How to understand and explain the soul?

[Freddy]

Read Post #24 again.

I did and your argument doesn’t advance any further than this:

Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which the soul is.

A concept is immaterial but how we perceive them or understand them is not an immaterial process. Politics is immaterial but we conceptualise that idea using our grey matter. And I showed you that in the link I provided earlier. We can actually see parts of tbe brain that are doing the work of conceptualising light up. We can actually see the brain doing the work. It matters not in the slightest whether what the brain is thinking of is material or immaterial. It’s still the brain doing the work.

Let’s say I have a memory of an event that happened when I was very young. I remember my grandmother being taken out of the house to hospital after she was taken ill. This was a material event and you’d accept that the memory was formed and stored within my brain using some combination of neurons, electrical charges, chemical changes etc. No problem there - you’ve already accepted this upstream.

Now let’s plug me into a scanner so we can actually see parts of my brain lighting up remembering this event. Now we actually have the evidence that a material event is presented as a memory by the material operation of my brain. And I think of another event from the same period - getting a puppy, and the same thing happens. This is pretty conclusive. We can actually see physical changes in the brain which are producing memories of physical, material events.

Now what happens if one of the events never took place? I believe they did. But one of them didn’t. What happens is that we get exactly the same response in my brain for both events.

So what use is a Theory of The Soul which says that the brain is involved with material things and the soul with immaterial things if there is ZERO difference in how the brain is seen to work with either?

Incidently, the episode with my grandmother didn’t happen. It was a false memory I had for very many years.

 

[rom]

I did and your argument doesn’t advance any further than this:

The argument is already there. You just have to add the obvious conclusion. I’ll just do it for you. Here:

“We are capable of operations or actions that are immaterial or free of the conditions of materiality. Since everything acts according to its nature, an immaterial operation must proceed from a source whose nature is also immaterial, which the soul is. Therefore, an immaterial soul exists.”

A concept is immaterial but how we perceive them or understand them is not an immaterial process.

Concept formation itself is not material because no material process can produce a universal content. What lights up in the scanner is the neural network in the brain. It is a particular arrangement of neurons, which is why it can NEVER be a universal concept. Think of a TV screen or monitor. Using different pixel lights and colors, you can display an image of your mother, or my mother, or his mother, or her mother. But you cannot have an image of “motherhood” or “mother in general.” It’s always an image of a particular woman, with a particular facial feature, a particular hairstyle, etc. Analogously, our grey matter can exhibit different patterns of neurons in the brain, but they are always a particular pattern, not a universal concept.

Now, a particular pattern can be used as a symbol that represents a universal. For example, you can have an image that displays “MOTHER.” The word itself is particular, but the meaning that it stands for, is universal. You can have images of words, symbols, or objects in the brain, but not images of their meaning. You need an immaterial intellect to handle the universal meaning of your thoughts. That’s where the soul comes in.

When we are thinking, our brain is busy indeed, but it is not the only power at work. Because the brain is busy making neural arrangements of particular symbols, but it is our soul, and its power called the intellect, that handles the meaning of the symbols, since meanings are universal and cannot be handled by the neural patterns of the brain. So it is wrong to think that the brain is doing all the work. Brute animals also have brains that will light up in a scanner, but they have no understanding because they have no intellect.

If you say that the neurons in the brain can handle universals, then that is a bold assertion that you have to prove. The article that you cited did not prove it. It did not even define what a “concept” is, or what a universal is. It did not distinguish the particular image (which results from the particular arrangement of neurons) from the universal concept in the mind. That’s why the evidence is FLAWED. It is ok as evidence of “images,” but not as evidence of concepts. Yes, the scientists call these images “concepts,” but they don’t mean universals as we understand them. Merely calling them “concepts” don’t make them universals.

 

[rom]

Let’s say I have a memory of an event that happened when I was very young. I remember my grandmother being taken out of the house to hospital after she was taken ill. This was a material event and you’d accept that the memory was formed and stored within my brain using some combination of neurons, electrical charges, chemical changes etc. No problem there - you’ve already accepted this upstream.

Correct. The sensible images of the events that happened when you were young are stored in your brain and can be recalled or reconstructed by the neurons. Because these images are particular images in the sensitive memory. Even brute animals have this power. It is not the same as the ideas and concepts that are understood and kept in the intellective memory. These are universals and cannot be reconstructed by neurons. The neurons can only reconstruct their particular symbols, but not the universals that they stand for.

The fact that you see parts of your brain light up in your scanner is no evidence of the presence of universals. It is only evidence of the presence of particular images in your brain.

I’m going to be busy now. I will be back on Monday. Have a great weekend.

 

[EndTimes]

I would like to continue my conversation with him, as I feel I have an obligation as a Christian to try and help him understand the truth about the existence of God.

Some atheists are open to Reasoned discussion while others are set to reject any pearls shown them.

Our Lord never went on and on. He said what He did and some believed and some didn’t…

Your Soul? The ancients wrote “soul” as if it were something all knew…

Soul? You? Your Finger and even Your Mind can get lost . yet YOU are still there…

Ask him to learn more about Jesus - so as to get to know Jesus’ Mind

 

[o_mlly]

The fact that you see parts of your brain light up in your scanner is no evidence of the presence of universals. It is only evidence of the presence of particular images in your brain.

Mental mechanisms we share with animals are imagination and memory. In the animal, the reproduction of the images from memory corresponds exactly to the reality perceived before by the senses. So, even In the absence of the exact objects, the imagination drawing on memory reproduces them and moves the animal to act.

Unlike the animal, man can also abstract, that is, unite or separate the images in his imagination from the particulars and combine them in diverse ways. By associating these novel combinations, man develops alternative options to adapting his behaviors in order to satisfy his desires in creative ways not possible for animals.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Let’s say I have a memory of an event that happened when I was very young. I remember my grandmother being taken out of the house to hospital after she was taken ill. This was a material event and you’d accept that the memory was formed and stored within my brain using some combination of neurons, electrical charges, chemical changes etc. No problem there - you’ve already accepted this upstream.

Correct. The sensible images of the events that happened when you were young are stored in your brain and can be recalled or reconstructed by the neurons. Because these images are particular images in the sensitive memory. Even brute animals have this power. It is not the same as the ideas and concepts that are understood and kept in the intellective memory.

But as I said, the event never took place. It was totaly immaterial. So my soul was dealing with it. Which means that I thought it was real and my soul knew it wasn’t. You think it might have mentioned it to me…

And as regards universals, as has been agreed, they don’t rely on anything else for their existence. So even if no-one existed they would still be there. But if no-one existed then there’d be no souls. So souls aren’t required for their existence. They don’t have to reconstruct them. And neither does the brain. Which only needs to understand them.

One plus one equals two is a universal. Your argument boils down to claimig that our brain can’t understand that and we need a soul for simple mathematical concepts.

Have a good weekend anyway.

 

[EndTimes]

Your argument boils down to claimig that our brain can’t understand that and we need a soul for simple mathematical concepts.

It’s not brains which understand… The brain’s an organ.

it’s your Soul - aka You -
which has a Mind and Senses and Memory and Intelligence
and has free choice Will - as to which spirit it follows.

The Holy Spirit or the evil one.

 

[rom]

But as I said, the event never took place.

If the event that you remember did not actually happen, then it means that you did not actually see it happen. Therefore, the event was something that you only imagined. In that case, you have a memory of what you imagined to have happened, not a memory of something that actually happened.

It was totaly immaterial.

Wrong choice of words. It wasn’t totally immaterial; it was totally imaginary. Imaginary images are particular images and are recorded in a material brain. Therefore, they are not really immaterial, although you cannot touch them in the same way that you can touch a rock.

So my soul was dealing with it. Which means that I thought it was real and my soul knew it wasn’t.

If your soul didn’t know that an event didn’t really happen, then your soul didn’t know that it was purely imaginary. Once your soul realizes that the event was fictitious, then it realizes that what it remembers was an imaginary event.

And as regards universals, as has been agreed, they don’t rely on anything else for their existence.

I did not agree with that. Universals, as universals, do not exist except in the concept, which is in the mind (or intellect) of the knower. Therefore, they DO depend on the intellect or mind of the knower for their existence as a universal.

So even if no-one existed they would still be there.

False again. If no one existed, then there would be no knowers, and without knowers, there would be no concepts and no universals.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you provide any evidence for any of those assertions?

It’s a philosophical argument. What kind of “evidence” do you think is reasonable to expect? A formal proof, maybe? But not empirical evidence, right?

These are all functions of the intellect, not of the brain.

Does the brain participate in processing them, though? When we ratiocinate – let’s say, by moving from concepts to particulars in a rational process – aren’t we utilizing our brains?

 

[rom]

Does the brain participate in processing them, though? When we ratiocinate – let’s say, by moving from concepts to particulars in a rational process – aren’t we utilizing our brains?

That’s right, we also use our brains when we make a judgment or ratiocinate about singular objects. We do not need the brain only when we make judgment or ratiocinate about universal essences. Unlike judgments that involve only universals, a judgment that involves a particular or singular object requires the brain because the concepts that are being compared, affirmed or denied, are referred back to the singular sensible species (phantasm) from which they were derived by abstraction.

However, when the soul is separated from the body (after death), and the brain is not there to supply the phantasms to which the intellect can return, the soul is still able to make judgments and know about singular objects through a species infused by God. This species is like a participated similitude of the Divine Essence, in which universal and singular things can be known.

 

[Wesrock]

However, when the soul is separated from the body (after death), and the brain is not there to supply the phantasms to which the intellect can return, the soul is still able to make judgments and know about singular objects through a species infused by God. This species is like a participated similitude of the Divine Essence, in which universal and singular things can be known.

To ask a clarifying question, would this last point be an article of faith, or at least a “postulation of faith”? It does not seem like something an intellect without a body could accomplish by natural means, given how you stated it.

 

[po18guy]

Soul music.

God hides wisdom from the learned and reveals it to the humble.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So even if no-one existed they would still be there.

False again. If no one existed, then there would be no knowers, and without knowers, there would be no concepts and no universals.

That’s not correct as far as Aquinas thought. He believed the ‘object of mathematics’ to be a real quantity: ‘It is not a being of reason (ens rationis) but a real being (ens reale)’.

So again, souls aren’t required for their existence. And we only require a material mind to understand them.

 

[tafan2]

But I think that Lews had this wrong. We don’t have a soul or have a body. We are body and soul.

 

[rom]

To ask a clarifying question, would this last point be an article of faith, or at least a “postulation of faith”? It does not seem like something an intellect without a body could accomplish by natural means, given how you stated it.

I do not think that philosophy alone would let us know that separated souls have knowledge of the singular. St. Thomas bases his opinion on a text of St. Luke where, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man in hell said: “I have five brethren” (Luke 16:27). See ST, I, Q.89, Art. 4. So, I think it is at least what a theologian might call a theological opinion, if not a "theological conclusion.”

That’s not correct as far as Aquinas thought. He believed the ‘object of mathematics’ to be a real quantity: ‘It is not a being of reason (ens rationis) but a real being (ens reale)’.

So again, souls aren’t required for their existence. And we only require a material mind to understand them.

The objects of mathematics are real, but they do not exist in reality as universals. They exist in singular material objects. For example, “circle” does not exist in reality except in something circular, such as a wheel, a round table, etc. The “circle,” as a universal, is only in the mind of the knower. Universals, as universals, exist only in the mind of the knower. That is why you need souls for universals to exist as universals.

If the universal as such does not have the limitations of matter, then a material brain cannot understand it. For, the universal cannot exist in anything material without losing its freedom from matter, or its character as a universal. You need an immaterial mind to know a universal as universal.

 

[Dakman72]

Hello everyone. I have been watching this since I posted it and I appreciate all the responses. As many have pointed out, I probably don’t know enough to really hold my own in the discussion with my atheist friend. In all honesty I think it is kind of silly to be talking about the existence of the soul and an afterlife if the guy that I am talking to doesn’t believe in God in the first place. I’d rather talk to him about why he doesn’t believe in God than about the soul, at least for now.

Some have said that I should just let him be, that there is no point in talking to him. That just doesn’t seem right to me. He told me that he use to be a believer, that at some point in his past he had become a “born again Christian” that fell away from his faith because he had doubts that no one could provide satisfactory answers for. He said he is open to being converted, which I think is half the battle in ways, dependent on concrete proof. To me, it feels wrong to have someone tell me these things and just not try. At the very least, I should try to build a relationship with this individual and show him the love of Christ through my actions, even if I don’t convert him.

As for the matter of the philosophy on the existence of the soul, as I said, I have a lot to learn. I saw a post here that talked about an Aquinas 101 series that the Thomistic Institute was making, and I have signed up for that and am receiving the content they are emailing out. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to recommend some books that would be a good starting point from someone like me. It doesn’t have to be about the soul, any good introduction to the writings of Aquinas or other philosophers would be useful.

Thank you to those that have responded to this post. It is nice to know that there is such an active community that is willing to answer questions with such a passion, even if it is for someone who doesn’t know very much. I know where to come when I have more questions, or am looking for a good conversation.

 

[EndTimes]

Hello everyone. I have been watching this since I posted it and I appreciate all the responses. As many have pointed out, I probably don’t know enough to really hold my own in the discussion with my atheist friend. In all honesty I think it is kind of silly to be talking about the existence of the soul and an afterlife if the guy that I am talking to doesn’t believe in God in the first place. I’d rather talk to him about why he doesn’t believe in God than about the soul, at least for now.

Yes…

Here… Were one immortal one could spend endless hours talking the talk -

Suggest to your friend to get to know JESUS… as in Read the NT. Period.

 

[Gorgias]

Suggest to your friend to get to know JESUS… as in Read the NT. Period.

I’ve heard Dr David Anders make the assertion, many times – on his show “Called to Communion” – that “Jesus” or “Bible” isn’t the place to begin with an atheist. After all, convincing arguments begin with grounds that the listener is willing to accept. At the moment, the OP’s atheist friend would dismiss your suggestion out of hand.

Rather, Anders suggests, it’s more appropriate to begin with a logical discussion of why it’s reasonable to posit a “supreme being”, and then, why it’s reasonable to posit our conception of God as that supreme being.

 

[EndTimes]

Hello everyone. I have been watching this since I posted it and I appreciate all the responses. As many have pointed out, I probably don’t know enough to really hold my own in the discussion with my atheist friend. In all honesty I think it is kind of silly to be talking about the existence of the soul and an afterlife if the guy that I am talking to doesn’t believe in God in the first place. I’d rather talk to him about why he doesn’t believe in God than about the soul, at least for now.

Yes…

Here… Were one immortal one could spend endless hours talking the talk -

Suggest to you friend to get to know JESUS… as in Read the NT

I’ve heard Dr David Anders make the assertion, many times – on his show “Called to Communion” – that “Jesus” or “Bible” isn’t the place to begin with an atheist.

I don’t know him nor do I agree…

=

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know him nor do I agree…

Fair enough (although I encourage you to check out his show on EWTN’s podcasts!).

So, if you have a person who doesn’t even believe in God, why might you suspect that an argument from Jesus (in whom he doesn’t believe) or from the Bible (in which he has no reason to believe) might work? That would be somewhat like a person asking you to believe in Islam based on quotations from the Koran. Would that approach be believable or convincing to you?