How can the immaterial (Soul) affect the material (brain)

[Bob_Crowley]

What gets me is the Soul needs the brain and memory cells to remember things while it is in the body.
But while the soul is out of the body it does not need the brain and memory cells to remember things because memory is retained in the spirit.

What about a person who has Alzheimers brain disease with severe memory problems Commits a mortal Sin. but does not remember the mortal Sin he has committed?

He’s got a problem. As my old pastor said to me, “You can’t repent if you can’t remember”. That’s why it’s a good idea to keep short accounts with God. The longer you leave it, the more risk there is. And of course none of us knows when we’re going to die or how sudden it will be, with the possible exception of having a fatal disease with some idea of the likely time frame.

My own reason for interest in this area is intensely practical, since my father turned up in my room the night he died. He started with an apology, we argued and conversed, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream. His body however was lying in bed approximately 15 to 16 kms away (16.7km by road according to the computer), and was quite dead.

So how was he thinking, talking, hearing, seeing (and in fact able to see certain aspects of the future as well)? And how was I communicating with him, since he had none of the usual bodily features necessary to make verbal communication. Yet even features like surprise, horror, awe were visible at times on his “spiritual” face.

So … having said all that, I have no more idea than anybody else how the spirit coordinates with the mind / body. And why we need a brain to have “mind” and control all other bodily functions such as sight, speech, hearing, facial expressions etc. in this world, but can do without it in the next.

And we’re told we’ll be given a new body for those of us who get to heaven. So what will it be like? And where will the spirit fit into that one? And what are we going to do with it? Eat Big Mac’s or Kentucky Fried, which involves killing animals all over again? Although the resurrected Christ ate fish on the shores when he called Peter and the fishing disciples to him for a meal.

I’m afraid the technical explanation can wait. I do know though from personal experience the spirit / soul can see, think, hear and all the rest, even without the body, as I found out the night my father put in his final appearance.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I know, how the immaterial Soul affects the material brain and I’m not going to lay it out in one post regardless of the fact that I could.

The reasons for this is simple:

a) I am not looking for a hero cookie as well it should be rather something which is done together along with a path in which absolute understanding is achieved, in keeping with subject as well.

b) We are not designed in a way which causes ourselves to fully understand the largest and most unique aspect of our being to be void in satisfactory grasp in a manner which is highly complex.
No different than the theme in life to be peace & love extending fullness to ones life. We can
not only understand this but there are no microscopes or probing of brain tissue in order to fully uncover the logic in the answer.

c) The soul, is related to the un-conscious mind. If interested begin to lay out the knowledge
we have of the following

1. consciousness
2. unconscious
3. conscience
4. soul
5. intellect vrs emotion (relationship ,purpose)
6. mans spirit
7. peace

Man seems to want to make a mountain out of a mole hill regardless in order to feel substancial
excersizing his glorious faculty in reason. Problem is sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees.
God made mentally deficient people who can appreciate spiritualism.

 

[levinas12]

It is very hard to stop thinking about soul and body as two distinct substances (meaning: entities) that somehow interact with each other. And if that is so, then your objection makes perfect sense. How can a non-physical substance interact with a physical one?

St. Thomas is our great help here. He has shown us the soul as the form of the body. What is the form? If I had to choose one current word, I would say logical structure.

The soul, the form, the logical structure, the ordering principle. It is not something that exists on its own and somehow interacts with the body; it is the way the body is ordered and acts.

Good Thomistic analysis. Soul as Form, psyche for the Greeks, is the principle of operation at work in living beings. There are different types of soul - one for plants, one for non-rational animals, and one for the rational animals. The human soul is the same as human nature that is common to all of us. The human soul is not the individual person - it corresponds with the universal. Per Aristotle, what individuates us is the matter. In this metaphysical scheme, the soul cannot exist apart from the body - it is the structure, the principle that determines the body’s operations. Now Descartes stepped in and changed this. He posited a res extensa, a thinking thing - he made the “soul” into a “something” that exists separately from the body (even in this world). This philosophical move made it easier to explain why the “soul” can keep existing after its separation from the body (so Descartes could still argue he was a good Catholic even though he disagreed with Aristotle’s cosmology). It should be noted that Aristotle did talk about an entity that was immortal, the agent intellect, that make possible rational activity - but the agent intellect was not identical with the individual human being - it in some sense was an “outside” agent. Aristotle would not have been able to understand the Catholic teaching about the immortality of the individual human person.

We believe as Catholics that the human person survives death. What this means is that we will retain our memories, our singularity as unique persons, etc in the absence of our body. In this life, our body affects our consciousness. But not immediately after we die. We still will remain incomplete without our bodies so that’s why the resurrection of the body is a key belief. But we will retain our individual personal consciousness. That’s why, for example, the saints in heaven can intercede for us - they know about us.

I’m not sure how all this will. You can argue that our ability to know essences, etc indicates a certain transcendence. But retaining our memories in the absence of the material traces (in Greek, the phantasms) - being able to perceive what’s happening on earth -all that may require supernatural intervention.

But I don’t have problem with supernatural intervention. Jesus’ resurrection was entirely supernatural.

 

[levinas12]

I’m not sure how all this will.

Typo. I’m not sure how all this will happen.

 

[4Horsemen]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but spring with its First Holy Communions, Confirmations, proms, baseball, soccer, and track keeps me busy chasing after the grandchildren and the yard and gardens are growing rapidly with their demand for some tender love. You know that God created grass, but the devil created the lawn.

I was so glad to hear from you that I completely missed that clever play on words. I am a person that believes one cannot fully enjoy life unless they have a finely honed sense of humor along with a serious and intense involvement in God’s graces.

Over a period of many years I have developed a philosophical model that explains, at least to my own satisfaction, how God might exist within our reality. It is based on a premise that duality (the concurrent existence of the material and the spiritual) originates at the ground of reality as the result of there being two kinds of space: discrete and continuous. Discrete space is the basis for the material; continuous space is the basis for the spiritual. With this foundation of space and matter, I build a model of the dynamics of objective reality that we experience as energy and time. This cosmic model then is duplicated in each living organism on an individual basis and provides the explanation of the mind/body problem.

I went back and read our discussion on the thread “Christian Cosmology” that occurred two years ago in the spring of 2009 and was reminded of what a intelligent discussion is all about. Unfortunately I decided at that time at the urging of GL to present my thesis on my own thread, “God Exists, But How” and unlike the discussion we and a few others were engaged in for about 80 posts, after which turned into a verbal food fight when a couple of the more illustrious members of this forum did a good job of sabotage of what had up until then been a reasonable discussion in which several of the respondents came close to understanding what I was presenting. Since then I have had a few thoughts about how to present my thesis differently and may be able to explain it in a more understandable way, especially to those respondents in this forum that are willing to act philosophically and make a deliberate attempt to extract the meaning of another’s thoughts, however they may disagree, instead of turning every disagreement into a debate.

So if you are interested in what I have to say, let me know; I would be willing to make an attempt to explain this model in a way that you might be able to understand.

Thank you for your interest.

Yppop

Hi Yppop,

I remember reading the thread “Christian Cosmology” and a portion of “God exists, but how.” I recall your description of discrete and continuous space. It’s been awhile, but it seems like you envisioned a kind of grid with points located a certain distance from one another. I can imagine your rubbing your forehead with your hands wondering if I understood any of what you wrote. I just want to say that if other posters would like to learn more about your theory, then it wouldn’t be a waste of time, and you wouldn’t have to water it down. My suggestion is to resurrect the first thread and then add to it. But, then again, maybe it’ll help new posters if you started over. Anyhow, you decide. I’m always interested in the subject of cosmology and try to read what I can. It’s hard for me to keep up though, but I try.

4H

 

[4Horsemen]

I find this highly critical & presumptive.

Excuse me? In what way?

Therefore please feel welcome to go through all of my dozen or so posts and point me in the direction of need with a full explanation of… required introduction for beginners in theology.

Please be clear& concise in suggested deficiency. I need to know what your talking about to take your suggestion seriously. Over to you

When someone suggests a book for me to read, I’m delighted. I write down the title and author. Actually, I have a list which seems to get longer instead of the other way since I’m trying to read 3 books at once. If I get tired of one, I go to the other or buy one on my list.

I was just making a suggestion. No offense.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Excuse me? In what way?

When someone suggests a book for me to read, I’m delighted. I write down the title and author. Actually, I have a list which seems to get longer instead of the other way since I’m trying to read 3 books at once. If I get tired of one, I go to the other or buy one on my list.

I was just making a suggestion. No offense.

All you gotta do to understand “in what way” as you say above, is make a note to recommend introductory learning in all of your postings…

Don’t forget , everyone will be most delighted . Let me know how you make out.!

.

 

[4Horsemen]

Good Thomistic analysis. Soul as Form, psyche for the Greeks, is the principle of operation at work in living beings. There are different types of soul - one for plants, one for non-rational animals, and one for the rational animals. The human soul is the same as human nature that is common to all of us. The human soul is not the individual person - it corresponds with the universal. Per Aristotle, what individuates us is the matter. In this metaphysical scheme, the soul cannot exist apart from the body - it is the structure, the principle that determines the body’s operations. Now Descartes stepped in and changed this. He posited a res extensa, a thinking thing - he made the “soul” into a “something” that exists separately from the body (even in this world). This philosophical move made it easier to explain why the “soul” can keep existing after its separation from the body (so Descartes could still argue he was a good Catholic even though he disagreed with Aristotle’s cosmology). It should be noted that Aristotle did talk about an entity that was immortal, the agent intellect, that make possible rational activity - but the agent intellect was not identical with the individual human being - it in some sense was an “outside” agent. Aristotle would not have been able to understand the Catholic teaching about the immortality of the individual human person.

We believe as Catholics that the human person survives death. What this means is that we will retain our memories, our singularity as unique persons, etc in the absence of our body. In this life, our body affects our consciousness. But not immediately after we die. We still will remain incomplete without our bodies so that’s why the resurrection of the body is a key belief. But we will retain our individual personal consciousness. That’s why, for example, the saints in heaven can intercede for us - they know about us.

I’m not sure how all this will. You can argue that our ability to know essences, etc indicates a certain transcendence. But retaining our memories in the absence of the material traces (in Greek, the phantasms) - being able to perceive what’s happening on earth -all that may require supernatural intervention.

But I don’t have problem with supernatural intervention. Jesus’ resurrection was entirely supernatural.

I think of the soul as the pilot of a plane. The pilot is in control, yet if he sleeps, he sets the plane on auto-pilot since it has the “brain” that operates at the pilot’s command. However, without the pilot to do the operations and set the instruments, the plane is useless. So, it would seem that the soul is the essence of who we are as human beings. Sound too much like Descartes? He makes the soul sound like a substance, as the pilot is actually too. And isn’t it the soul that houses intellect and will as well as memory and imagination? The brain processes the information, but that information becomes part of the property of the soul at death when it separates. I find it hard to understand that the soul is just a “form” of the body when it leaves the body. What about people with OOB – out-of-body experiences. They definately believed themselves to be a spirit. Yet, when the saints appear to holy men and women, they are recognized as a body. What you’ve written above, I think I follow the logic, but is doesn’t seem to answer the question of life of the soul after death.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I think of the soul as the pilot of a plane. The pilot is in control, yet if he sleeps, he sets the plane on auto-pilot since it has the “brain” that operates at the pilot’s command. However, without the pilot to do the operations and set the instruments, the plane is useless. So, it would seem that the soul is the essence of who we are as human beings. Sound too much like Descartes? He makes the soul sound like a substance, as the pilot is actually too. And isn’t it the soul that houses intellect and will as well as memory and imagination? The brain processes the information, but that information becomes part of the property of the soul at death when it separates. I find it hard to understand that the soul is just a “form” of the body when it leaves the body. What about people with OOB – out-of-body experiences. They definately believed themselves to be a spirit. Yet, when the saints appear to holy men and women, they are recognized as a body. What you’ve written above, I think I follow the logic, but is doesn’t seem to answer the question of life of the soul after death.

Start with a process of elimination on one side , and a process of attribute on the other,
That way the project of uncovering the soul can lead to not only a proper excavation site.but very very importantly, proper tools.

I will begin, The soul cannot become absolute evil, only defiled by virtue of the last moment.
The soul can be enriched through experience, by virtue of pure charity.

Follow each process with an understanding of both consequence. Above we have, defiled and enriched. Both represent measure. Measure is important.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

What gets me is the Soul needs the brain and memory cells to remember things while it is in the body.
But while the soul is out of the body it does not need the brain and memory cells to remember things because memory is retained in the spirit.

What about a person who has Alzheimers brain disease with severe memory problems Commits a mortal Sin. but does not remember the mortal Sin he has committed?

Think of how things unfold in nature. The pedals of a flower leave the bud as maturity finds its natural way. Theres many more. Try to think of one, its fun . I like fun.

Your second wonder about the memory, is very important because it imparts further meaning to the knowledge we have with respects to the soul.

Mortal sin has two implications. 1) The state of being in mortal sin 2) An act which reflects the state of the soul.

1)To be in a state of mortal sin is concerned with free will. We have choice. We can accept the things we cannot change or, attempt change through a decided, will full rejection in the necessary harmony in all that is. The state of mortal sin is a plan, with “commitment” Thus the
failure to acknowledge a required atonement in error. The state of mortal sin does not recognize behavior or thought to be in error relative to self intitiative…A state of being against the grain in creation, against of course God.Contradicting our intended peace in a planned abdication towards harmony, in ourselves and others…The expression of material gain in the absolute, a self suffocation of very very importantly…fear…

The act out of above state of mortal sin is simply… a reflection of the state. Our behaviors allow for insight into the state or measure within or, of the soul…

In example where a person has no memory and lets say hastens spontaneously to bludgeon someone to death and forgets it happened there are many possiblities…
Mental disorder, would be first on the list. Extremities help us understand concepts. however
we cannot fully appreciate some as issues which are relevant are not available. An act is not
the mortal sin in of itself. It is the state of mind.

The state of the mind plays a role in the state or measure of the soul. Its beginning to look like our mind has much to do with the soul. Therefore the (name removed by moderator)ut and filing of information through our brain would highly suggest.that the material brain is being used by our soul.

Back to the pedals of the flower… at top…see if you can catch the concept and the interesting Heavenly Fragrance ! More Dimension and Color too!!!

 

[shaky]

I think of the soul as the pilot of a plane. The pilot is in control, yet if he sleeps, he sets the plane on auto-pilot since it has the “brain” that operates at the pilot’s command. However, without the pilot to do the operations and set the instruments, the plane is useless. So, it would seem that the soul is the essence of who we are as human beings. Sound too much like Descartes? He makes the soul sound like a substance, as the pilot is actually too. And isn’t it the soul that houses intellect and will as well as memory and imagination? The brain processes the information, but that information becomes part of the property of the soul at death when it separates. I find it hard to understand that the soul is just a “form” of the body when it leaves the body. What about people with OOB – out-of-body experiences. They definately believed themselves to be a spirit. Yet, when the saints appear to holy men and women, they are recognized as a body. What you’ve written above, I think I follow the logic, but is doesn’t seem to answer the question of life of the soul after death.

I feel the soul is the same shape as your body. It like your body is a glove to your soul. I have heard that when people have there limbs amputated. Let take a leg for example. These people claim it feels like the leg is still there and they can still wriggle there toes feeling the wiggle.
Sometimes they can feel a itch or pain.

 

[4Horsemen]

I feel the soul is the same shape as your body. It like your body is a glove to your soul. I have heard that when people have there limbs amputated. Let take a leg for example. These people claim it feels like the leg is still there and they can still wriggle there toes feeling the wiggle.
Sometimes they can feel a itch or pain.

I, too, heard about people still “feeling” a limb that wasn’t really there. Maybe there is some electrical impulses from the nervous system. We can’t forego a physiological explanation until we learn more about a sensation originating in the brain, most likely, and its effects throughout the body even though parts may be missing. Some medical student who may be studying neurophysiology may be able to explain the sensation. But as I mentioned in another post, the soul may be within all the cells of our bodies. I hadn’t thought of those areas missing limbs – an interesting idea.

 

[levinas12]

What you’ve written above, I think I follow the logic, but is doesn’t seem to answer the question of life of the soul after death.

You are precisely right. Aristotle did not really have a concept of the individual person. The Aristotelian soul is the Form, the Eidos, which, without the matter, is the same for all human beings.

Person is not a sortal noun like tree, apple or even homo sapiens. There is no species for a person. A person is a singularity.

It’s somewhat like what obtains for angels - each angel is its own species - or, to put it another way, each angelic species has only one member. There is no Form that is common to a number of angels (like there is for human beings). This follows from the assujmption that angels have no matter to individuate them. Therefore, their individuality derives from their Form because that’s their only ontological component other than their esse or existence.

Notwithstanding this similarity, there is still a major difference - we are embodied persons.

Now the question of life after death is really: does the individual person survive death. And this is where Descartes comes in. His res cogitans is an individual person. This makes it much easier to understand how we can survive death.

But Descartes reduces the individual person to an angel (disembodied consciousness) that is accidentally tied to a body. And that move is fraught with its own difficulties.

 

[levinas12]

He posited a res extensa, a thinking thing

oops on previous posting #83 … res cogitans not res extensa …

 

[greylorn]

Person is not a sortal noun like tree, apple or even homo sapiens. There is no species for a person. A person is a singularity.

It’s somewhat like what obtains for angels - each angel is its own species - or, to put it another way, each angelic species has only one member. There is no Form that is common to a number of angels (like there is for human beings). This follows from the assujmption that angels have no matter to individuate them. Therefore, their individuality derives from their Form because that’s their only ontological component other than their esse or existence.

Notwithstanding this similarity, there is still a major difference - we are embodied persons.

Now the question of life after death is really: does the individual person survive death. And this is where Descartes comes in. His res cogitans is an individual person. This makes it much easier to understand how we can survive death.

But Descartes reduces the individual person to an angel (disembodied consciousness) that is accidentally tied to a body. And that move is fraught with its own difficulties.

You seem to know a lot of stuff about angels. I submit that it is entirely invented. Source? Not Paradise Lost, please.

Reading Descartes, I never got the notion that the connection between soul and body was “accidental.” But it has been a few decades, and my book has been loaned out, long ago.

What difficulties arise if one proposes that the soul is deliberately interfaced with a brain-body system?

 

[levinas12]

You seem to know a lot of stuff about angels. I submit that it is entirely invented. Source? Not Paradise Lost, please.

Reading Descartes, I never got the notion that the connection between soul and body was “accidental.” But it has been a few decades, and my book has been loaned out, long ago.

What difficulties arise if one proposes that the soul is deliberately interfaced with a brain-body system?

“Accidental” sums up the problem with Cartesian dualism: how does a non-material res cogitans affect a material res extensa. Notwithstanding the pineal gland, It is not clear how or why the two “things” are “attached”.

The soul, understood as individual personal consciousness (not as an Aristotelian form), is dependent in this life on the brain-body system. The system is that by which we perceive things; but the system is not what we perceive.

As far as inventing angelic lore … I would prefer to call it speculating … but I think it’s consistent with the Church’s teaching on angels … but you’re right about citing sources … Milton’s not bad on angels … although I’m more a Paradise Regained type of guy … I think Aquinas and the Eastern Fathers might help … let me see what I can find … but I’m not sure if you would accept traditional Catholic theology

 

[4Horsemen]

You are precisely right. Aristotle did not really have a concept of the individual person. The Aristotelian soul is the Form, the Eidos, which, without the matter, is the same for all human beings.

However, Aristotle did have a convept of a hierarchy of forms. First, there is the nutritive soul, which includes plants, animals and humans. Then there is the sensory soul, which implies animals and humans. Finally, there is the rational soul that is at the top of the hierarchy common to all human beings.

Person is not a sortal noun like tree, apple or even homo sapiens. There is no species for a person. A person is a singularity.

I had to look up “sortal.” It seems to mean a singular noun. I can’t see that a person is not a sortal noun like homo sapiens and yet a singularity. (This is rather new to me).

It’s somewhat like what obtains for angels - each angel is its own species - or, to put it another way, each angelic species has only one member. There is no Form that is common to a number of angels (like there is for human beings). This follows from the assujmption that angels have no matter to individuate them. Therefore, their individuality derives from their Form because that’s their only ontological component other than their esse or existence.

I’m glad you brought up the comparison with angels. So the fact that the angels can be individuated into 9 choirs does not detract from each one being a separate species. Hmmm. . .

Notwithstanding this similarity, there is still a major difference - we are embodied persons.

So our human souls are not spirit, in the same sense as an angel. IOW, the words “soul” and “spirit” are not interchangeable.

Now the question of life after death is really: does the individual person survive death. And this is where Descartes comes in. His res cogitans is an individual person. This makes it much easier to understand how we can survive death.

But Descartes reduces the individual person to an angel (disembodied consciousness) that is accidentally tied to a body. And that move is fraught with its own difficulties.

Modernism may go way back to Protagoras, a sophist who regarded man as the measure of all things, all well as other relativistic ideas.

 

[TommyGunns]

This debate is the reason I just signed up for this site. Throw a little scientific trivia out there as kindle. It is now found the human body contains more non human cells (i.e. bacteria) than human, so what is a human? Are the non-human entities, of which we share a symbiotic relationship with, also contain a supernatural component, is it ours? Jesus referred to his natural body as a vessel, almost with disdain it seams, don’t we put to much worth into these vessels? Every time I read some ancient study of the nature of the soul as it relates to divinity in man, I’m left unsatisfied (but my faith in Christ only grows). For example, it is possible for a two human embryos to absorb each other in the womb, while maintaining themselves as separate strains. A man can have his blood with female DNA, or a woman with the internal organs of her brother, and be unaware of this condition all there lives. Considering we now know each cell is like a self contained single cell organism complete with memory (not just the brain) and will, do these people have 2 souls? Does each cell have a soul? Or is life on earth separate, and dying, and I should just wait for our perfect bodies which are like “angels in heaven”?

 

[4Horsemen]

For Catholic information of the nature of angels and their role in salvation see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #s 328 - 336.

Try this link:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=angels&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[FurtherSuntime]

None,the feild along with required equality in light squared cycle, re molecular is not understood here…Try CityData Phil…you’ll get the stimulation looking for