Does neuroscience obviate the concept of soul?

[PastorBonus]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

 

[davidv]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

Everything we know about the brain from a scientific perspective is material. How can this knowledge be used to dismiss the immaterial (spirit, soul)? From this it seems to me that no matter how much we learn of the material nature over the brain, none of this knowledge can be used to dismiss the immaterial.

 

[Polycarp1]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

Read Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners for an in depth expanation of, soul, spirit and brain at books.google.ca/books?id=Du8T-iKfou0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Frank+Sheed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yXsxUbvADYXm2AW08YDIBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA

 

[Larry1700]

I recommend a book entitled Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife .

 

[mikeeh]

I saw a documentary that showed that when people think about God the entire brain “lights up.” As if ever part of the brain is connected to God, not just one part.

 

[Orangebookbag]

No, it doesn’t. It confirms Aristotle’s hylomorphic theory.

evolutionnews.org/2009/01/daniel_dennett_call_your_offic015121.html

 

[Aloysium]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

consciousness and unconsciousness are of the mind

the brain has to do with neurons, axons and dendrites, neurotransmitters and receptors, numerous intracellular processes, action potential, tracts in the brain etc; it is a good idea to get the fields of study straight.

then there is the spirit, which has its own “structure”.

You may learn something of the mind in neuroscience, probably reductionistic - no Jung, no psychodynamics for sure. As concerns the soul, this may be like blaspheming for science: ain’t going to happen.

if you want to have a way of conceptualizing human beings as flesh and soul you may wish to consider:

attributes of the spiritual soul include being, wholeness, reason, memory, animation and will
also: we are made to interact with our environment - physical and spiritual and hence we are always involved in relationships

being: - you exist, right? me too; experience is

wholeness:

• we exist as a unity in relation to God and creation; i feel my pain, you feel yours - forget the idea of nerve tracts for a minute; in your wholeness, you feel pain, see the screen, type words on keyboards - you are experiencing all this because you have a soul which is an indivisible unity. We do not exist intermingled in a universal chemical soup - we are individual persons.
• there is a wholeness that exists in the relationship that you have with the rest of creation. In your perception of the screen in front of you, you are one with it; it’s being and your being are in communion, they form a whole as part of this experience of the moment.

reason:

• Being created in the image of God who is the living Truth, we are able to understand a world thoroughly known by Him. You understand these words - this is possible because of your Wernicke’s Area and because you have Mind so you can actually experience a meaning. Meaning reaches down to the core of who we are.

memory:

• i zip around in my mind to scenes from various times in my life, because my soul has self-knowledge which extends to the past. The memories/feelings/sensations/images are encoded in the brain as specific neural patterns which one’s soul would trigger during such reveries.

animation - the soul moves the body, the mind of which it is an indivisible unity; brain-mind are similarly united.

will:

• we chose
• you need a frontal cortex in order to make such considerations and execute them

you cannot see, measure soul - when you examine ppl scientifically, all of this seems to happen on its own. It’s not, but this is irrelevant to modern science.

the body, the brain are prone to corruption; since the body and the spirit are one, damage to the body affects the abilities of the person.
so with Alzheimer’s, we are so identified with the body, that in spite of memory being of the spirit, we cannot remember; the neural processes that underlie memory are broken, there is nothing our spirit can access to be able to remember
similarly with strokes that deprive us of the words that clothe our thoughts
lose your vision, you cannot connect to the visual world, cannot enter into a relationship with what is around you at a distance.
sometimes God reveals some of our divinity when our nervous system is strained - in near-death experiences, for example, it is as if the spirit is freed from its identification with the body and it realizes some of its transcendental nature in the mystical experience of self-awareness.

i have not addressed emotions and don’t intend this to be a treatise on the subject
just some ideas that you may wish to follow=up on

 

[zro_x]

consciousness and unconsciousness are of the mind

the brain has to do with neurons, axons and dendrites, neurotransmitters and receptors, numerous intracellular processes, action potential, tracts in the brain etc; it is a good idea to get the fields of study straight.

then there is the spirit, which has its own “structure”.

You may learn something of the mind in neuroscience, probably reductionistic - no Jung, no psychodynamics for sure. As concerns the soul, this may be like blaspheming for science: ain’t going to happen.

if you want to have a way of conceptualizing human beings as flesh and soul you may wish to consider:

attributes of the spiritual soul include being, wholeness, reason, memory, animation and will
also: we are made to interact with our environment - physical and spiritual and hence we are always involved in relationships

being: - you exist, right? me too; experience is

wholeness:

• we exist as a unity in relation to God and creation; i feel my pain, you feel yours - forget the idea of nerve tracts for a minute; in your wholeness, you feel pain, see the screen, type words on keyboards - you are experiencing all this because you have a soul which is an indivisible unity. We do not exist intermingled in a universal chemical soup - we are individual persons.
• there is a wholeness that exists in the relationship that you have with the rest of creation. In your perception of the screen in front of you, you are one with it; it’s being and your being are in communion, they form a whole as part of this experience of the moment.

reason:

• Being created in the image of God who is the living Truth, we are able to understand a world thoroughly known by Him. You understand these words - this is possible because of your Wernicke’s Area and because you have Mind so you can actually experience a meaning. Meaning reaches down to the core of who we are.

memory:

• i zip around in my mind to scenes from various times in my life, because my soul has self-knowledge which extends to the past. The memories/feelings/sensations/images are encoded in the brain as specific neural patterns which one’s soul would trigger during such reveries.

animation - the soul moves the body, the mind of which it is an indivisible unity; brain-mind are similarly united.

will:

• we chose
• you need a frontal cortex in order to make such considerations and execute them

you cannot see, measure soul - when you examine ppl scientifically, all of this seems to happen on its own. It’s not, but this is irrelevant to modern science.

the body, the brain are prone to corruption; since the body and the spirit are one, damage to the body affects the abilities of the person.
so with Alzheimer’s, we are so identified with the body, that in spite of memory being of the spirit, we cannot remember; the neural processes that underlie memory are broken, there is nothing our spirit can access to be able to remember
similarly with strokes that deprive us of the words that clothe our thoughts
lose your vision, you cannot connect to the visual world, cannot enter into a relationship with what is around you at a distance.
sometimes God reveals some of our divinity when our nervous system is strained - in near-death experiences, for example, it is as if the spirit is freed from its identification with the body and it realizes some of its transcendental nature in the mystical experience of self-awareness.

i have not addressed emotions and don’t intend this to be a treatise on the subject
just some ideas that you may wish to follow=up on

hmmm, a very interesting possibility. This view of the soul just might be accurate. Only future advances in neuroscience will tell us for sure.

Though Aloysium painted a good picture of the functions of the soul, I’d like to point out that the soul only needs to have two fuctions (that are often attributed to the brain by naturalists) in order for the catholic church to be true.

-will

-preservation of consciousness after we die.

What makes this subject so interesting is that this is one of the very few times when the Catholic church gives a falsifiable claim. all other things Aloysium mentioned could eventually be attributed entirely to the brain, and it really wouldn’t affect the teachings of the church that much.

But one thing the church does teach is that we have free will and that we are conscious immediately after we die. the second of these claims isn’t varifiable scientifically, but the first one is. Eventually, scientists may know the complete processes of the brain, and when they do, the existence of free will finally be proven or disproven, once and for all.

 

[Chloe13]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

I believe that brain & soul are definitely connected.
Brain itself doesn’t make people think & perceive. I think It “helps” us to do those things.
Soul is the true mechanism of human beings.
Even though there are many other organisms with brains, they can never think & perceive the way humans do. So, I’m just assuming that if brain is damaged, it can’t effectively translate/help what soul is sending, so that might changes the way we perceive and think.
It’s just an idea I’ve always had.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

Of course damage to our brain affects our mind, because while the brain is not identical with our mind, it is an integral part and instrument of it. If I try to cut something with a blunt knife, I will not be successful, I need a sharp knife. In analogy to that, the mind needs a ‘sharp’, undamaged brain in order to function properly.

As for a soul, positing it is necessary since there are no good materialist explanations for human rationality at all. In fact, there cannot be in principle.

You should study this link by C.S.Lewis, even though it is not an easy read (it took me a while to fully understand it):

The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism

See also my article:

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

with all the relevant links therein.

I would say human rationality is the main philosophical reason why we need to postulate a soul. Yet I also strongly suggest the book Aping Mankind by Raymond Tallis. He is an atheist and a neuroscientist, and he thoroughly debunks the idea that we have good materialistic explanations for the human mind and consciousness. Here is the amazon link with also my review:

amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652734

Since you are pursuing a neuroscience major in college this book might be of special interest to you.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Here’s some information about the “explanatory gap” involved in trying to reduce the mind to the brain.

If one were to open the cranium and look at the brain of a perceiving, remembering, thinking patient, they would not see a single thing going through that patient’s mind–not an image, feeling, thought, or sense of self. In fact with mirrors I could look at my own brain and yet would see none of its conscious content.
From outside the conscious mind of another there is no direct access to the inside experienced content by observing the brain.

A search of one’s mind will never give a direct experience of one’s own brain cells or their electro-chemical processes and multi-level networking.
From the inside by observing my own consciousness there is no direct access to the observable brain and its neural electro-chemical processes.

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

Scientists:
•Joaquin M. Fuster, MD, PhD, a neurological researcher writes in his Cortex and Mind. (Oxford University Press, 2003)
“There are evident correlations between the brain and the mind. In the domains of scientific empiricism, however, where causality reigns supreme, correlation is Cinderella. Yet correlation is the only logical relationship we can substantiate empirically between the brain and the mind. . . . correlation is all we need for upholding the indissoluble unity of cortex and mind.” (p. viii)
•Larry R. Squire, et al., Fundamental Neuroscience, 3rd ed., 2008.
They discuss how “Brain scientists are exploiting a number of empirical approaches to shed light on the neural basis of consciousness.” (pp. 1223ff) As of 2008, neuroscientists “are shedding light on . . .”
•Christoph Koch, The Quest for Consciousness, 2004.
Francis Crick himself (a avowed materialist and atheist) writes in the preface: "Consciousness is the major unsolved problem in biology. . . . there is no present consensus on the general nature of the solution.” (p. xiii) We “will need the labors of many scientists . .” (xiv) Koch, a neuroscientist at Caltech, himself says of his efforts “I argue for a research program whose supreme aim is to discover neuronal correlates of consciousness.” (underlining mine)
•Michael S. Gazzaniga, ed., The Cognitive Neurosciences III. 3rd. ed. (Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press, 2004).
“As the science of consciousness advances, such definitions [Searle’s] will need to be refined and expressed in more fundamental neuronal terms. Until the problem is understood much better, though, a more formal definition of consciousness is likely to be either misleading or overly restrictive, or both. If this seems evasive, try defining a gene.” (p. 1107)

Further relevant data is provided by research into neuroplasticity, a term for the phenomena that conscious choices can alter brain structure and function. This shows a bi-directional causality in the relationship between brain and mind. That is, not only can one affect conscious experience and functioning by changes in the brain, one can also affect brain structure and functioning by conscious changes in activity. Researchers today are investigating the “bidirectional interaction between cultural experience and the brain” and “the neurosciences have identified mechanisms of neural plasticity from the molecular to the systems level.”(1) Numerous studies “demonstrate the surprising degree to which brain processes are malleably shaped by cultural tools and practices.”(2)

For example, studies show that adults who choose to learn Braille show changes in brain structure over those who do not.(3) Learning a second language increases the density of grey matter in the left inferior parietal cortex of the brain (4) as does training adults in sophisticated color differentiation.(5) Changes in brain structure are also seen in musicians proficient in stringed instruments relative to which fingers are used the most.(6) Additionally a study was performed on brain changes taking place in Buddhist monks during meditation–changes which sustain in long-term practitioners over time.(7)

The conviction that the mind as we know it is the soul (immaterial life principle, form of the body) in operation squares perfectly with all of the information and doesn’t in the least harm the legitimate aims and methods of neurological research even its goal to reach a complete scientific account of brain activity in its correlation with mental acts.

Another source of data is the immaterial nature of the intellectual acts of concept formation and reflection.

Notes in next post.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

(1) Elizabeth A. Reynolds Losin, et al., “Culture and neuroscience: additive or synergistic.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (June/September 2010): 148-58. =SCAN]

(2) Shinobu Kitayama, et al., “Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain.” SCAN 5 (June/September 2010): 111-29.

(3) Alvaro Pascual-Leone, et al., “Plasticity of the sensorimotor cortex representation of the reading finger in Braille readers” Brain 116 (February 1993):39-52. see summary discussion in Christopher Ariel Shaw, Jill McEachern, eds., Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, 2001., pp 71-3.

(4) Andrea Mechelli, et. al., “Neurolinguistics: Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain” Nature 431 (14 October 2004): 757.

(5) Veronica Kwok, et al., “Learning new color names produces rapid increase in gray matter in the intact adult human cortex,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (April 19, 2011): 6686-6688. =PNAS]

(6) Thomas Elbert, et al., “Increased Cortical Representation of the Fingers of the Left Hand in String Players” Science 270 (13 October 1995): 305-307.

(7) Lutz, et al., “Long-term mediators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice” PNAS 101 (November 16, 2004): 16369-16373.

 

[zro_x]

You should study this link by C.S.Lewis, even though it is not an easy read (it took me a while to fully understand it):

The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism

Wow. C.S. Lewis, as always, makes a very compelling and thought-provoking case. Before I read this, I thought naturalism was, if not true, a consistent, non-contradictory theory. Now I’m not so sure. However, I think there is one particular avenue one could take as an objection. One could reject naturalism, theism and all forms of metaphysics completely, and take the view that the nature of reality is unknown and probably unknowable.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Wow. C.S. Lewis, as always, makes a very compelling and thought-provoking case.

Yes, doesn’t he?

Before I read this, I thought naturalism was, if not true, a consistent, non-contradictory theory. Now I’m not so sure.

Yes, it is in fact and with certainty an intellectually inconsistent, self-contradictory theory, see also my article:

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

Since atheism to me is logically linked to naturalism, I have to dismiss atheism as intellectually inconsistent as well. Sure, there are atheists who claim they are not naturalists, but I have never gotten a satisfactory answer as to what they are, if not naturalists.

However, I think there is one particular avenue one could take as an objection. One could reject naturalism, theism and all forms of metaphysics completely, and take the view that the nature of reality is unknown and probably unknowable.

I agree. Agnosticism (I mean real agnosticism, which does not assign any probabilities whatsoever – ‘agnostic atheists’ are out of play on this one) is the only intellectually self-consistent alternative to theism.

 

[Aloysium]

Only future advances in neuroscience will tell us for sure.

actually, this is a huge leap of faith in science
this will only be possible when neuroscience advances to the point where it recognizes its limitations
there is and has been for some time, sufficient knowledge otherwise.

we have a different understanding of what it means for us to have a spiritual soul and how it manifests itself in man.

at any rate we may in time to come to a complete understanding of the brain;
i believe that this will be possible only when science assumes its proper place as part of a more global understanding of God and His creation

 

[zro_x]

(I mean real agnosticism, which does not assign any probabilities whatsoever – ‘agnostic atheists’ are out of play on this one)

I’m not so sure I can agree on this point.

You mention in your article the idea of general relativity; how Einstien developed this idea completely using his insight to create a concept that was, and still is, very counterintuitive, and that this ability far exceeds the functioning of a brain which has been developed for evolutionary advantages. I’m not so sure that’s the case. Obviously, the concept was useful, since it allows us to create GPS satelites and do other such things. Einstien’s insight may very well have come from evolved processes, and may be the result of physical processes. In addition, computers may eventually have the capability to examine thier own judgements and discern how valid they are, with sufficient technology.

C.S. Lewis describes mental functions which have no benefit to survival, and thus may or may not have their roots in the brain. For example, the ability to know, with absolute certainty, that two plus two is four in all posible worlds, has no survival value. Thus, this type of thought, and this type of thought only has no reason to be true from a natualistic, evolutionary perspective. We can not trust it.

however, if naturalism is true, than we can trust our inferences, since they have survival value. And, if using inferences, the naturalist comes to the conclusion that naturalism is probably true, his conclusion is valid, given the evidence and arguments that he is aware of at the time he makes his judgement. he just can not know that naturalism is true with any absolute certainty.

 

[zro_x]

actually, this is a huge leap of faith in science
this will only be possible when neuroscience advances to the point where it recognizes its limitations
there is and has been for some time, sufficient knowledge otherwise.

we have a different understanding of what it means for us to have a spiritual soul and how it manifests itself in man.

at any rate we may in time to come to a complete understanding of the brain;
i believe that this will be possible only when science assumes its proper place as part of a more global understanding of God and His creation

What limitations are you speaking of? If we prove that there are no interuptions interfering in the physical processes of the brain, we prove that there is no soul directing the brain’s actions. Likewise, If we find breaks in the usual physical laws, then we do have a soul.

Of course, it is always possible that neither will occur because the brain is inherently unknowable to observers, as with the uncertainty principle, in which case, we would not know whether we have a soul or not empirically. but, at this point, we have no reason to believe that this is how the brain opperates.

 

[grannymh]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

How about starting with the fact that the soul is not an idea.

 

[WmJackP]

Consider that our consciousness and subconsciousness is controlled by the brain, that any damage to any part of the brain can affect the way we perceive ourselves, others, and even God. Since I am pursuing a neuroscience major in college I’d like to know how our knowledge of the brain and the idea of soul can be reconciled.

Well, to respond to the question, first must define what “the soul” is. Regrettably, people use the word is an unreified manner. Some people of faith say its the “animating” aspect of human existence. But how is that differentiated from the heart, lungs or other physical organs which “animate” a human. Thomas and other medieval thinkers seemed to suggest that was comprised of “volition”, and other definable properties which might cause someone to be sent to heaven or hell. Yet in the 21st century all of these propertie seem to me to be accountable for by physical processes. Volition to act in one way or another can be affected by cerebrial diseases and removal of portions of the brain. Hence, volition, fault, responsibility and one’s ultimate fate becomes subject to factors outside of one’s own self. So Thomas’ view that can’t be right.

If I were to defend the existence of the soul, then I might argue that it is the “I” onto which every attribute or property of human nature is hung. Thus, “I” have a personality, “I” have a mind; “I” have everything that makes me human. The problem with that argument, however, is that it remains an abstraction and thus a word with no correspondence to reality.

I would suggest that you cannot reconcile the operations of the brain to the soul because no one knows what the soul is. You’ll be best served simply by studying the brain.

 

[Aloysium]

What limitations are you speaking of? If we prove that there are no interuptions interfering in the physical processes of the brain, we prove that there is no soul directing the brain’s actions. Likewise, If we find breaks in the usual physical laws, then we do have a soul.

Of course, it is always possible that neither will occur because the brain is inherently unknowable to observers, as with the uncertainty principle, in which case, we would not know whether we have a soul or not empirically. but, at this point, we have no reason to believe that this is how the brain opperates.

brain and mind are one but they represent two different, separate systems of structure underlying the unity of human experience

Fr of Jazz: From outside the conscious mind of another there is no direct access to the inside experienced content by observing the brain.

Fr of Jazz: A search of one’s mind will never give a direct experience of one’s own brain cells or their electro-chemical processes and multi-level networking.
From the inside by observing my own consciousness there is no direct access to the observable brain and its neural electro-chemical processes.

in a similar fashion, the soul, which “operates the brain”, forms part of the unity, but remains independent.
So, if you just examine physical processes that is all you will find;
it appears as if everything is going by itself, when it isn’t.

I do not believe that the brain is unknowable since it is a physical entity.
However, if that is all we are studying, then that is all we will find.
We cannot, in that case, pretend that we have a complete understanding human nature.
That is what i was meaning to say with regards to limits of our understanding.

One comes to know the soul through meditation and prayer, through the reason bestowed upon us by God who knows all things.