J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Did you read the links provided in this thread? It’s not so simple as you say.
- Status
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
The Trinity makes sense to me and my understanding of the Holy Spirit and “for in Him we live and move and exist” makes me happy.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
His NY Times article was linked in the post #59. Very interesting reading.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Yes, I know. I was taught in biology that a hypothesis and theory must be falsifiable. Taking this intro science of philosophy course I’ve discovered biologist and biology departments acquired this term of “falsifiable” or “falsifiability” from philosopher Sir Karl Popper.
And I know that technically there are no dogmas in science. However, in practical terms it often seems to be the opposite if in fact you look at the history of science.
But I think people in the science are usually less prone to accepting every hypothesis that gains popular applause as something to be taken as dogma. The general lay population, however, seems to take these things as being dogmatic.
Also… what Kuhn was getting at was that science students are taught certain information and expected to not contradict that information when given exams. As an undergrad student of biology there is little I can contradict that I’ve been taught in biology if for no other reason than I must accept certain things on faith. I really don’t know the workings of a cell other than what my texts books describe.
Additionally, on a personal level, I’m behind in my science courses, especially in my prerequisites of chemistry and physics. So, I all the more am intellectually forced to subscribe to certain things as a matter of faith that what I’m being taught is true and accurate.
I
inocente
Guest
How long did it take us to find that cool concept - instead of proving by logic, disprove by observation.
Do you know Wolfgang Pauli’s withering condemnation “not even wrong”, meaning an idea that makes no prediction and isn’t open to falsification? The number of not even wrong ideas in the world is extraordinary, as a species our main attribute might well be that we’re not even wrong.
Understood, yes that’s a big problem when you’re up against deadlines. But every so often, if you have the time, it can be useful to pick just one thing at random out of the textbook and go off and confirm it by observation. It can stop you disconnecting from why you’re learning and avoid that syndrome where knowledge magically comes packaged in books. Or at least it does for me.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
xkcd.com/877/
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
That is exactly what I would tell the scientists. Many, not all, assume that because the brain and nervous system respond in given ways to certain stimulii that there is no soul. That is a gratuitous assumption or conclusion. Of course the brain and nervous system respond. The body was formed the way it was so the human person, animated and governed by the soul and its powers, could function. God designed the body to support and enable the powers of the soul to function. A group of influential scientists arbitrarily reject this subsidiarity relationship between the body and the soul.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Well, your approach could lead to an issue similar with the Geo-centrism.That is exactly what I would tell the scientists. Many, not all, assume that because the brain and nervous system respond in given ways to certain stimulii that there is no soul. That is a gratuitous assumption or conclusion. Of course the brain and nervous system respond. The body was formed the way it was so the human person, animated and governed by the soul and its powers, could function. God designed the body to support and enable the powers of the soul to function. A group of influential scientists arbitrarily reject this subsidiarity relationship between the body and the soul.
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.
I
inocente
Guest
Curse that dastardly group of influential scientists, we are powerless to resist their scientific influence.That is exactly what I would tell the scientists. Many, not all, assume that because the brain and nervous system respond in given ways to certain stimulii that there is no soul. That is a gratuitous assumption or conclusion. Of course the brain and nervous system respond. The body was formed the way it was so the human person, animated and governed by the soul and its powers, could function. God designed the body to support and enable the powers of the soul to function. A group of influential scientists arbitrarily reject this subsidiarity relationship between the body and the soul.
Rather than a conspiracy, it’s just the null hypothesis. It’s common sense to avoid unnecessary complications - if a need to add a soul to the model is ever found then it will get added.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Paragraphs 355-367. The word " incorporeal " is not employed. But " spiritual " is understood as " incorporeal. " In the same way God is " spirit " or " incorporeal. " This may also be understood from paras 355-357 where it speaks of man being created in God’s image ( intellect, will, spirit, incorporeal). In para 362 it contrasts man’s corporeal and spiritual nature.
In para 363 it speaks of man’s soul as his " life. " So man’s soul is in every part of his body. For that which is his " life " would have to be in every part of his body. Pars 365 it also speaks of the soul as the " form " of the body. In philosophy the " form " of a living being is that which animates and directs nutrition, growth, sense perception, thinking, moving, reproduction, system directing. So the soul is in every part of the body. But if we loose a member, we do not loose a part of the soul, it simply stops existing in the lost member.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
It seems you missed the post #72, I’ll just copy/paste it here:Paragraphs 355-367. The word " incorporeal " is not employed. But " spiritual " is understood as " incorporeal. " In the same way God is " spirit " or " incorporeal. " This may also be understood from paras 355-357 where it speaks of man being created in God’s image ( intellect, will, spirit, incorporeal). In para 362 it contrasts man’s corporeal and spiritual nature.
In para 363 it speaks of man’s soul as his " life. " So man’s soul is in every part of his body. For that which is his " life " would have to be in every part of his body. Pars 365 it also speaks of the soul as the " form " of the body. In philosophy the " form " of a living being is that which animates and directs nutrition, growth, sense perception, thinking, moving, reproduction, system directing. So the soul is in every part of the body. But if we loose a member, we do not loose a part of the soul, it simply stops existing in the lost member.
Re - CCC 355 and onward - We are created in the image of Jesus’s human nature. When God set the universe in the motion He knew what had to happen to every single particle in order for Jesus to look as he looked. All the human kind is a ‘prerequisite’ for Jesus to walk on the Earth.
There is only one Spirit. God is a Spirit.
A spirit in a metaphysical understanding refers to the consciousness or personality. Now we are discovering that the consciousness resides in our brain. Where is exactly the issue?
E
edwest2
Guest
Cognitive neuroscience has zero to say about the soul. Nothing.
God cannot be brought into a lab and there is no scientific evidence for a soul.
Peace,
Ed
God cannot be brought into a lab and there is no scientific evidence for a soul.
Peace,
Ed
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I don’t have any problem except when science says that there is no soul. However, when you say " consciousness " resides in the brain I would say no. Consciousness is a property of the soul which is the " form " of the body. And from faith if not from philosophy, we know that the soul, soul being the form of the body, is spirit. But a limited spirit. And as spirit it cannot really be divided. It has powers but these powers do not divide the spirit, we just know they are present. And the soul, as the form of the body, must be present in every part of the body.
So while " consciousness " is known in the brain, we cannot really say that it " resides " in the brain. As a power of the soul, it is actually in all parts of the body along with the soul’s other powers. It is just that that " awarness of self, and the awarness of the soul’s other powers is " known " as our powers through the instrumentality of the brain. Let’s just say the powers of the soul are manifested in the brain.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
You lost me here.I don’t have any problem except when science says that there is no soul. However, when you say " consciousness " resides in the brain I would say no. Consciousness is a property of the soul which is the " form " of the body. And from faith if not from philosophy, we know that the soul, soul being the form of the body, is spirit. But a limited spirit. And as spirit it cannot really be divided. It has powers but these powers do not divide the spirit, we just know they are present. And the soul, as the form of the body, must be present in every part of the body.
So while " consciousness " is known in the brain, we cannot really say that it " resides " in the brain. As a power of the soul, it is actually in all parts of the body along with the soul’s other powers. It is just that that " awarness of self, and the awarness of the soul’s other powers is " known " as our powers through the instrumentality of the brain. Let’s just say the powers of the soul are manifested in the brain.
Consciousness is a property of the soul and the soul is the body?
What is the “form” of body?
Is consciousness material then?
What are the soul’s other powers?
What is a relationship between the soul and the spirit?
Is it your opinion or you have some links?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
These are philosophical conclusions based primarily on St. Thomas’ theory of mind. Man evidences certain spiritual powers which include life, intellect, appitency (including sense perception), memory. " Consciousness " is merely an effect of these. These powers are non-material or spiritual.
And they are immanent, arising from man’s nature. As powers and being spiritual, they must have a source. This source is called the soul. The soul is the seat of mans rational powers by which man is called a rational animal. And since the soul is the source of all man’s immanent activities, it is called the substantial form of man. And since the soul’s powers require the body to operate, man is a single being, a human nature. The body in turn requires the soul to live and function.
Self reflection shows and science seems to support this, that it is the mind which is the center of self awareness or counsciousness of all these powers. But since the life which the soul or substantial form gives man, the soul is in every part of man, not just the brain. And since the soul is spiritual its powers are present in all of man’s body, not just the brain. It is simply that the brain is the organ which is the collecting and processing center of the soul’s activities. This is most evident in the senses of the body.
All parts of the body receive sense impressions from the world outside man’s body. These sense impressions are received through the bodies external organs ( eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, tongue for tasting, skin for touching, nose for smelling ). From the sense organs these impressions are transmitted through the nervous system to the brain, the central collecting and intepreting center of the body. And it is here that the brain says " I am aware of having these sense impressions. I think they mean thus and so. These sets of data tell me the world is so and so. I think and judge the world is so and so, etc. " That is it in a nut shell.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Good, so how do we know that the soul is incorporeal?These are philosophical conclusions based primarily on St. Thomas’ theory of mind. Man evidences certain spiritual powers which include life, intellect, appitency (including sense perception), memory. " Consciousness " is merely an effect of these. These powers are non-material or spiritual.
And they are immanent, arising from man’s nature. As powers and being spiritual, they must have a source. This source is called the soul. The soul is the seat of mans rational powers by which man is called a rational animal. And since the soul is the source of all man’s immanent activities, it is called the substantial form of man. And since the soul’s powers require the body to operate, man is a single being, a human nature. The body in turn requires the soul to live and function.
Self reflection shows and science seems to support this, that it is the mind which is the center of self awareness or counsciousness of all these powers. But since the life which the soul or substantial form gives man, the soul is in every part of man, not just the brain. And since the soul is spiritual its powers are present in all of man’s body, not just the brain. It is simply that the brain is the organ which is the collecting and processing center of the soul’s activities. This is most evident in the senses of the body.
All parts of the body receive sense impressions from the world outside man’s body. These sense impressions are received through the bodies external organs ( eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, tongue for tasting, skin for touching, nose for smelling ). From the sense organs these impressions are transmitted through the nervous system to the brain, the central collecting and intepreting center of the body. And it is here that the brain says " I am aware of having these sense impressions. I think they mean thus and so. These sets of data tell me the world is so and so. I think and judge the world is so and so, etc. " That is it in a nut shell.
I don’t see an issue with the soul being the brain with the nervous system till it departs the body after the death.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Let’s start with Church teaching that applies here.
Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
These are things all Catholics must accept by an assent of Faith. To be faithful Catholics we must accept these as Truths of the Faith. So the soul is a spiritual entity; that is, it is incorporal. Since it is spiritual ( non-corporal ) and since it is the Form of the body, it must be in every part of the body. For, as the form of the body it is the principle of life for the body and it also is the primary principle of its rational powers - intellect, appeteancy, will, memory. Clearly, all of man’s cognative/intellectual/memory/and most of his appeteancy activity takes place in the brain. This does not mean the soul resides in the brain, it means that the brain is the collecting and coordinating center for these activities.
All these activities are spiritual activities although they use the body as a indispencable tool or partner in these activities. The soul could not think or know or sense without the body and the body could not know or sense or think without the soul. And the body could not live without the soul but the soul can live without the body because it has been created as an immortal spirit.
W
WmJackP
Guest
So are those the only two alternatives you see for me? That I am simply playing to an deological streak or I am clinically mad? I certainly hope I am more nuanced in my judgments of others.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Don’t think I implied that. I said " irrational. " If what you say is true, there is no spiritual soul, then that means we are just a mass collection of organized cells. Self consciousness would become a mass deception, for how can a mass of cells be self conscious? In that case we are merely most complex machines but machines none the less. And no machine can be held responsible for " malfunctioning " from time to time. So how could certain acts performed by such a machine be deemed worthy of blame or punishment?
P.S.
The human soul is not a conclusion of Descartes. It was a revelation of the Almighty. So it was not due specifically to the philosophy of the Greeks nor of the Scholastics that the existence of the human soul is known. Although the philosophers did use the process of reasoning to demonstrate that it did exist and that it could be known to exist and not merely through the revelations of the Divine.
Descartes’ problem was that he was laboring under a mistaken understanding of the notion of causality as taught and understood by the Greeks and the Scholastics. A misconception derived from Hume.
K
Khalid
Guest
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas had perfectly acceptable - indeed, I believe the only true - understandings of causality. If you speak of the later scholastics like William Ockhamite, you are most certainly correct in stating that he was laboring under an extremely-erroneous notion of causality.
David Hume’s occasionalism can be traced straight back and through the occasionalism of William Ockhamite. Nominalism has a similar inglorious history.
David Hume’s occasionalism can be traced straight back and through the occasionalism of William Ockhamite. Nominalism has a similar inglorious history.
M
Matt_Tiza
Guest
(Part 1 of 2)
What does everyone think about the following argument? I hope that the ARGUMENT makes sense to you even if you disagree.
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?
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.
The idea of “dimensions” is like putting an idea you don’t understand into a box & saying it’s separate from the rest of nature, yet somehow related. I see the same idea with the ancient polytheists who deified natural phenomena because they didn’t understand them. So to the polytheists creating a “god” for a phenomenon was the same as us creating a “dimension” to describe a phenomenon that we don’t currently understand. It’s just putting an idea in a box.
As many have stated, there is no scientific evidence for the metaphysical or “spirit world.” God is the source of all good. He doesn’t create anything false, therefore we can trust what we observe in nature as true because it is part of His Creation. Hence we must hold suspect ideas we cannot prove through God’s Creation. 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).
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. 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.
Nerve conductivity & brain waves have been described for many years. We know that the dead are at “equilibrium” because there are no longer any electrochemical reactions occurring within the body to power it. I really wish John Ralston Saul, the guy who wrote “On Equilibrium” would have realized this. It probably sounds nice to think of your life in equilibrium, but, without any net reactions to push you forward, you simply cease to live when you are at equilibrium.
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.
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.
What does everyone think about the following argument? I hope that the ARGUMENT makes sense to you even if you disagree.
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?
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.
The idea of “dimensions” is like putting an idea you don’t understand into a box & saying it’s separate from the rest of nature, yet somehow related. I see the same idea with the ancient polytheists who deified natural phenomena because they didn’t understand them. So to the polytheists creating a “god” for a phenomenon was the same as us creating a “dimension” to describe a phenomenon that we don’t currently understand. It’s just putting an idea in a box.
As many have stated, there is no scientific evidence for the metaphysical or “spirit world.” God is the source of all good. He doesn’t create anything false, therefore we can trust what we observe in nature as true because it is part of His Creation. Hence we must hold suspect ideas we cannot prove through God’s Creation. 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).
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. 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.
Nerve conductivity & brain waves have been described for many years. We know that the dead are at “equilibrium” because there are no longer any electrochemical reactions occurring within the body to power it. I really wish John Ralston Saul, the guy who wrote “On Equilibrium” would have realized this. It probably sounds nice to think of your life in equilibrium, but, without any net reactions to push you forward, you simply cease to live when you are at equilibrium.
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.
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.
- Status