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

[greylorn]

“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”.

Just because it is not clear how or why something has occurred does not make it “accidental.” Just as I figured, you made that up and attributed it to Descartes. Tacky.

Do you think that writing with Latin phrases makes you appear more knowledgeable? Or do you do that simply to obfuscate meaning?

 

[levinas12]

Just because it is not clear how or why something has occurred does not make it “accidental.” Just as I figured, you made that up and attributed it to Descartes. Tacky.

Do you think that writing with Latin phrases makes you appear more knowledgeable? Or do you do that simply to obfuscate meaning?

Greylord,

I didn’t really make things up. For Descartes, consciousness is a separate “thing” (a “res”) from the body which itself is its own “thing”. Two different substances. There is no longer an intrinsic relationship between consciousness and body. This is why neuroscience is having a heck of time explaining consciousness - because it’s coming out of a Cartesian background.

If you equate soul with consciousness, which seems to be the case for Descartes, then you have a major shift away from the Aristotelian sense of soul as the principle of operation of a living body. Aristotle’s soul was intrinsically related to the body.

Sorry about the Latin phrases.

 

[levinas12]

Just because it is not clear how or why something has occurred does not make it “accidental.” Just as I figured, you made that up and attributed it to Descartes. Tacky.

For more detail on “accidental”, see the following:

James Collins, A History of Modern Philosophy, pp. 183-191 (chapter 5, Descartes, section 7, Mind and the Human Composite)

For a more general discussion, see Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind, chapter 1, Descartes’ Myth, pp. 11-24. Ryle is famous for the “ghost in the machine” distinction.

For a deeper analysis, see Richard Kennington’s article, The “Teaching of Nature” in Descartes’ Soul Doctrine, in the Review of Metaphysics, September 1972, vol. XXVI, pp. 86-117.

These commentaries help to unpack the underlying meaning of Descartes’ writings, e.g., Meditation VI, On the Existence of Material Things, and of the real distinction between the Soul and Body of Man.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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”?

I’ve quoted elsewhere that the night my father died he appeared in my room, started with an apology; we argued and conversed and at the end he gave this terrible scream and disappeared. I suppose you could say he looked a bit like a ghost; I could see him and easily recognise him, but I could also see through him if I chose.

But I didn’t see any sign of bacterial spirits hanging around… I don’t have a problem with your statement about the bacterial - it’s probably correct. That’s why I’m always amused when I see these advertisements about adding good bacterial to our gut via some sort of packaged food. How many more do we need?

It remimds me a bit of the hypochondriac who died. His doctors wasn’t sorry to see him go, as he was sick of all his complaints. But eventually the doctor died too. Unfortuntately he just happened to be buried next to the hypochondriac. He’d only been down there a short time when there was a familiar rap on the coffin, and “Hey, Doc!”

“Oh, no! Not you again! What do you want now?”

“Hey, Doc! You got anything for worms??”

 

[levinas12]

Greylord,

I didn’t really make things up. For Descartes, consciousness is a separate “thing” (a “res”) from the body which itself is its own “thing”. Two different substances. There is no longer an intrinsic relationship between consciousness and body. This is why neuroscience is having a heck of time explaining consciousness - because it’s coming out of a Cartesian background.

If you equate soul with consciousness, which seems to be the case for Descartes, then you have a major shift away from the Aristotelian sense of soul as the principle of operation of a living body. Aristotle’s soul was intrinsically related to the body.

Sorry about the Latin phrases.

It’s Greylorn, isn’t it - not Greylord - apologies

 

[levinas12]

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).

You might want to look at:

Robert Spaemann, Persons: The Difference Between ‘Someone’ and ‘Something’, especially chapters 1 & 2

Robert Sokolowsk, Christian Faith & Human Understanding, Essay 11, Language, the Human Person, and Christian Faith, pp. 165-178

 

[4Horsemen]

You might want to look at:

Robert Spaemann, Persons: The Difference Between ‘Someone’ and ‘Something’, especially chapters 1 & 2

Robert Sokolowsk, Christian Faith & Human Understanding, Essay 11, Language, the Human Person, and Christian Faith, pp. 165-178

Thank you. I did a Google search and both philosophers sound interesting. There are also videos which I’ll have a look at. I’d like to take a peek at Sololowski’s book on Phenomenology. Must add these authors to my book list.

 

[levinas12]

Thank you. I did a Google search and both philosophers sound interesting. There are also videos which I’ll have a look at. I’d like to take a peek at Sololowski’s book on Phenomenology. Must add these authors to my book list.

I think you’ll find these guys very rewarding.

Spaemann and Sokolowski are two of the most intellectually powerful Catholic thinkers alive today. Their concern is the person. Something they have in common with Blessed JPII.

Another thinker you might want to look into is Levinas (my namesake). His theme is the human face. And, also, Roger Scruton who delivered some recent Gifford lecture about the face.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s Greylorn, isn’t it - not Greylord - apologies

I’m sure greylorn is flattered.

 

[greylorn]

I’m sure greylorn is flattered.

I confess that the misnomer has a nice ring to it. But, alas, “Greylord” is more a title than a name, and must be conferred by others after it has been well-earned. I’ve not qualified.

I don’t care to be the philosophical equivalent of pinhead singers like “Prince” and “Lady” Gargoyle.

My current pseudonym has been carefully chosen for suitability, and is the name I write under.

Still, if there was anyone capable of and willing to confer such a title, and it came with a decent house in the middle of 40 acres of woods and was surrounded by a nice, crocodile filled moat, I’d take a serious look at it. The place would need internet service too, by the way.

Titles are bizarre things, like royalty. Royalty implies, despite decades of contrary evidence, that qualities of mind and spirit can be genetically inherited. IMO titles are occasionally deserved, but only if they are conferred by people and die with the original owner. Though I only liked one of his songs, Elvis was, in this sense, the King of his peculiar domain.

Individuals who invent quasi-royal names for themselves are, IMO, wishful pigs. Posters who name themselves after great leaders or thinkers are generally people who would require hard thought to lead themselves out of a wet paper bag.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I think you’ll find these guys very rewarding.

Spaemann and Sokolowski are two of the most intellectually powerful Catholic thinkers alive today. Their concern is the person. Something they have in common with Blessed JPII.

Another thinker you might want to look into is Levinas (my namesake). His theme is the human face. And, also, Roger Scruton who delivered some recent Gifford lecture about the face.

I just read a little of above thinker. Looks really boring and dragged out. . If theres something that is interesting why not produce it, so it can be appropriately sliced up, where required

 

[4Horsemen]

I think you’ll find these guys very rewarding.

Spaemann and Sokolowski are two of the most intellectually powerful Catholic thinkers alive today. Their concern is the person. Something they have in common with Blessed JPII.

Another thinker you might want to look into is Levinas (my namesake). His theme is the human face. And, also, Roger Scruton who delivered some recent Gifford lecture about the face.

Thank you for all the references. When I clicked on a link for Phenomenology, I came across a “Levinas” and wondered if that was you.

Now I just need more reading time.

 

[tonyrey]

I confess that the misnomer has a nice ring to it. But, alas, “Greylord” is more a title than a name, and must be conferred by others after it has been well-earned. I’ve not qualified.

I don’t care to be the philosophical equivalent of pinhead singers like “Prince” and “Lady” Gargoyle.

My current pseudonym has been carefully chosen for suitability, and is the name I write under.

Still, if there was anyone capable of and willing to confer such a title, and it came with a decent house in the middle of 40 acres of woods and was surrounded by a nice, crocodile filled moat, I’d take a serious look at it. The place would need internet service too, by the way.

Titles are bizarre things, like royalty. Royalty implies, despite decades of contrary evidence, that qualities of mind and spirit can be genetically inherited. IMO titles are occasionally deserved, but only if they are conferred by people and die with the original owner. Though I only liked one of his songs, Elvis was, in this sense, the King of his peculiar domain.

Individuals who invent quasi-royal names for themselves are, IMO, wishful pigs. Posters who name themselves after great leaders or thinkers are generally people who would require hard thought to lead themselves out of a wet paper bag.

I guessed you would be flattered but not impressed by a hereditary title which has been conferred on monsters of iniquity. I have always been a Republican born and bred in an antiquated monarchy.

 

[shaky]

Thank you. I did a Google search and both philosophers sound interesting. There are also videos which I’ll have a look at. I’d like to take a peek at Sololowski’s book on Phenomenology. Must add these authors to my book list.

What i am trying to understand with the soul being related to the body. Some peoples bodies are midgets or very tall. Also you Got very fat and very thin. Very ugly looking and very beautiful looking.

So how will our new bodies look in heaven.

 

[greylorn]

I guessed you would be flattered but not impressed by a hereditary title which has been conferred on monsters of iniquity. I have always been a Republican born and bred in an antiquated monarchy.

You could do worse, but Republicans are way too liberal for me. I can count the number of Republicans I can trust to uphold the U.S. Constitution on the fingers of one hand, and still have enough left over to pick my nose. Yet, I’d vote for a Cain-Palin ticket in a heartbeat, and would even send them campaign money, I’d like to see the current monarch deposed, sooner rather than later.

I apologize for being off-topic, but it’s been fun.

 

[greylorn]

What i am trying to understand with the soul being related to the body. Some peoples bodies are midgets or very tall. Also you Got very fat and very thin. Very ugly looking and very beautiful looking.

So how will our new bodies look in heaven.

Bodies are bodies. Fat pigs will look like fat pigs with an inner beauty gleaming through the folds of blubber, and halo shine twinkling off the cookie crumbs caught on their bellies. They won’t be much for sex appeal, but if you want to get laid in an afterlife, you need to go to Allah’s place where you will also be sporting a bushy, nasty looking beard. So in either case, appearance doesn’t matter.

On earth it is helpful to be tall and good looking, but in heaven there are no business positions to strive for, no meat-market bars, no angling for sexual favors, so what does it matter? In heaven, the little circus guy in the movie “Freaks” who could roll and light his own cigarettes, despite having no legs or arms, will be as highly regarded as the gorgeous acrobats. Were he to be restored with a normal body, thus deprived of his Talent, what fun would he be?

As mentioned elsewhere, Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven will prove enjoyable, and profitable reading for people with questions like yours.

 

[tonyrey]

I guessed you would be flattered but not impressed by a hereditary title which has been conferred on monsters of iniquity. I have always been a Republican born and bred in an antiquated monarch!

I hasten to add that I’m not a Republican of the political variety. I was born poor and have always been opposed to vested interests which inflict unnecessary suffering on the underdog. You see how the immaterial affects the material? (It’s not so off-topic after all.) Our thoughts determine to a large extent the world in which we live… The first one I want to see deposed is Gadaffi - then Assad - followed by several others…

 

[4Horsemen]

What i am trying to understand with the soul being related to the body. Some peoples bodies are midgets or very tall. Also you Got very fat and very thin. Very ugly looking and very beautiful looking.

So how will our new bodies look in heaven.

I checked with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and found the following under section VI. The Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth:

At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign forever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed.

I know it’s not much relating specifically to the condition of our bodies, but it is enough to tell us, first of all, that there will be a general (or universal) judgment. This comes at the end of the world when Jesus Christ returns in glory. Each of us human beings goes through the particular judgment immediately after death. God predestines no one to go to hell. But the glory of heaven awaits all who “die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live forever with Christ.”

Since heaven is a place of perfection, it is only fitting that our bodies, though recognizable, will not have the imperfections they had during time on earth. A person who was missing a limb or deformed or a midget or others with imperfections will have his/her true body since deformity is an aberration of that which is normal. It is an imperfection in nature, a physical/physiological defect. There is no such thing in heaven.

I hope that helps some.

 

[4Horsemen]

Bodies are bodies. Fat pigs will look like fat pigs with an inner beauty gleaming through the folds of blubber, and halo shine twinkling off the cookie crumbs caught on their bellies. They won’t be much for sex appeal, but if you want to get laid in an afterlife, you need to go to Allah’s place where you will also be sporting a bushy, nasty looking beard. So in either case, appearance doesn’t matter.

On earth it is helpful to be tall and good looking, but in heaven there are no business positions to strive for, no meat-market bars, no angling for sexual favors, so what does it matter? In heaven, the little circus guy in the movie “Freaks” who could roll and light his own cigarettes, despite having no legs or arms, will be as highly regarded as the gorgeous acrobats. Were he to be restored with a normal body, thus deprived of his Talent, what fun would he be?

As mentioned elsewhere, Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven will prove enjoyable, and profitable reading for people with questions like yours.

Hey greylorn!

What kind of description of heaven is that? Tradition and Scripture both consider heaven to be a place of perfection in which God has a “room” or “mansion” for each of us. Now I can’t promise that the concept of room or mansion is how we define these terms on earth. Whatever bodily imperfections we had on earth due to the human condition will be non-existent in heaven.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I checked with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and found the following under section VI. The Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth:

At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign forever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed.

I know it’s not much relating specifically to the condition of our bodies, but it is enough to tell us, first of all, that there will be a general (or universal) judgment. This comes at the end of the world when Jesus Christ returns in glory. Each of us human beings goes through the particular judgment immediately after death. God predestines no one to go to hell. But the glory of heaven awaits all who “die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live forever with Christ.”

Since heaven is a place of perfection, it is only fitting that our bodies, though recognizable, will not have the imperfections they had during time on earth. A person who was missing a limb or deformed or a midget or others with imperfections will have his/her true body since deformity is an aberration of that which is normal. It is an imperfection in nature, a physical/physiological defect. There is no such thing in heaven.

I hope that helps some.

What about my wisdom teeth ?