How does the Soul "Work"?

[Pieman333272]

Paul’s words, “Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” (2Cor.2:9)" would apply nicely to someone sent on an exploratory trip into a black hole.

That quote sounds like the kind of mollifying assurance that TV evangelists spew forth. What did Paul know? He hadn’t been given a grand tour of heaven, except maybe on mushroom time. He just made that up. It’s accepted because it’s what people desperately need to hear, not for any truth in it.

Greylorn, while I do find much of your physics and philosophy agreeable, or at least useful, I must say I find your history inaccurate, at best. First of all, Paul was basically saying Heaven was great beyond imagination. He didn’t have to know the details beyond that, considering the way the ideas of Heaven and Kingdom of God are rooted in the OT most would understand and respect Heaven as a place great beyond their conception (except for small, tip-of-the-iceberg or very broad ideas).

Second, the same religion which we adhere to teaches that Paul, as well as everyone else who wrote their books, either revived their knowledge and their creativity (application in writing) or just their creativity from God himself - the best tools to do it from the best company. So the question “how does Paul know” is meaningless from a Catholic standpoint.

Finally, and not to look nitpickey, but it is impossible for early Christianity to be inspired by mushroom hallucogins. The anthropologist who proposed that has failed to present ANY historical evidence for his claims as well as making flat-out false ones, such as saying there are no secular references to Jesus before the 5th century! That hypothesis also cannot explain the origins of Christian concepts and ideas without drastically decreasing the historical intelligence of the average Pagan.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, while I do find much of your physics and philosophy agreeable, or at least useful, I must say I find your history inaccurate, at best. First of all, Paul was basically saying Heaven was great beyond imagination. He didn’t have to know the details beyond that, considering the way the ideas of Heaven and Kingdom of God are rooted in the OT most would understand and respect Heaven as a place great beyond their conception (except for small, tip-of-the-iceberg or very broad ideas).

Second, the same religion which we adhere to teaches that Paul, as well as everyone else who wrote their books, either revived their knowledge and their creativity (application in writing) or just their creativity from God himself - the best tools to do it from the best company. So the question “how does Paul know” is meaningless from a Catholic standpoint.

Finally, and not to look nitpickey, but it is impossible for early Christianity to be inspired by mushroom hallucogins. The anthropologist who proposed that has failed to present ANY historical evidence for his claims as well as making flat-out false ones, such as saying there are no secular references to Jesus before the 5th century! That hypothesis also cannot explain the origins of Christian concepts and ideas without drastically decreasing the historical intelligence of the average Pagan.

You’ve nailed history as my weakest subject.

I realize that Christians accept the authority of the Bible as being the inspired revelation of God. I have way too much respect for God’s intelligence to accept that, unable to believe that God would have inspired so much contradictory material.

The Christianity of Paul is even farther removed from the Christianity of Christ than the two creation stories in Genesis from one another, and the epoch in which they were allegedly composed from the Babylonian captivity.

It is because of these contradictions, and more significant contradictions between Church dogma and scientifically determined reality, that while I insist upon the idea of an intelligently created universe, I cannot return to Catholicism.

History or not, I’ve read nothing to convince me that Paul is in any way an authority on heaven. Had he been taken up and returned? IMO he was just another evangelist who warped Christ’s teachings for his own purposes.

The mushroom quip was purely accidental. I’d no idea that some anthropologist had formally proposed it. I’ll fess up to being even less knowledgeable about anthropology than history— the social sciences are not my thing at all, being way too speculative and IMO entirely subject to the whims of their internal authority figures. I once dated a highly regarded sociology professor, who became very angry when I predicted the results of a difficult study she had performed (without reading it), and explained them, which her paper did not. I’ve stayed away from the fools in such fields ever since.

Had I known that some nitwit anthropologist had employed mushrooms to account for Christianity, my quip would not have appeared. IMO those clowns serve no purpose except to turn otherwise good food into offal, and transform perfectly fine oxygen into CO2. They are probably the real cause of global warming.

 

[levinas12]

I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “natural immortality.” Are you suggesting that a belief in the divine makes all our Catholic beliefs dependent upon a supernatural cause and hence “unnatural”?

dj

Not “unnatural” … just beyond or above nature … added to the Aristotelian form … which does not destroy the form but “builds” on it … something gratuitous … “grace”

There may be “natural” reasons, i.e., strictly philosophical, to believe in God … this does not require a special revelation … but I’m not sure about the “natural” immortality of the human person … usually the agent intellect requires a phantasm … but without the body there is no phantasm … without the phantasm, no human person (e.g, no perception, no memory, etc) … remember the human intellect/will is different from angelic intellect/will … it may require a special supernatural intervention for us to survive without our bodies …

Of course, the distinction between nature and “supernature” is in a sense artificial … we are all living in a “supernatural” world … this was true from the very beginning in Genesis … humanity has always had a supernatural destiny … Jesus’ work is both retroactive (past) and proactive (future) …

 

[levinas12]

I may have gotten into some hot water here. There is a lot of controversy about what Aristotle himself taught about the agent intellect. The unicity of the agent intellect was posited in a clear way only by later commentators. First, among neoplatonists. Then, later, in the middle ages, Arab commentators (e.g., Avicenna, Averrroes).

Thomas clearly teaches that there is a philosophical proof for the immortality of the human soul. And the Church did condemn positions in the middle ages and Renaissance which argued against immortality.

I hope I’m not raising any real doubts about immortality by talking about the possible need for a supernatural intervention. That’s not my intention at all. I’m just seeking clarification of some philosophical concepts.

 

[djeter]

Hi Levinas12:

A lengthy read but Chapter Five of Jacques Maritain, The Range of Reason, covers much of what you are considering here. You can find it here. Definitely worth the effort or I’ve been wasting my last 20 minutes

Such are the teachings of Saint Thomas, both as a philosopher and as a theologian, about the condition and destiny of the human soul. Immortality is not a more or less precarious, successful or unsuccessful survival in other men, or in the ideal waves of the universe. Immortality is a nature-given, inalienable property of the human soul as a spiritual substance. And grace makes eternal life possible to all, to the most destitute as well as to the most gifted. The eternal life of the immortal soul is its transforming union with God and His intimate life, a union which is to be accomplished inchoatively here below, by love and contemplation and, after the body’s death, in a definite and perfect manner, by the beatific vision. **For eternal life begins here upon earth, and the soul of man lives and breathes where it loves; and love, in living faith, has strength enough to make the soul of man experience unity with God – “two natures in a single spirit and love, dos naturalezas en un espiritu y amor de Dios.” **

dj

 

[4Horsemen]

In my Catholic upbringing I never heard a word about food in heaven.

Please regard it as a point of conjecture. In the classroom, we often did that sort of thing. The idea may be more of a mystical concept. Ask St. Paul, as he went on a trip up to Heaven. (It’s not the schrooms.)

I regard Paul as a Roman who hated everything Christian, and who found that he could not destroy its ideas by killing those who believed them. I regard Paul as an evil and clever man who saw that the only way to destroy Christianity was to corrupt it from within. That he did, so effectively that he is now a “Saint.” His assiduous politicization of the early Church raised his own false teachings to a higher level than Christ’s. Today, most of Catholic dogma is derived from Paul, not from Jesus. I do not regard him as a saint, and respect none of Paul’s teachings.

Excuse me, greylorn, but what biographies have you read or studies on the writings of St. Paul? Of course, when he was Saul, he thought he was acting justly according to his Jewish beliefs, in killing the early Christians. But, remember (!), he was knocked off his horse and had a mystical encounter with God. He was physically and spiritually blinded by the Light and remained thus until he did what was required of him. (Do read the Acts of the Apostles as a refresher if you’ve already read it.)

Where do you get the idea that he was “an evil and clever man?” He wasn’t corrupting the teachings of Christ. He was making them manifest to the gatherings of Christians in various cities, writing letters to encourage them in the faith. His teaching has NOT been “raised to a higher level than Christs’s.” The readings at Mass all work together for our understanding and wisdom. My advice is to attend the holy sacrifice of the Mass and see for yourself – with an open mind, of course, and heart.

Paul’s words, “Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” (2Cor.2:9)" would apply nicely to someone sent on an exploratory trip into a black hole.

Nice image! He was sent on a mission into the heart of man to bring the good news and Light into the black hole of our consciousness.

That quote sounds like the kind of mollifying assurance that TV evangelists spew forth. What did Paul know? He hadn’t been given a grand tour of heaven, except maybe on mushroom time. He just made that up. It’s accepted because it’s what people desperately need to hear, not for any truth in it.

WRONG!

 

[levinas12]

Hi Levinas12:

A lengthy read but Chapter Five of Jacques Maritain, The Range of Reason, covers much of what you are considering here. You can find it here. Definitely worth the effort or I’ve been wasting my last 20 minutes

Such are the teachings of Saint Thomas, both as a philosopher and as a theologian, about the condition and destiny of the human soul. Immortality is not a more or less precarious, successful or unsuccessful survival in other men, or in the ideal waves of the universe. Immortality is a nature-given, inalienable property of the human soul as a spiritual substance. And grace makes eternal life possible to all, to the most destitute as well as to the most gifted. The eternal life of the immortal soul is its transforming union with God and His intimate life, a union which is to be accomplished inchoatively here below, by love and contemplation and, after the body’s death, in a definite and perfect manner, by the beatific vision. For eternal life begins here upon earth, and the soul of man lives and breathes where it loves; and love, in living faith, has strength enough to make the soul of man experience unity with God – "two natures in a single spirit and love, dos naturalezas en un espiritu y amor de Dios."

dj

Thank you for the Maritain material which I read in its entirety. Its distinction between soul and spirit where soul animates a material body and spirit stands on its own independent of body requires a second look. The passages about what the spirit will be doing in heaven were interesting - perception, sensory memory, perspective, anything to do with the body, are excluded. This is where I’m having a philosophical problem. I cannot separate the self, the person from the body. To do otherwise would too Cartesian. I know Maritain criticized Descartes for turning the cogito into something angelic. But it seems that Maritain himself may be suffering from a latent Cartesianism (this is a French malady).

For example, Maritain makes no or little mention of the resurrection of the body (at least in the passage I read). It’s as if the separated soul does not really need its body.

Maybe I’ve been corrupted by Merleau-Ponty.

 

[Chen_Zhen]

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 is not a component of the mind.
The soul is spiritual (immaterial) and therefore a component of no thing.
Material things are made of parts but the soul is not because spiritual things do not have “parts”.

The soul is the animating principle.

A person is a composite of body and soul. The soul being the form and the body being the matter.

All created (material things) have form and matter.

The soul has an intellect and the will. The “mind” can be thought of as another way of referring to the intellect.

 

[tonyrey]

The soul is not a component of the mind.
The soul is spiritual (immaterial) and therefore a component of no thing.
Material things are made of parts but the soul is not because spiritual things do not have “parts”.

The soul is the animating principle.

A person is a composite of body and soul. The soul being the form and the body being the matter.

All created (material things) have form and matter.

The soul has an intellect and the will. The “mind” can be thought of as another way of referring to the intellect.

A warm welcome to the forum, Chen!

Sir Charles Sherrington, Nobel neuroscientist, believed spirit - or soul - is not confined to human beings but also exists in other forms of life. In the course of his research he realised that animals are more than biological machines!

 

[4Horsemen]

A warm welcome to the forum, Chen!

Sir Charles Sherrington, Nobel neuroscientist, believed spirit - or soul - is not confined to human beings but also exists in other forms of life. In the course of his research he realised that animals are more than biological machines!

Then maybe my beloved dog will be in Paradise??? I’m not so sure about the cat though, that murderous little villain!!!

 

[Chen_Zhen]

A warm welcome to the forum, Chen!

Sir Charles Sherrington, Nobel neuroscientist, believed spirit - or soul - is not confined to human beings but also exists in other forms of life. In the course of his research he realised that animals are more than biological machines!

Thanks for the welcome!

Was he a philosopher also? His realization seems to be in line with Aristotle and Aquinas who hold that there are three types of souls: vegetative, sensitive, and rational.

Many of the scientists from the past are interesting because they seem to have a concept of philosophy and don’t simply materialize everything as a large number of modern scientists do.

 

[MikeSar]

The concept of “Soul” was formulated by one student of Plato: Aristotle c. 350 BC.
Plate was an “Idealist” Philosopher that believed reality is like the outside of a cave and we live in a cave.
Aristotle’s “Realism” Philosophy took the idea to its ultimate explanation and nothing substantial has been modified, except labels, symbolic names, translated in all languages.

All beings have a “real” physical component and a “potential” non-physical component.
One refers to the material body and the other to the potential, called “soul” in humans.
That’s it! That is all. It is the distinction between our “Real” body and our “Potential” aspects called “Soul” or whatever. The label alters nothing.

It is hard, for some, to believe that if I break one piece of wood into thousands of pieces, each part, each being, has a wooden material real “body” and a potential that includes it generation of heat, from burning, or an statue, if cut by an artist. The wood has no say on what it becomes from fire or a chisel.

Of course, there are many books written by pagan philosophers, like Aristotle, Christian philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, etc., they all wrote about the “Form” or “Soul” of all beings (not “in” but “of”). Materialists, of course, have no concept of the “Potential” of beings and you don’t argue with them because they have no idea, at all, on what, or why, the term “Form” or “Soul”.
Should God made humans like Angels, that have “Form” but no “Matter”? Or, beings with no “Free Will” in their Form, like irrational animals, insects, etc.? Why would he do that?
Do you know more than God, what he should have done? Is your name “Stephen”?

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for the welcome!

Was he a philosopher also? His realization seems to be in line with Aristotle and Aquinas who hold that there are three types of souls: vegetative, sensitive, and rational.

Many of the scientists from the past are interesting because they seem to have a concept of philosophy and don’t simply materialize everything as a large number of modern scientists do.

Sir Charles Sherrington was a very remarkable man who was not only an eminent scientist but a philosopher with honorary doctorates from over twenty European and American universities. His lifetime of research in neuroscience inclined him towards materialism but he could not reconcile it with the “‘manifold variety of mind’”, the problem of personal meaning and the subjectivity of experience - a topic discussed in a famous paper by Thomas Nagel* “What is it like to be a bat*?”. It is online:

organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

 

[tonyrey]

Sir Charles Sherrington, Nobel neuroscientist, believed spirit - or soul - is not confined to human beings but also exists in other forms of life. In the course of his research he realised that animals are more than biological machines!
Then maybe my beloved dog will be in Paradise??? I’m not so sure about the cat though, that murderous little villain!!! Then maybe my beloved dog will be in Paradise??? I’m not so sure about the cat though, that murderous little villain!!!

I think it would be unfair to exclude “Tiger” from heaven just because he hunts for birds… Does he let the mice share his food?

 

[4Horsemen]

I think it would be unfair to exclude “Tiger” from heaven just because he hunts for birds… Does he let the mice share his food?

The mice are his dessert.

Having begun to look over the article on bats, I’m wondering if a mouse is just a reductionist bat. Or vice versa.

Anyhow, St. Paul mentions soul, body and spirit. For instance, he prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly,” with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming (1 Thess.5:23). So spirit is not the same as soul. How might it be defined in relation to a person, if you have any idea at all?

 

[tonyrey]

The mice are his dessert.

Having begun to look over the article on bats, I’m wondering if a mouse is just a reductionist bat. Or vice versa.

Anyhow, St. Paul mentions soul, body and spirit. For instance, he prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly,” with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming (1 Thess.5:23). So spirit is not the same as soul. How might it be defined in relation to a person, if you have any idea at all?

I think soul is used in a religious context while spirit is sometimes used by non-believers.
Sir Charles was a dualist like many philosophers and scientists because he realised life has a spiritual dimension.

 

[4Horsemen]

I think soul is used in a religious context while spirit is sometimes used by non-believers.
Sir Charles was a dualist like many philosophers and scientists because he realised life has a spiritual dimension.

Thank you.

We have some dualists on these message boards as well. Perhaps the “spirit” of Sir Charles is roaming the threads right now! :bigyikes:

St. Paul’s usage of the term “spirit” probably refers to the fact that our essence is spiritual. So the soul is the unifying factor of spirit and body. I think. . . therefore, I wonder.

 

[yppop]

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.

Pieman
The next time you are asked how the soul works, try the following:

The spirit is the substance from which the soul is formed; yes the soul has form. The spiritual substance from which it is formed pervades the entire cosmos. I refer to it as “nomos”. When the human body is conceived, the nomos that body encapsulates (and is referred to as “nous”) is formed by the body and becomes the soul. The body and the soul are conjoined. The soul is to the body what the algorithm is to the computer. And as the algorithm controls the output of the computer, the soul controls the behavior of the body.

If it doesn’t satisfy your questioner it might confuse him/her.

Yppop

 

[4Horsemen]

Yppop,

Your explanation seems to be in line with what St. Paul was saying using the phrase “spirit and soul and body” that they may be kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.

I checked the Catechism and found a definition of “spirit.”
“‘Spirit’ signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deservess to communion with God.”

As C.S. Lewis wrote: "You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t know how the soul works, but I have some idea of what the soul is.

First, it is not one’s mind.

If you should lose your mind, surely you do not, in turn, lose your soul.

Secondly,it is not your body.

If you should lose your body, surely you do not, in turn, lose your soul.

Well, if the soul is neither mind or body, what is it?

I believe the soul is what is left of you, when mind and body are stripped away.

It is what Christ will judge.

That with which Christ will say I know you or I know you not.

That with which will be transformed in the twinkling of an eye for Heaven or cast into Hell [or for my Catholic friends, purgatory ].

Your brilliant mind may be interested in reading Thomas Aquinas. Body/Soul. The faculties of the soul are Intellect and Will. The intellect has memory, imagination, cognitive ability and internal senses. If you lose your mind then what part of the mind did you lose? You still may have memory and imagination but no cognition. Then your Body/soul are intact.

God will judge you body/soul.