If the soul exists, is it detectable?

[inocente]

Is it obviously detectable?

It proves hard to agree a detailed definition of “soul”, but whatever our beliefs there’s an obvious sense in which we all use soul to mean something about us that we can’t quite put our finger on yet value most highly, as in quotes like:

*Ordinary riches can be stolen, real riches cannot. In your soul are infinitely precious things that cannot be taken from you. - Oscar Wilde

There is one thing one has to have: either a soul that is cheerful by nature, or a soul made cheerful by work, love, art, and knowledge. – Nietzsche*

 

[inocente]

A lifetime spend in the lab gave him plenty of time to grasp the inadequacy of materialism. A Nobel Laureate in neuroscience is not likely to be superstitous…

According to wikipedia Sherrington got his Prize in 1932, presumably for his scientific work rather than his personal speculations. You quoted him saying “As followers of natural science we know nothing of any relation between thoughts and the brain, except as a gross correlation in time and space”, which just translates to “we dunno”, probably true in 1940 when he wrote it but something he’d be less inclined to say today given subsequent developments.

So did he say thoughts require a supernatural agency, or was it just that he couldn’t figure a path towards a physical explanation way back then?

 

[PRmerger]

It proves hard to agree a detailed definition of “soul”, but whatever our beliefs there’s an obvious sense in which we all use soul to mean something about us that we can’t quite put our finger on yet value most highly, as in quotes like:

*Ordinary riches can be stolen, real riches cannot. In your soul are infinitely precious things that cannot be taken from you. - Oscar Wilde

There is one thing one has to have: either a soul that is cheerful by nature, or a soul made cheerful by work, love, art, and knowledge. – Nietzsche*

And in quotes like:
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 10:28[/BIBLEDRB]
and
[BIBLEDRB]1 Thessalonians 5:23[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[tonyrey]

According to wikipedia Sherrington got his Prize in 1932, presumably for his scientific work rather than his personal speculations. You quoted him saying “As followers of natural science we know nothing of any relation between thoughts and the brain, except as a gross correlation in time and space”, which just translates to “we dunno”, probably true in 1940 when he wrote it but something he’d be less inclined to say today given subsequent developments.

So did he say thoughts require a supernatural agency, or was it just that he couldn’t figure a path towards a physical explanation way back then?

Being a scientist he never committed himself but he wrote:

“It seems ludicrous to range such a paucity of nerve-process alongside the manifold variety of mind.” - The Brain and its Mechanism.

"Sherrington’s second, related, misgiving about the reduction of mind to physical process concerns the absence of personal meaning, the absence of self, in the discourse of science. In seeking to understand mind we ‘face something which not only transmits signals but reads them.’ Physiology brings us ‘the brain as telephone exchange,’ when what we really wanted was ‘The subscribers with their thoughts, their desires, their anticipations, the motives, their anxieties, their rejoicings.’ Or as—Sherrington supposes—Fernel would have said, the brain constructs ‘a tenement for mind’ but fails to disclose the tenant.

            His third concern is the most fundamental,  and arguably underpins the other two. Our experience, in all its  manifold variety,                   appears to be invisible to science: ‘Our mental  experience is not open to observation through any sense organ … . The  perceptible                   [is] rooted in sense. Our mental experience has no  such channel of entrance to the mind. It is already of the mind ….’                
            Thus despite his conviction that energy and  mind must be two ‘contrasted constituents’ of a unity, that both thought  and action                   are ‘psycho-physical throughout,’ Sherrington could  not yet see a way across the gap dividing mind and matter. The brain,                   he firmly, believed is the indispensable organ of  experience, the ‘provider of mind’—yet however we gaze at its workings  we                   find not experience, but only neurons, in their cosmic  numbers, interlinked and ceaselessly communicating; we can discern                   nothing that corresponds to a subject of experience,  who finds meanings in the world; and, worst of all, there seems to be                   no possibility of bringing the object of interest,  experience, properly within the scientist's field of observation. Thus                   ‘To man's understanding the world remain[s]  obstinately double.’ Sherrington felt that a biologist should ask how  ‘brain and                   mind go together’—but also ‘… make plain how far he is  from answer.’"

brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/130/8/1984.full

Five days before he died he said “For me now the only reality is the human soul.” !

custance.org/Library/MIND/chapter4.html48.

 

[inocente]

And in quotes like:

Too true, I chose only secular quotes because atheists can probably also agree on the “obvious” meaning of “soul”. A few more:

*Music is an outburst of the soul. - Frederick Delius

[Music’s] language is a language which the soul alone understands, but which the soul can never translate. - Arnold Bennett*

In the following link, the music is about the human soul, from Beethoven’s 9th, and the animation is driven by a synchronized MIDI score. Interesting how the soul deeply understands Beethoven’s outburst, while the score with the sound off is just lame.

youtube.com/watch?v=p5favl2Qtx0

 

[inocente]

Being a scientist he never committed himself but he wrote:

"Sherrington’s second, related, misgiving about the reduction of mind to physical process concerns the absence of personal meaning, the absence of self, in the discourse of science. In seeking to understand mind we ‘face something which not only transmits signals but reads them.’ Physiology brings us ‘the brain as telephone exchange,’ when what we really wanted was ‘The subscribers with their thoughts, their desires, their anticipations, the motives, their anxieties, their rejoicings.’ Or as—Sherrington supposes—Fernel would have said, the brain constructs ‘a tenement for mind’ but fails to disclose the tenant.

Interesting two articles, thanks.

People have often tried to explain the mind in terms of the latest technology. For Sherrington it was the wonders of telephony, with the huge clattering exchanges of the time. Understandably it didn’t make much sense to him since the subscribers and their thoughts are outside the system and remain unexplained.

If only he’d lived fifty years later he’d have computer technology instead, which provides a means (of sorts) for “thoughts” to be incorporated in an explanatory model. Of course, he wouldn’t have fallen into the trap of thinking the brain is anything like a computer, or that computers in any way explain the mind, but it would have given him a better starting point for conceptualizing.

From the articles you linked, Sherrington was a physicalist to the core. ‘It could be, Sherrington declared, that what was later by Eccles to be called the “self-conscious mind” or “soul,” and by Penfield “the spirit,” was a kind of emergent phenomenon arising out of the brain, which at a certain point achieved a kind of independence.’

Exactly, it’s also what I believe (except perhaps the last bit about independence, depending on what is meant). But I believe it because that’s where all the evidence points, not because a scientist without most of that evidence speculated in 1940 it might be the case, and imho that’s a biggest problem with this topic, much of what is written is theoretical speculation far removed from what is supported by known facts, and whitecrayon (post #68) was spot on in being pragmatic.

 

[Wardog]

If a dying person was put on a weighing table, weighed before and after death, would there be a difference that could not be accounted for other than the soul?

On Dark Matters TV show a few weeks ago there was an episode about a scientist who wanted to demonstrate there was a soul and set up this experiment. The show said he found a 23 gram difference.

Seems easy enough to set up another similar experiment to prove this one way or the other.

I believe in the soul whether or not it is physically detectable.

 

[PRmerger]

Too true, I chose only secular quotes because atheists can probably also agree on the “obvious” meaning of “soul”. A few more:

*Music is an outburst of the soul. - Frederick Delius

[Music’s] language is a language which the soul alone understands, but which the soul can never translate. - Arnold Bennett*

In the following link, the music is about the human soul, from Beethoven’s 9th, and the animation is driven by a synchronized MIDI score. Interesting how the soul deeply understands Beethoven’s outburst, while the score with the sound off is just lame.

youtube.com/watch?v=p5favl2Qtx0

Yes.

That reminds me of a quote by philosopher Peter Kreeft, in providing 20 arguments for the existence of God: there is the music of Beethoven, therefore there is a God. (He adds: you either get that one or you don’t.)

 

[GEddie]

If a dying person was put on a weighing table, weighed before and after death, would there be a difference that could not be accounted for other than the soul?

On Dark Matters TV show a few weeks ago there was an episode about a scientist who wanted to demonstrate there was a soul and set up this experiment. The show said he found a 23 gram difference.

Seems easy enough to set up another similar experiment to prove this one way or the other.

I believe in the soul whether or not it is physically detectable.

It almost certainly is NOT physically detectable; if it were, it would be physical, and therefore part of the body, which is a philosophical contradiction.

And even if the human body is shown to lose weight in death, there is no way to prove that this is not just due to the lungs collapsing, etc. This experiment was first tried in 1907.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

"Sherrington’s second, related, misgiving about the reduction of mind to physical process concerns the absence of personal meaning, the absence of self, in the discourse of science. In seeking to understand mind we ‘face something which not only transmits signals but reads them.’ Physiology brings us ‘the brain as telephone exchange,’ when what we really wanted was ‘The subscribers with their thoughts, their desires, their anticipations, the motives, their anxieties, their rejoicings.’ Or as—Sherrington supposes—Fernel would have said, the brain constructs ‘a tenement for mind’ but fails to disclose the tenant.

Please explain how abstract thoughts can be incorporated into an explanatory model…

From the articles you linked, Sherrington was a physicalist to the core. ‘It could be, Sherrington declared, that what was later by Eccles to be called the “self-conscious mind” or “soul,” and by Penfield “the spirit,” was a kind of emergent phenomenon arising out of the brain, which at a certain point achieved a kind of independence.’

“could be” is not exactly a dogmatic assertion!

Exactly, it’s also what I believe (except perhaps the last bit about independence, depending on what is meant). But I believe it because that’s where all the evidence points, not because a scientist without most of that evidence speculated in 1940 it might be the case, and imho that’s a biggest problem with this topic, much of what is written is theoretical speculation far removed from what is supported by known facts…whitecrayon (post #68) was spot on in being pragmatic.

What exactly has subsequent evidence discovered that has eliminated the soul for once and for all?

…whitecrayon (post #68) was spot on in being pragmatic.

whitecrayon was certainly pragmatic in his recognition that the soul is detectable by those who have one. Those who deny its existence obviously restrict themselves to the things of earth and live as if spiritual reality is an illusion. Ah! How satisfying it must be to enjoy the luxury of a soul-destroying philosophy…

 

[inocente]

Please explain how abstract thoughts can be incorporated into an explanatory model…

This might be Sherrington’s problem too, but it’s pretty obvious to anyone who has done some computer science. The CCC says the soul is the “form” of the body. In the same way Beethoven’s 9th is the “form” of a CD, of a score, of a set of memories, it can’t exist independently as some kind of supernatural thingamajig. Abstract thoughts must also in some way be encoded if they are part of the form of the body. After all, nowhere does the CCC say the soul is a supernatural thingamajig having nothing whatever to do with the body.

What exactly has subsequent evidence discovered that has eliminated the soul for once and for all?

Wouldn’t know. It’s not what I’ve been saying so maybe someone else will know.

whitecrayon was certainly pragmatic in his recognition that the soul is detectable by those who have one. Those who deny its existence obviously restrict themselves to the things of earth and live as if spiritual reality is an illusion. Ah! How satisfying it must be to enjoy the luxury of a soul-destroying philosophy…

Has anyone been arguing for spiritual nihilism?

 

[perro_sarnoso]

A question with regards to the soul.

If it exists, should it not at least in theory be detectable. My reasoning is as follows.*

As I understand it, in catholic theology (and please correct me if I’m wrong here) - “I” (as in the me who is saying “I”) am a soul which inhabits this body and will after it dies go on to an afterlife? This soul is immaterial and as such cannot in itself be detected. Is this correct?*

Now, “I” as far as I am able to detect control this body and can direct it. The body is physical, so in order for me (the soul) to be in control of it. “I” must be in some way interacting with the physical properties of this body.*

In other words there must be a point at which the “soul” interacts with the physical world and at least in theory that point must be detectable. For example if we developed a sufficiently advanced machine which could simultaneously monitor all brain functions we’d have to find things happening which didn’t have a physical cause.

Thoughts?

 

[perro_sarnoso]

A question with regards to the soul.

If it exists, should it not at least in theory be detectable. My reasoning is as follows.*

As I understand it, in catholic theology (and please correct me if I’m wrong here) - “I” (as in the me who is saying “I”) am a soul which inhabits this body and will after it dies go on to an afterlife? This soul is immaterial and as such cannot in itself be detected. Is this correct?*

Now, “I” as far as I am able to detect control this body and can direct it. The body is physical, so in order for me (the soul) to be in control of it. “I” must be in some way interacting with the physical properties of this body.*

In other words there must be a point at which the “soul” interacts with the physical world and at least in theory that point must be detectable. For example if we developed a sufficiently advanced machine which could simultaneously monitor all brain functions we’d have to find things happening which didn’t have a physical cause.

Thoughts?

Your body and your soul make up who you are. The body is not just a vehicle operated by the soul and discarded when it’s a jalopy.

Your soul fills your body completely. The soul is detectable only by its absence from the body at the moment of death.

You, as an entire human composite of body and soul, interact with the physical world…you also participate of the supernatural by way of grace which comes from God.

A brainwave monitor detects the activity of a living person: pulse, pressure, neuronal activity, circulation and reaction to external stimulus. The body is the way that the person has of interacting with the physical world and affecting it. It bridges the veil that separates the spiritual from the physical.

Since I am not a philosopher nor a doctor…I will stop here.

 

[tonyrey]

Please explain how abstract thoughts can be incorporated into an explanatory model…

How?

The CCC says the soul is the “form” of the body. In the same way Beethoven’s 9th is the “form” of a CD, of a score, of a set of memories, it can’t exist independently as some kind of supernatural thingamajig.

Abstract thoughts must also in some way be encoded if they are part of the form of the body. After all, nowhere does the CCC say the soul is a supernatural thingamajig having nothing whatever to do with the body.

**
366** The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is** immortal**: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."

“It can’t exist independently as some kind of supernatural thingamajig.”???!!!

Has anyone been arguing for spiritual nihilism?

How does spirit fit into into your scheme of things?

 

[someguy14]

Matthew 26:38 KJV
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Do you remember me…

 

[inocente]

How?

Computers give us a concrete example of how “perceptions”, “memories” and “thoughts” can operate, which is helpful even though we know our brains are a darn sight more amazing. You’d need to do some studying to see how though, sorry but it’s a bit more than can be explained in posts, or at least for me.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is** immortal**: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."

“It can’t exist independently as some kind of supernatural thingamajig.”???!!!

Whoa, you not telling me Catholic philosophers have concluded that the answer to hard questions is “supernatural thingamajig”, that they embrace substance dualism even though it’s clear that “supernatural thingamajig” is simply an excuse for not saying “I dunno”, since it explains nothing?

But if so, you’re just the man to answer the OP’s questions – please start with how this supernatural thingamajig interacts with the physical world. And just for the sake of curiosity, why would we be less than impressed by the physical world anyway, when God created it, or so I’m told?

How does spirit fit into into your scheme of things?

Spirit - the way we think and feel about something; the intention rather than the letter; a strong alcoholic drink (which might help me get into the spirit of that question ).

 

[Julia_Mae]

As far as I can tell, soul and spirit are the same; or at least indistinguishable in the breathing human being.

The existence of ESP is not established, .

Sure it is. Has been for decades.

anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

princeton.edu/~pear/

 

[inocente]

Sure it is. Has been for decades.

Neither of those seem to quality for anything like “sure it is”.

The first is about a project which was terminated in 1995 when an independent review concluded “it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.”.

The second is for something which closed in 2007, after showing that it might be possible to affect 2 or 3 out of every 10,000 coin tosses or the like , described by Robert L. Park as “an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".

I’d be interested if you have any links to something which hasn’t been discredited - it seems that hoped-for paranormal effects always disappear when experimental procedures are tightened up, or else have much more mundane explanations.

 

[tonyrey]

Computers give us a concrete example of how “perceptions”, “memories” and “thoughts” can operate, which is helpful even though we know our brains are a darn sight more amazing. You’d need to do some studying to see how though, sorry but it’s a bit more than can be explained in posts, or at least for me.

So you do believe mind = brain activity?

366

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."“It can’t exist independently as some kind of supernatural thingamajig.”???!!!

Whoa, you not telling me Catholic philosophers have concluded that the answer to hard questions is “supernatural thingamajig”, that they embrace substance dualism even though it’s clear that “supernatural thingamajig” is simply an excuse for not saying “I dunno”, since it explains nothing?
What others believe is irrelevant. It is my belief that a person is not a biological computer which lacks a mind, free will and responsibility.

But if so, you’re just the man to answer the OP’s questions – please start with how this supernatural thingamajig interacts with the physical world.

Unlike you I don’t claim to be able to explain the nature of persons made in God’s image.

And just for the sake of curiosity, why would we be less than impressed by the physical world anyway, when God created it, or so I’m told?

The physical world is breathtaking but it is an inadequate explanation of persons made in the image and likeness of God…

How does spirit fit into into your scheme of things?

Spirit - the way we think and feel about something; the intention rather than the letter; a strong alcoholic drink (which might help me get into the spirit of that question ).

What are “we”? Biological computers - some of which need artificial stimulants? Reality must be too harsh for you to face! But then spirit is conspicuous by its absence in your scheme of things…

 

[inocente]

So you do believe mind = brain activity?

Got it in one.

What others believe is irrelevant.

I’d have thought Catholic philosophers’ beliefs might be just a tiny bit relevant on Catholic Answers.

It is my belief that a person is not a biological computer which lacks a mind, free will and responsibility.

Agreed, but then it’s probably hard to find anyone who would disagree.

Unlike you I don’t claim to be able to explain the nature of persons made in God’s image.

Ah, the old holier-than-thou shot. But given I never said it, and it’s got nothing at all to do with what I asked, and nothing to do with the OP, just a smidgen off-topic.

The physical world is breathtaking but it is an inadequate explanation of persons made in the image and likeness of God…

Why?

What are “we”? Biological computers - some of which need artificial stimulants? Reality must be too harsh for you to face! But then spirit is conspicuous by its absence in your scheme of things…

A bit soon for another holier-than-thou shot. We were having quite a good discussion too, but whatever, seems like all you want is another round of sound-bite ping-pong. (That was my holier-than-thou shot.)