How does the Soul "Work"?

[GenerationY]

So i had a conversation about the soul where i said that ideas are non-material and the brain is material. The brain cannot produce an offspring (ideas) that have no qualities that the brain itself has (weight, shape, etc…) therefore we must have some non-material element in us (spirit) that produces that offspring and that does so by utilizing complex material of the brain.

They argued with an example of software and how a complex material like computers produces software. Wondering whats the best response to that example/argument?

 

[djeter]

So i had a conversation about the soul where i said that ideas are non-material and the brain is material. The brain cannot produce an offspring (ideas) that have no qualities that the brain itself has (weight, shape, etc…) therefore we must have some non-material element in us (spirit) that produces that offspring and that does so by utilizing complex material of the brain.

They argued with an example of software and how a complex material like computers produces software. Wondering whats the best response to that example/argument?

But computers don’t write software; humans use computers to write software – so I think their analogy is breaking down quickly there.

dj

 

[djeter]

When Feser says it is important not to misunderstand Aristotle/Aquinas’ understanding of the soul as a form of the body: Someone with some crude misconception about what Aristotle or Aquinas must think a soul is supposed to be — like Daniel Dennett, no doubt, or Richard Dawkins — might say “What grounds does Aristotle have for saying that a soul is what gives a living thing’s body its essence or form? What superstition!”

But the form or essence of a living thing is just what Aristotle (and Aquinas) mean by the word “soul.” They aren’t saying, “We hypothesize that the soul, as popularly understood, is what gives a thing its nature”; they’re saying “By ‘soul’ we simply mean to refer to the nature of a living thing, whatever that turns out to be.”

So the reader should not think of some ghostly object of the sort that floats away from a body after death as in the movies, because that’s simply not what they have in mind. The soul is just a kind of form.

This is the beauty of Aristotle/Aquinas’ ideas – everything proceeds concretely – no false premises or unclear suppositions. If you keep to the same basics, most discussions/ideas are easy enough to think through because you’re on a solid road already.

dj

 

[djeter]

<>

Central to the intellect’s operation is its grasp of forms, essences, or universals, and other abstractions like propositions (discussed here). These things cannot be in any way material: this or that triangle is a material thing, but the form or essence triangularity is not; snow is material, but the proposition that snow is white cannot be; and so forth. But the immaterial nature of these things entails that the intellect which grasps them must itself be immaterial as well. How so?

Consider first that when we grasp the nature, essence, or form of a thing, it is necessarily one and the same form, nature, or essence that exists both in the thing and in the intellect. The form of triangularity that exists in our minds when we think about triangles is the same form that exists in actual triangles themselves; the form of “dogness” that exists in our minds when we think about dogs is the same form that exists in actual dogs; and so forth.

If this weren’t the case, then we just wouldn’t really be thinking about triangles, dogs, and the like, since to think about these things requires grasping what they are, and what they are is determined by their essence or form. But now suppose that the intellect is a material thing — some part of the brain, or whatever. Then for the form to exist in the intellect is for the form to exist in a certain material thing.

But for a form to exist in a material thing is just for that material thing to be the kind of thing the form is a form of; for example, for the form of “dogness” to exist in a certain parcel of matter is just for that parcel of matter to be a dog. And in that case, if your intellect was just the same thing as some part of your brain, it follows that that part of your brain would become a dog whenever you thought about dogs. “But that’s absurd!” you say. Of course it is; that’s the point. Assuming that the intellect is material leads to such absurdity; hence the intellect is not material.

Consider also that when you think about triangularity, for example, as you do when proving a geometrical theorem, it is necessarily perfect triangularity that you are contemplating, not some approximation of it. Triangularity as your intellect grasps it is entirely determinate or exact. (Of course your mental image of some triangle might not be determinate, but indeterminate and fuzzy. But to form a mental image of something, you’ll remember, is not the same thing as to grasp it with your intellect.)

Now the thought you are having must be as determinate as triangularity itself, otherwise it just wouldn’t be a thought about triangularity per se, but only a thought about some approximation of triangularity But material things are never determinate in this way; any material triangle, for example, is always only ever an approximation of triangularity.

It follows, then, that any thought you might have about triangularity is not something material; in particular, it is not some process occurring in the brain. And what goes for triangularity goes for any thought, since any thought is going to involve universals, propositions, numbers or the like, which we have seen are all abstract and determinate in a way material objects and processes never can be.

Related to this is the fact that universals are, well, universal, and every material thing is particular. Triangularity is not identical to this or that particular material triangle. But suppose a thought about the universal triangularity was something material. Then, presumably, the “triangularity” part of this material thought would consist of some physical representation of triangularity in the brain somewhere (in the form of a neuronal firing pattern or some such thing).

But no such physical representation could possibly count as the universal triangularity, because like any other physical representation of a triangle, this one too would be just one particular material thing among others, and not universal at all. Hence, again, there is just no sense to be made of the idea that thought is a purely material operation of the brain.

Now I can almost hear a Dennett or Dawkins reading this and responding: “But how is postulating ‘ectoplasm’ or some such thing any better as an explanatory hypothesis? What about Ockham’s razor? What about neuroscience?” But Aquinas and other Scholastic writers who defend arguments like the foregoing are not “postulating” anything, they are not offering an “explanatory hypothesis,” and they certainly don’t believe in “ectoplasm.” (For the uninitiated, “ectoplasm” is a ghostly kind of stuff that writers like Dennett are constantly accusing critics of materialism of believing in. It plays the same sort of straw-man role in his writings on the mind that Paley does in Dawkins’s writings on religion.)

Here, as elsewhere, the arguments we are considering are attempts at what I have been calling metaphysical demonstration, not probabilistic empirical theorizing. In each case, the premises are obviously true, the conclusion follows necessarily, and thus the conclusion is obviously true as well. That, at any rate, is what the arguments claim. If you’re going to refute them, then you need to show either that the premises are false or that the conclusion doesn’t really follow.

dj

 

[levinas12]

Now I can almost hear a Dennett or Dawkins reading this and responding: “But how is postulating ‘ectoplasm’ or some such thing any better as an explanatory hypothesis?

dj

The problem with the traditional Aristotelian/scholastic argument for the immortality of the soul – is the agent intellect us or separate from us? Does a form/matter metaphysics adequately account for the singularity of human persons? It does not seem that our singularity as persons derives from the matter. Angels are persons; God is three persons. Both are immaterial.

But it cannot derive from the form, which is the same for all of us (unlike the angels).

I’m not subscribing at all to ectoplasm which seems to be an impersonal weird energy. But I think that it points to the philosophical problem: how can we as individual human persons survive death? Think of Heidegger’s account of death as no-longer-being-in-the-world. This is why I sympathize sometimes with Descartes, irrespective of Heidegger’s criticisms – at least Descartes was attempting to maintain the immortality of the human person (unfortunately by totally separating body and self, and thus preparing the way for modern atheism).

Is the natural immortality of the human person a binding teaching? Could you hold to a supernaturalist position, i.e., a miracle is required for the individual human person to survive.

 

[djeter]

**It points to the philosophical problem: how can we as individual human persons survive death? **

“The Pauline anthropology of the resurrection is cosmic and universal at the same time. Every man bears in himself the image of Adam and every man is also called to bear in himself the image of Christ, the image of the risen one. This image is the reality of the “other world,” the eschatological reality (St. Paul writes, “We will bear”). But in the meantime it is already in a certain way a reality of this world, since it was revealed in this world through the resurrection of Christ. It is a reality ingrafted in the man of this world, a reality that is developing in him toward final completion.”
John Paul II

Not the philosophical solution, mayhaps, but it does define what we believe in.

dj

 

[FurtherSuntime]

**It points to the philosophical problem: how can we as individual human persons survive death? **

“The Pauline anthropology of the resurrection is cosmic and universal at the same time. Every man bears in himself the image of Adam and every man is also called to bear in himself the image of Christ, the image of the risen one. This image is the reality of the “other world,” the eschatological reality (St. Paul writes, “We will bear”). But in the meantime it is already in a certain way a reality of this world, since it was revealed in this world through the resurrection of Christ. It is a reality ingrafted in the man of this world, a reality that is developing in him toward final completion.”
John Paul II

Not the philosophical solution, mayhaps, but it does define what we believe in.

dj

Excuse Me…How are you addressing the thread topic .?.

How does the Soul work?

Why are we now in a discussion thats focused on the “qualification” of an immaterial Soul within man ? Why are these works being brought forward ? Exactly.

(as well most of the Feser is poorly written, continuously repetitive, somewhat manipulative in design through word choice, and multiple doorways suggesting the same simple concept re abstract- association) … a thread smokescreen…I think this is my final post…I have had it

 

[djeter]

Excuse Me…How are you addressing the thread topic .?.

How does the Soul work?

Why are we now in a discussion thats focused on the “qualification” of an immaterial Soul within man ? Why are these works being brought forward ? Exactly.

(as well most of the Feser is poorly written, continuously repetitive, somewhat manipulative in design through word choice, and multiple doorways suggesting the same simple concept re abstract- association) … a thread smokescreen…I think this is my final post…I have had it

I think both Nita and myself have supplied readings on the definition of the soul by Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophers. Did you regard them both as “thread smokescreens?” No one really responded to either postings.

Further when levinas12 asked about the “philosophical problem,” I reminded him of the faith statement of bodily resurrection and John Paul II’s statement on Pauline anthropology.

Why are these works being brought forward ? Exactly.

Not the most expressive post I’ve seen. What the hell does “exactly” mean? Are you here to deny the existence of the soul and the spiritual or to accuse the philosophers of buying into some weird ectoplasm Hollywood shadow existence? The philosophers are pretty explicit.

Whereas you are not.

If that’s your final post, don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out. Sorry no one could meet your standards of discourse. Rants are hard to match.

dj

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I think both Nita and myself have supplied readings on the definition of the soul by Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophers. Did you regard them both as “thread smokescreens?” No one really responded to either postings.

Further when levinas12 asked about the “philosophical problem,” I reminded him of the faith statement of bodily resurrection and John Paul II’s statement on Pauline anthropology.

Why are these works being brought forward ? Exactly.

Not the most expressive post I’ve seen. What the hell does “exactly” mean? Are you here to deny the existence of the soul and the spiritual or to accuse the philosophers of buying into some weird ectoplasm Hollywood shadow existence? The philosophers are pretty explicit.

Whereas you are not.

If that’s your final post, don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out. Sorry no one could meet your standards of discourse. Rants are hard to match.

dj

How in the world could my observation be seen as a rant ? Good thing I checked in today.

I will explain : Lets say an individual traveled to a remote location where a society of people had absolutely no exposure to modern day man. A toothbrush is brought along for the people.
A question is asked, a logical question…" How does a toothbrush work?

The reply : You have a tooth brush, I can prove you have a tooth brush, you are in possession of a toothbrush, and on and on and on. Included is a full explanation as to reasons which support the new acquisition of in fact having a toothbrush.

Does this help express a perfectly rational curiosity in the wanderings “away” from the interesting and progressive query…"How does the Soul work…?

Yes , if you notice my earlier contribution you would see that I am not here to deny the existence of the Soul. The supplied readings have nothing to do with the individual operations and implications of “How does the Soul work” do they…? Therefore they represent a smokescreen regardless of potential merit. As nicely explained in necessary example above.

I’ll drop by later to see how things are going. Creative thought is good. We are designed to be somewhat cheerful. I think

Food for thought: Does the Soul actually “work” If so, what and of course how does the Soul go about its function How is the Soul a logical application or resource to survival? Is Human survival significant in Soul participation…it is connected with reason.

 

[jmcrae]

I was asked this today in a facebook debate. If the soul is the mind, or a component of the mind, how does it work? I really couldn’t give an answer.

The soul isn’t “a component” of anything. It is the life of the body. It is the “what” that is missing when you see a dead body.

Every living thing has a soul.

Human beings are alone in having rational, eternal souls.

Because it is rational, it can interpret the experiences of the mind and body, and make sense of them. It can even experience itself as “me” and reflect on the meaning of “me.”

Because it is eternal, it does not cease to exist at the time of death, but continues on in a new kind of existence after the death of the body.

 

[GenerationY]

Someone tried to use an example of this split brain theory to argue against the existence of the soul. Here’s a video of a guy talking about this theory youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64&feature=related
What is the best way to explain this?

 

[jmcrae]

Someone tried to use an example of this split brain theory to argue against the existence of the soul. Here’s a video of a guy talking about this theory youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64&feature=related
What is the best way to explain this?

The soul experiences material reality through the physical body, and receives information about reality from the information that its body can provide for it.

In the case of the split-brain patient, I don’t know what is going on there - however, it would be wrong to assume that the soul necessarily understood the question very well, when it had only the left brain to work with. After all, religious experiences and our understanding of who God is come to us primarily through right-brain experiences - liturgy, music, prayer, and mystical experiences.

The left brain can only experience intellectual arguments, so, if prior to the brain being split, the person had no intellectual understanding of God, then when the soul is being required to respond to this question with only the left brain to provide it with information (information that the left brain never had, in the case of someone who never had any theological training) then probably the concept of “God” doesn’t even register, so the answer would be “no.” The answer is “Yes” in the right brain, because the right brain is where most of our God experiences take place and become recorded.

As to the fate of such a soul, no one can know, except to speculate that, because the soul lacks the complete use of its mind, it would be like an insane person or someone who is severely delayed - they would be saved through the grace of the Sacraments alone, and would not require an intellectual assent of faith.

 

[4Horsemen]

The soul experiences material reality through the physical body, and receives information about reality from the information that its body can provide for it.

As to the fate of such a soul, no one can know, except to speculate that, because the soul lacks the complete use of its mind, it would be like an insane person or someone who is severely delayed - they would be saved through the grace of the Sacraments alone, and would not require an intellectual assent of faith.

Young children and babies would be in that category of not having complete use of the mind, and wouldn’t they be saved even not having the grace of the Sacraments since it is not through their fault?

Besides . . . do we really understand the concept of one having the complete use of his or her mind? From what I’ve heard, we only use a small percentage of our brains. So how does that correlate with our minds, which I understand to be part of the soul?

 

[jmcrae]

Young children and babies would be in that category of not having complete use of the mind, and wouldn’t they be saved even not having the grace of the Sacraments since it is not through their fault?

What happens to those outside of the Sacraments has not been revealed to the Church. We hope and trust in God’s mercy, but there are two facts that stand together - first, the person has committed no personal sin (which gives us hope) but second, the person has not been released from the bondage of original sin (which should spur us to act quickly to bring that person to the Sacraments, so that they can be freed from the bondage of original sin without unnecessary delay).

Besides . . . do we really understand the concept of one having the complete use of his or her mind? From what I’ve heard, we only use a small percentage of our brains.

This is an old wives’ tale - modern brain imaging has shown that people of normal intelligence who are in good health make use of different parts of the brain at different times of the day, and for different activities, but over the course of a full day, the entire brain is being used - there is no part of the brain that is always quiet.

So how does that correlate with our minds, which I understand to be part of the soul?

I really don’t know how the mind relates to the soul. I think that the mind is maybe the “output screen” from which the soul gains information about the material world. But I don’t think that the mind and the soul are “parts” of each other - because otherwise, diseases that affect the mind would also impair the soul - and we already know that they don’t, since those whose minds are impaired can still receive the Sacraments.

 

[4Horsemen]

The soul isn’t “a component” of anything. It is the life of the body. It is the “what” that is missing when you see a dead body.

Every living thing has a soul.

Human beings are alone in having rational, eternal souls.

Because it is rational, it can interpret the experiences of the mind and body, and make sense of them. It can even experience itself as “me” and reflect on the meaning of “me.”

Because it is eternal, it does not cease to exist at the time of death, but continues on in a new kind of existence after the death of the body.

So the terms “soul,” “self” and “form” are equivalent. Using St. Thomas’ word, “form,” we know that it is the person or being that separates from the body. So a something, I mean someone, leaves his body, but we don’t want to call it ectoplasm. In other words, the “form” has to be an object. So Descartes was really correct. The “form” is the person with intellect and will. When this immaterial being departs, the remnants (body) remains. That seems to make more sense than the integration of the “form” with body as it seems, then, that the “form” really is the body.

I’m sorry I’m having a hard time trying to express this. I read the above posts with djeter’s quote from Edward Feser’s book, which I have and am reading. Feser depends on Aristotle and Aquinas to refute Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et. al., but he disagrees with Descartes’ interpretation.

 

[4Horsemen]

What happens to those outside of the Sacraments has not been revealed to the Church. We hope and trust in God’s mercy, but there are two facts that stand together - first, the person has committed no personal sin (which gives us hope) but second, the person has not been released from the bondage of original sin (which should spur us to act quickly to bring that person to the Sacraments, so that they can be freed from the bondage of original sin without unnecessary delay).

For those who are not Christian but seek God, and for the unborn, who through no fault of their own are not baptized, we can only depend on God’s Divine Mercy.

This is an old wives’ tale - modern brain imaging has shown that people of normal intelligence who are in good health make use of different parts of the brain at different times of the day, and for different activities, but over the course of a full day, the entire brain is being used - there is no part of the brain that is always quiet.

I just googled a couple sites about the brain’s activity and found you are right. One site for anyone reading who is interested:

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain

I really don’t know how the mind relates to the soul. I think that the mind is maybe the “output screen” from which the soul gains information about the material world. But I don’t think that the mind and the soul are “parts” of each other - because otherwise, diseases that affect the mind would also impair the soul - and we already know that they don’t, since those whose minds are impaired can still receive the Sacraments.

Very interesting thought that the soul cannot be impaired by an irregularity in the brain, or mind, that is, like schizophrenia. Our souls don’t necessarily need the body to acquire knowledge. I read that some saints said we would have infused knowledge in Heaven. And even on earth, people who were blessed with visions from God of various saints knew exactly who the saint was or person from Purgatory.

 

[djeter]

How in the world could my observation be seen as a rant ? Good thing I checked in today…

I think rants are monologues. There is no interaction with anyone and usually terminate with the ranter announcing his departure from dialogue (usually termed worthless and its other participants impossible dullards). In short, a performance art, not communication. More to plump up the ranter than the rantee (those who endure it).

I will explain : Lets say an individual traveled to a remote location where a society of people had absolutely no exposure to modern day man. A toothbrush is brought along for the people.
A question is asked, a logical question…" How does a toothbrush work?

The reply : You have a tooth brush, I can prove you have a tooth brush, you are in possession of a toothbrush, and on and on and on. Included is a full explanation as to reasons which support the new acquisition of in fact having a toothbrush.

Does this help express a perfectly rational curiosity in the wanderings “away” from the interesting and progressive query…"How does the Soul work…? …

My attempts (along with others) was to help define the topic: before we can discuss “How the Soul Works,” it might be helpful to understand what a “soul” is. Further, if you understand the matrix of other theological topics the soul belongs to, you might begin to question whether the soul bears any likeness at all to a toothbrush.

Yes , if you notice my earlier contribution you would see that I am not here to deny the existence of the Soul. The supplied readings have nothing to do with the individual operations and implications of “How does the Soul work” do they…? Therefore they represent a smokescreen regardless of potential merit.

I merely responded to one of your posts and to the the general topic, which I thought was leading us all astray.

Food for thought: Does the Soul actually “work” If so, what and of course how does the Soul go about its function How is the Soul a logical application or resource to survival? Is Human survival significant in Soul participation…it is connected with reason.

I can’t really see any “food for thought” in any of that. The soul is not a tool as your toothbrush example indicates. Reason and Human Survival? I have no idea what you mean or how they relate to our souls or what I would prefer you to speak to, our ensouled bodies.

But let me provide more material from which we may be able to understand the workings of the soul rather than how it works. I assume you can agree with me that rather than the duality of the Greeks body and soul that Catholics understand that minds are incarnate, bodies are ensouled and that all of us come to knowledge in a community of fellow searchers, players, and apprentices. I get very suspicious when some start speaking to the topic of the “soul” because it almost sets up the dualism that our faith denies.

I don’t think we come to the way of Jesus through the privacy of our inner experience, but rather through a lively intersubjective play; I don’t think we embrace the way of Christ by knocking down the monuments of the Christian tradition, but rather by walking around and through them, looking at them with admiration and critical attention; and I don’t think we find salvation through an isolation of mind from body, but rather through the movements and passions of the body. Christianity is a way, and we learn it by walking; it is a river, and we know it by swimming; it is a game, and we come to love it through playing.
Fr. Robert Barron, *The Strangest Way *

For Thomas Aquinas, paradise is no disembodied, purely intellectual state of affairs; on the contrary, it is richly imagined as the blissful fulfillment of the totality of human being:

“At the resurrection the soul will not resume a celestial or ethereal body, or the body of some animal…No, it will resume a human body made up of flesh and bones and equipped with the same organs it now possesses.”
(Compendium Theologiae)

In a word, it is I who am saved and not some aspect, some dimension of myself.
“The human beings’ final happiness requires the soul to be again united to the body.”
(Compendium Theologiae)

So we see here that the ensouled body is the actor that makes our redemption and resurrection from the dead possible. But it doesn’t work for everyone. Yes, the Risen Body will be incorruptible, glorious, full of dynamism, and spiritual. And yet our bodies are corruptible and their very nature was the object of Jesus’ mission here on earth: “Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

"This “man of heaven” – the man of the resurrection whose prototype is the risen Christ – is not so much an antithesis and negation of the “man of earth” (whose prototype is the first Adam), but is above all his completion and confirmation. It is the completion and confirmation of what corresponds to the psychosomatic makeup of humanity, in the sphere of his eternal destiny, that is, in the thought and the plan of him who from the beginning created man in his own image and likeness.

The humanity of the first Adam, the “man of earth,” bears in itself a particular potential (which is a capacity and readiness) to receive all that became the second Adam, the man of heaven, namely, Christ, what he became in his resurrection. That humanity which all men, children of the first Adam, share, and which, along with the heritage of sin – being carnal – at the same time is corruptible, and bears in itself the potentiality of incorruptibility."
John Paul II

Becoming any clearer?

dj

 

[djeter]

If we are to understand the soul-body, perhaps it might be worth the time to consider the narrative of Genesis and the creation of man. No better guide than John Paul II.

dj

 

[4Horsemen]

Thanks to all for helping to shed light on some issues. The fact that Jesus had a “glorified body” after the Resurrection points to the realization that we will also have “glorified bodies.” Since they will be material (with bones and flesh), it would seem that heaven is also a material place as well as spiritual, not just an intellectual state of mind. We can recall from the gospel that Jesus even ate fish, which prefigures the “heavenly banquet.”

It’s still a mystery, but when we experience the unity of body and soul at the General Resurrection, we will truly be ourselves. I came across Edward Feser’s explanation of Aquinas’ thinking, which I don’t think was quoted previously (sorry if it already was):

“. . . the soul of a man isn’t a complete substance only the soul and body (i.e. the form and matter) together constitute a thing or substance, that is, a man. It isn’t the soul that thinks when a man uses his intellect; it is the man himself who thinks, just as it is the man himself, and not the soul, who grows taller, digests his food, and walks around. For this reaon, it is not at all surprising that human thought should be very closely correlated with certain brain events even if it is not identical to any of them.”

Then later he adds:

“. . . the operations of the intellect are not directly dependent on the matter of the brain. . .”

That could use some clarification. Understanding how the operations of the intellect are INDIRECTLY dependent on the brain’s matter.

 

[greylorn]

Someone tried to use an example of this split brain theory to argue against the existence of the soul. Here’s a video of a guy talking about this theory youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64&feature=related
What is the best way to explain this?

I did not watch the video but assume it will reflect the Sperry-Gazzaniga experimental results.

The soul is connected only to the brain’s dominant hemisphere. When the corpus-callosum is severed, the soul cannot communicate with the non-dominant half of the brain.

The split-brain experiments actually provide an excellent proof of the existence of soul, provided that soul is properly defined as an entity which exists independently of the body. Unfortunately, that essentially Cartesian definition is unappealing to Thomists who want to believe that their silly bodies will accompany them into an afterlife.