing.

While certain interpreters of scientific research like to pooh-pooh the existence of a spiritual soul, please be assured that your soul and mine is permanently ours from the moment of our conception because we are human beings. At least I know I am still human despite being older than dirt.

Seriously, it is God’s individual creation of our spiritual soul which causes our anatomy made of matter to become a living human person. Now, that is an awesome thought! It is because of our spiritual soul that we are created in the image of God. Therefore, from the beginning we are called to share in God’s divine life through knowledge and love on this earth and in eternity.

 

[Matt_Tiza]

I’m enjoying this thread very much.

I just finished, “The Political Mind” by George Lakoff, 2008, ISBN: 1400158095.

In it he summarizes years of neuroscience and infers an intrinsic political motive to the brain’s development and neuronal structure. The thing that I love about Lakoff is that his conclusions often support the opposite of his own liberal agenda. Whether he simply doesn’t realize this or if he just spins the data towards his own ends is left for the reader to decide.

Thomas Aquinas, as many of you have noted, resolved the questions posed in the thread nearly 800 years ago.

He stated that all things can be known through reason. God, as the Creator, created all things in His Creation (nature) according to logical and discernible processes, though many of these processes are still unknown to man in the present day.

The soul is no different. We must apply the biblical context of Jeremiah 1:4-5

And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Before I formed you in the bowels of your mother, I knew you: and before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you, and made you a prophet unto the nations.

to the neurological context in that all aspects of the body arise from the brain, including the mind from which we infer the soul.

As Lakoff summarizes in his abovementioned book, the brain develops incrementally over time from conception throughout life. Experiences form and reinforce circuits of neurons which make up aspects of the many parts of one’s personality, one’s beliefs and values, and one’s subconscious intuition which Lakoff argues makes up the bulk of our decision-making process.

So from moments after conception are brains are developing in utero. God knew us before then, and His Will guides our development and our purpose in space and time. At the same time our mind is developing from our nascent brains piece by piece, neuron by neuron, hence the Catholic argument for the existence of the soul at conception.

After birth the brain grows and develops with experience. We literally BUILD our brains, circuit by circuit, through life experiences. We reinforce them through repetition or practice/learning to the point where only extreme trauma or longstanding hardship can alter their structure. It is, after all, easier to move a mountain than to change one person’s mind.

Such is the nature of the soul, known to God even before conception, and developed through our Catholic practice and instruction from our parents, teachers, and the community.

Lakoff argues that the mind (soul) is inherently generous & cooperative. However we know from original sin & our fallen nature that the mind/soul is inherently selfish and impulsive. Through our Baptism and through our Faith, we develop our mind/soul towards God. Through our free will we at first submit to Him, desire to follow Him, and to please Him.

To go back to Aquinas, we know all things through reason. As Creator, God developed Creation through natural processes in His Infinite Wisdom and not through anything magical or metaphysical. We must trust in Him that all things in Creation can be known even if we are far from understanding the exact nature of them in our present lives.

The soul is physical, known to God before conception, and endures after death since the body is finite and can be discretely quantified. Therefore, resurrection follows the reassembly of the finite structure of the body via information stored both in the DNA and in the neuronal circuitry of the brain.

God created all things through logic which is why He is the absolute reality and the ultimate truth in the universe. There are no alternate explanations other than His Design.

If the soul was magical and/or metaphysical, this would defy the authority of the absolute truth inherent in His Creation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

While certain interpreters of scientific research like to pooh-pooh the existence of a spiritual soul,** please be assured that your soul and mine is permanently ours from the moment of our conception because we are human beings. **At least I know I am still human despite being older than dirt.

Seriously, it is God’s individual creation of our spiritual soul which causes our anatomy made of matter to become a living human person. Now, that is an awesome thought! It is because of our spiritual soul that we are created in the image of God. Therefore, from the beginning we are called to share in God’s divine life through knowledge and love on this earth and in eternity.

Are you sure about the bold part? God knew you even before you were conceived in your mother’s womb. The Creator is the owner.

Yes we are created in God’s image. We are created in the image of Jesus Christ. God knew before time was time how Jesus’s humanly body would look and therefore everything was a way, a preparation so He could walk the Earth.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
While certain interpreters of scientific research like to pooh-pooh the existence of a spiritual soul,* please be assured that your soul and mine is permanently ours from the moment of our conception because we are human beings***

Are you sure about the bold part? God knew you even before you were conceived in your mother’s womb.

Yes.

Our actual physical existence in the real material/physical world begins with our conception.

 

[grannymh]

I’m enjoying this thread very much.

The soul is physical, known to God before conception, and endures after death since the body is finite and can be discretely quantified. Therefore, resurrection follows the reassembly of the finite structure of the body via information stored both in the DNA and in the neuronal circuitry of the brain.

May I assume that the above from post 42 is the thought of Professor Lakoff, whose picture in Wikipedia reminds me of someone from my distant past?

When reading the professor’s book The Political Mind, did you have a sense of the philosophy of materialism or naturalism?

Actually, I have not caught up with these philosophies; however, I have the sense that their common denominator is avoidance of the spiritual world. My question regarding “materialism” arises from this sentence: “The soul is physical, known to God before conception, and endures after death since the body is finite and can be discretely quantified.” Yes, I see the word “God” but it sounds like this is a “god of the gap” rather than a valid understanding of God as Creator as taught by Catholicism.

Catholicism teaches that human nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. As we go deeper into this concept, we can say we have a spiritual rational soul from which we infer the mind. (different from the point regarding Jeremiah 1: 4-5) When one understands the Catholic concepts of both the material and spiritual world, there is no way to conclude in any manner that the spiritual rational soul is physical in the same sense of the material matter of our anatomy.

I was too busy probing my memory bank for Professor Lakoff’s double so I did not completely read the Wikipedia article. I did spot this sentence: “Therefore embodiment is a rejection not only of dualism vis-a-vis mind and matter, but also of claims that human reason can be basically understood without reference to the underlying ‘implementation details’.” This is an out-of-context sentence; however, it is the reference to dualism which reminds me of the important differences between Cartesian extreme dualism and the Catholic teaching of one human nature consisting of both spiritual and material principles. In man, there are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
(Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 362-366)

 

[Jaaanosik]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
While certain interpreters of scientific research like to pooh-pooh the existence of a spiritual soul,* please be assured that your soul and mine is permanently ours from the moment of our conception because we are human beings***

Yes.

Our actual physical existence in the real material/physical world begins with our conception.

Yes, it does. I just question the ownership and control.
Especially the control comes over the time and it’s still limited. There are many things that we can not influence.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, it does. I just question the ownership and control.
Especially the control comes over the time and it’s still limited. There are many things that we can not influence.

My apology. Ownership and control is new to me. Would you mind going over who owns what? and who controls what? And what exactly is the control which comes over time and is still limited? There a lots of things we cannot influence; nonetheless, how does that relate to a spiritual soul in humans? Thank you.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Regarding brain mapping efforts during awake brain surgery, I have, in hand, the research paper “Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans”, Michel Desmurget, et al, and supporting material. This research was published in Science, May 8, 2009. This was originally seen as “proof” that free will does not reside in a spiritual soul but instead is a function of the material brain. Long range, this paper could be seen as a refutation of the spiritual soul.

There are a number of serious flaws with concluding from the study that the existence of free will as a faculty of the soul is false.

(1) 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. The statement that this research disproves the existence of the faculty of free will in the soul is a philosophical conclusion based on a whole host of unspoken assumptions, which often include physicalism, materialism, and scientism. It is also based on neglect for all of the findigs of neuroscience and its limitations. See philosophical problems in my second post in the list above.

(2) It neglects the findings of studies in neuroplasticity.
The issue is not whether there is brain to mind causality, which is known, but the fact of mind to brain causality, which is known but ignored. See studies I cited.

(3) We hold that there is a unity between brain and mind and body and soul.
Again no surprise to find bi-directional causality re brain and mind.

(4) Neurological researchers cannot find a fully dedicated cortical area for any cognitive function after the pattern of say the visual cortex for the sense of sight. See Fuster on the subject in my posts.

 

[Jaaanosik]

My apology. Ownership and control is new to me. Would you mind going over who owns what? and who controls what? And what exactly is the control which comes over time and is still limited? There a lots of things we cannot influence; nonetheless, how does that relate to a spiritual soul in humans? Thank you.

There are questions of what and where is our soul. A soul is a God’s creation so who is an owner? Ownership is usually related to control. If we own our soul then how come we don’t know what it is and we can not control it?
We partly know and control our consciousness. Is consciousness our soul? If it’s not then is it connected to our soul? If connected then how and to what?
We do not directly control sub-consciousness we can only override its impulses and (name removed by moderator)uts. Then there are instincts and senses. So many things to consider…

Here are some more tough questions: what is and how does a soul of miscarried babies (1, 2, 3, … months) look?
What about a souls of deaf, blind people? If somebody was deaf and blind at the same time? Can you even imagine that scenario?

 

[grannymh]

There are a number of serious flaws with concluding from the study that the existence of free will as a faculty of the soul is false.

(1) 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. The statement that this research disproves the existence of the faculty of free will in the soul is a philosophical conclusion based on a whole host of unspoken assumptions, which often include physicalism, materialism, and scientism. It is also based on neglect for all of the findigs of neuroscience and its limitations. See philosophical problems in my second post in the list above.

(2) It neglects the findings of studies in neuroplasticity.
The issue is not whether there is brain to mind causality, which is known, but the fact of mind to brain causality, which is known but ignored. See studies I cited.

(3) We hold that there is a unity between brain and mind and body and soul.
Again no surprise to find bi-directional causality re brain and mind.

(4) Neurological researchers cannot find a fully dedicated cortical area for any cognitive function after the pattern of say the visual cortex for the sense of sight. See Fuster on the subject in my posts.

Thank you for these insights.

In my humble opinion, the basic flaws in the Michel Desmurget research paper (post 39) on brain mapping and volition are found in the methods and materials.

The method, similar to many neuroscience studies, involves an external stimulus to the brain. In other studies, the stimulus can range from various pictures or drawings to a task which involves pushing a button. In real life, a person does not always need an external stimulus to move the neurological system into action. In real life, it is the intellective rational faculty of the spiritual soul which accounts for thinking with the use of the physical brain. Because a test or experiment needs a stimulus to set a particular part of the brain into action or reaction, real life cannot be replicated.

In the Desmurget study, in addition to the verbatims, one should include the assumption of free will according to Cartesian dualism as part of the materials used. It is here where the excellent research per se fails to demonstrate true free will. The verbatims show a limited range of responses with “no response” excluded. The patient is under considerable stress. Again, real life cannot be replicated.

Once we grasp the difference between the real life use of our rational spiritual soul to produce creative thinking, etc., and a structured test with material limitations, we can be confident that we do have a spiritual soul individually created by God.

 

[grannymh]

There are questions of what and where is our soul. A soul is a God’s creation so who is an owner?

While God does create the spiritual soul, it is not an entity in itself. There are some people who describe souls as floating in heaven until the right anatomy is found. This opposes the Catholic teaching of the immediate “oneness” of human nature at conception.

Ownership is usually related to control. If we own our soul then how come we don’t know what it is and we can not control it?

“Owning” our soul also opposes the Catholic teaching of the single nature of a human person.

We partly know and control our consciousness. Is consciousness our soul? If it’s not then is it connected to our soul? If connected then how and to what?
We do not directly control sub-consciousness we can only override its impulses and (name removed by moderator)uts. Then there are instincts and senses. So many things to consider…

Our soul is spiritual. Consciousness is not interchangeable with a spiritual soul. Consciousness or sentience is also a part of animal or non-human nature as well as part of our own nature. This is about where my knowledge ends.

Here are some more tough questions: what is and how does a soul of miscarried babies (1, 2, 3, … months) look?

Our soul is spiritual which means that it is not part of the material/physical world. Therefore, it does not have the physical characteristics needed for a human being to “see” it.

What about a souls of deaf, blind people? If somebody was deaf and blind at the same time? Can you even imagine that scenario?

Our soul is spiritual. Its spiritual beauty of God’s presence does not depend on physical characteristics, for example being deaf and blind.

Our soul is spiritual because God created humanity in His image.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

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 materialism is true, or even dualism that says the soul is distinct from the brain/mind, but inherently a part of it, how would this affect Catholic doctrine. For the intercession fo saints seem incorrect if soul materialism is true.

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? 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.

 

[grannymh]

If materialism is true, or even dualism that says the soul is distinct from the brain/mind, but inherently a part of it, how would this affect Catholic doctrine.

I will have to answer in bits and pieces due to traveling.

I do not think that Descartes changed his philosophical thinking in the last 50 years.

So I will give you an interesting view of the effects of Cartesian dualism which I learned in a basic history of philosophy course. On day one, the professor said that the course will demonstrate that Communism is a direct result of Descartes’ principles. By analyzing the changes subsequent philosophers made, the line of descent was demonstrated. Obviously, Communism affected the practice of Catholic doctrines.

Talking with a live philosophy professor, I mentioned the Descartes to Communism concept. While we did not go into possibility details, when we looked at materialism per se as deriving from the separation of the spiritual world from the material world…

Catholic doctrines are based on the existence of a supernatural, transcendent, pure spirit without restrictions. Obviously, the end result of philosophies restricted to only the material/physical world would eventually eliminate the spiritual world of God and all Catholic doctrines following from the existence of God. Recall the announcement: God is dead!

 

[Jaaanosik]

While God does create the spiritual soul, it is not an entity in itself. There are some people who describe souls as floating in heaven until the right anatomy is found. This opposes the Catholic teaching of the immediate “oneness” of human nature at conception.

“Owning” our soul also opposes the Catholic teaching of the single nature of a human person.

Our soul is spiritual. Consciousness is not interchangeable with a spiritual soul. Consciousness or sentience is also a part of animal or non-human nature as well as part of our own nature. This is about where my knowledge ends.

Our soul is spiritual which means that it is not part of the material/physical world. Therefore, it does not have the physical characteristics needed for a human being to “see” it.

Our soul is spiritual. Its spiritual beauty of God’s presence does not depend on physical characteristics, for example being deaf and blind.

Our soul is spiritual because God created humanity in His image.

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.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Catholic doctrines are based on the existence of a supernatural, transcendent, pure spirit without restrictions.** Obviously, the end result of philosophies restricted to only the material/physical world would eventually eliminate the spiritual world of God and all Catholic doctrines following from the existence of God.** Recall the announcement: God is dead!

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”.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Briefly,
the human ability to truly reason has not been discovered as part of our physical brain. Neither has the traditional conscience been discovered as part of our physical brain.

People are judged by their actions; thoughts, and certain omissions, which at times can include mitigating circumstances.

The key element of human nature is that is designed to live in eternal love with God, the Creator of human nature per se.

 

[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 materialism is true, or even dualism that says the soul is distinct from the brain/mind, but inherently a part of it, how would this affect Catholic doctrine. For the intercession fo saints seem incorrect if soul materialism is true.

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? 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.

Briefly,
I am getting the sense that the definition for soul has been expanded, for example, she is the soul of charity, etc. Is soul now being used to describe the characteristics of a person, for example, she is a good soul? With the traditional definition of soul being changed to personhood, is that why people can take a material view of the real spiritual soul?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Briefly,
I am getting the sense that the definition for soul has been expanded, for example, she is the soul of charity, etc. Is soul now being used to describe the characteristics of a person, for example, she is a good soul? With the traditional definition of soul being changed to personhood, is that why people can take a material view of the real spiritual soul?

Well i suppose. I think a modern could understand the soul as being the animating life force, but i think they would find the idea of a soul existing after death void of personhood. But thats true, i suppose semantics is a large source of confusion and ambiguity, but it often is.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Briefly,
** the human ability to truly reason has not been discovered as part of our physical brain. **Neither has the traditional conscience been discovered as part of our physical brain.

People are judged by their actions; thoughts, and certain omissions, which at times can include mitigating circumstances.

The key element of human nature is that is designed to live in eternal love with God, the Creator of human nature per se.

Are you denying the neuroscience results? Are you saying that reasoning and thinking is not happening in the brain?

Well, from www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html:

By itself this would be no more than a plausible story, but Greene teamed up with the cognitive neuroscientist Jonathan Cohen and several Princeton colleagues to peer into people’s brains using functional M.R.I. They sought to find signs of a conflict between brain areas associated with emotion (the ones that recoil from harming someone) and areas dedicated to rational analysis (the ones that calculate lives lost and saved).

When people pondered the dilemmas that required killing someone with their bare hands, several networks in their brains lighted up. One, which included the medial (inward-facing) parts of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in emotions about other people. A second, the dorsolateral (upper and outer-facing) surface of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in ongoing mental computation (including nonmoral reasoning, like deciding whether to get somewhere by plane or train). And a third region, the anterior cingulate cortex (an evolutionarily ancient strip lying at the base of the inner surface of each cerebral hemisphere), registers a conflict between an urge coming from one part of the brain and an advisory coming from another.

But when the people were pondering a hands-off dilemma, like switching the trolley onto the spur with the single worker, the brain reacted differently: only the area involved in rational calculation stood out. Other studies have shown that neurological patients who have blunted emotions because of damage to the frontal lobes become utilitarians: they think it makes perfect sense to throw the fat man off the bridge. Together, the findings corroborate Greene’s theory that our nonutilitarian intuitions come from the victory of an emotional impulse over a cost-benefit analysis.

 

[grannymh]

Are you denying the neuroscience results? Are you saying that reasoning and thinking is not happening in the brain?

Well, from www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html:

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.