C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Scripture aside, what is the best philosophical argument for the immateriality of the human soul? 
- Status
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Direct experience whereby our inner spirituality (God) tells us so.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The immaterial nature of our self-awareness, conscience, free will, values, principles, thoughts, emotions, decisions, purposes, power of reason and capacity for love! 
G
GEddie
Guest
If not immaterial, the soul would be indistinguishable from the body, or parts thereof. Yet the dead body is anatomically identical to the same body breathing.
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
K
Katholish
Guest
Even after 2,400 years, I still think best proof is the one provided by Plato/Socrates, and it comes down to the fact that the soul knows, and that knowledge is immaterial. Further, knowledge must be immaterial because it is universal. When man knows the idea of “tree” he is not knowing any particular material tree, but the very notion of “treeness”. Not only is his individual idea of tree abstract from matter, but his idea is identical with that of any other man. Knowledge, in other words, is objective, whereas if it were material, it would have to be subjective and we would be unable to share an idea with another person.Scripture aside, what is the best philosophical argument for the immateriality of the human soul?
If knowledge is immaterial, than some part of the knower must be immaterial.
K
Katholish
Guest
The problem with that proof is that animal souls are material, not immaterial.
J
James224
Guest
Definition: Aristotle and Aquinas’ definition of the soul is the form or essence of a living thing. By “Soul”, Aristotle and Aquinas mean to refer to the nature of a living thing, whatever that turns out to be (in philosophy). So we should not think that the soul is some ghostly object that floats away from the body after death, as in the movies; that’s not what they mean. The soul is just a kind of form. For this reason, Aristotle and Aquinas think of living things in general, including plants and non-human animals as having souls. A plant or an animal has the form or essence characteristic of a living thing.Scripture aside, what is the best philosophical argument for the immateriality of the human soul?
Rational Soul – includes the powers of the nutritive and sensory souls and the distinctively human powers of intellect and will: that is, the power to grasp abstract concepts, namely, the forms and essences of things and to reason on the basis of them and to choose between different possible courses of action on the basis of what the intellect knows.
The superiority of the rational soul has as its natural end or final cause the attainment of truth. Morality, according to Aristotle and Aquinas is the habitual choice of actions that further the hierarchically ordered natural ends entailed by human nature. But the intellect’s capacity to know the truth is more fully realized the deeper one’s understanding of the nature of the world and the causes underlying it. And the deepest truth about the world is that it is caused and sustained in being by God.
Immateriality of the soul - Forms, essences, universals and propositions – The immaterial nature of these things entails that the intellect which grasps them must itself be immaterial as well. If your intellect was just the same thing as some part of your brain, it follows that part of your brain would become a dog whenever you thought about dogs. To form a mental image of something is not the same thing as to grasp it in your intellect – this is universals.
(From Edward Feser’s book, The Last Superstition - this is not exact quotes but taken from my notes)
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
The nature of math is immaterial.
Our intellect created math.
Our intellect is an immaterial power that created immaterial math.
Math is immaterial because it has no mass, volume or any other physical attributes.
Our intellect created math.
Our intellect is an immaterial power that created immaterial math.
Math is immaterial because it has no mass, volume or any other physical attributes.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Thank you all for some very interesting answers. Keep it up! 
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
How would you answer the objection raised by materialists that certain functions of the mind seem to be controlled by certain parts of the material brain, and that therefore these functions are merely products of material activity, rather than existing in a metaphysical realm of their own?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
If one were to open the cranium and look at the brain of a perceiving, remembering, thinking patient, they would not see a single thing going through that patient’s mind–not an image, feeling, thought, or sense of self. In fact with mirrors I could look at my own brain and yet would see none of its conscious content.
From outside the conscious mind of another there is no direct access to the inside experienced content by observing the brain.
A search of one’s mind will never give a direct experience of one’s own brain cells or their electro-chemical processes and multi-level networking.
From the inside by observing my own consciousness there is no direct access to the observable brain and its neural electro-chemical processes.
No matter how detailed our correlation of conscious mental acts with brain structure and function may be, there is still an “explanatory gap” between brain activity observed from the outside and the content of consciousness as experienced from the inside.
How do objective, publically-observable neuronal events or the brain as a whole produce/become inner, first-person conscious mental experience(s)? In other words, how does what happens in the brain become what happens in your mind? No one is even close to figuring out how to cross that bridge scientifically.
Scientists:
•Joaquin M. Fuster, MD, PhD, a neurological researcher writes in his Cortex and Mind. (Oxford University Press, 2003)
“There are evident correlations between the brain and the mind. In the domains of scientific empiricism, however, where causality reigns supreme, correlation is Cinderella. Yet correlation is the only logical relationship we can substantiate empirically between the brain and the mind. . . . correlation is all we need for upholding the indissoluble unity of cortex and mind.” (p. viii)
•Larry R. Squire, et al., Fundamental Neuroscience, 3rd ed., 2008.
They discuss how “Brain scientists are exploiting a number of empirical approaches to shed light on the neural basis of consciousness.” (pp. 1223ff) As of 2008, neuroscientists “are shedding light on . . .”
•Christoph Koch, The Quest for Consciousness, 2004.
Francis Crick himself (a avowed materialist and atheist) writes in the preface: "Consciousness is the major unsolved problem in biology. . . . there is no present consensus on the general nature of the solution.” (p. xiii) We “will need the labors of many scientists . .” (xiv) Koch, a neuroscientist at Caltech, himself says of his efforts “I argue for a research program whose supreme aim is to discover neuronal correlates of consciousness.” (underlining mine)
•Michael S. Gazzaniga, ed., The Cognitive Neurosciences III. 3rd. ed. (Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press, 2004).
“As the science of consciousness advances, such definitions [Searle’s] will need to be refined and expressed in more fundamental neuronal terms. Until the problem is understood much better, though, a more formal definition of consciousness is likely to be either misleading or overly restrictive, or both. If this seems evasive, try defining a gene.” (p. 1107)
Further relevant data is provided by research into neuroplasticity, a term for the phenomena that conscious choices can alter brain structure and function. This shows a bi-directional causality in the relationship between brain and mind. That is, not only can one affect conscious experience and functioning by changes in the brain, one can also affect brain structure and functioning by conscious changes in activity. Researchers today are investigating the “bidirectional interaction between cultural experience and the brain” and “the neurosciences have identified mechanisms of neural plasticity from the molecular to the systems level.”(1) Numerous studies “demonstrate the surprising degree to which brain processes are malleably shaped by cultural tools and practices.”(2)
For example, studies show that adults who choose to learn Braille show changes in brain structure over those who do not.(3) Changes in brain structure are also seen in musicians proficient in stringed instruments relative to which fingers are used the most.(4) Additionally a study was performed on brain changes taking place in Buddhist monks during meditation–changes which sustain in long-term practitioners over time.(5)
The conviction that the mind as we know it is the soul (immaterial life principle, form of the body) in operation squares perfectly with all of the information and doesn’t in the least harm the legitimate aims and methods of neurological research even its goal to reach a complete scientific account of brain activity in its correlation with mental acts.
Another source of data is the immaterial nature of the intellectual acts of concept formation and reflection.
(1) Elizabeth A. Reynolds Losin, et al., “Culture and neuroscience: additive or synergistic.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (June/September 2010): 148-58.
(2) Shinobu Kitayama, et al., “Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (June/September 2010): 111-29.
(3) Alvaro Pascual-Leone, et al., “Plasticity of the sensorimotor cortex representation of the reading finger in Braille readers” Brain 116 (February 1993):39-52. see summary discussion in Christopher Ariel Shaw, Jill McEachern, eds., Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, 2001., pp 71-3.
(4) Thomas Elbert, et al., “Increased Cortical Representation of the Fingers of the Left Hand in String Players” Science 270 (13 October 1995): 305-307.
(5) Lutz, et al., “Long-term mediators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (November 16, 2004): 16369-16373.
From outside the conscious mind of another there is no direct access to the inside experienced content by observing the brain.
A search of one’s mind will never give a direct experience of one’s own brain cells or their electro-chemical processes and multi-level networking.
From the inside by observing my own consciousness there is no direct access to the observable brain and its neural electro-chemical processes.
No matter how detailed our correlation of conscious mental acts with brain structure and function may be, there is still an “explanatory gap” between brain activity observed from the outside and the content of consciousness as experienced from the inside.
How do objective, publically-observable neuronal events or the brain as a whole produce/become inner, first-person conscious mental experience(s)? In other words, how does what happens in the brain become what happens in your mind? No one is even close to figuring out how to cross that bridge scientifically.
Scientists:
•Joaquin M. Fuster, MD, PhD, a neurological researcher writes in his Cortex and Mind. (Oxford University Press, 2003)
“There are evident correlations between the brain and the mind. In the domains of scientific empiricism, however, where causality reigns supreme, correlation is Cinderella. Yet correlation is the only logical relationship we can substantiate empirically between the brain and the mind. . . . correlation is all we need for upholding the indissoluble unity of cortex and mind.” (p. viii)
•Larry R. Squire, et al., Fundamental Neuroscience, 3rd ed., 2008.
They discuss how “Brain scientists are exploiting a number of empirical approaches to shed light on the neural basis of consciousness.” (pp. 1223ff) As of 2008, neuroscientists “are shedding light on . . .”
•Christoph Koch, The Quest for Consciousness, 2004.
Francis Crick himself (a avowed materialist and atheist) writes in the preface: "Consciousness is the major unsolved problem in biology. . . . there is no present consensus on the general nature of the solution.” (p. xiii) We “will need the labors of many scientists . .” (xiv) Koch, a neuroscientist at Caltech, himself says of his efforts “I argue for a research program whose supreme aim is to discover neuronal correlates of consciousness.” (underlining mine)
•Michael S. Gazzaniga, ed., The Cognitive Neurosciences III. 3rd. ed. (Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press, 2004).
“As the science of consciousness advances, such definitions [Searle’s] will need to be refined and expressed in more fundamental neuronal terms. Until the problem is understood much better, though, a more formal definition of consciousness is likely to be either misleading or overly restrictive, or both. If this seems evasive, try defining a gene.” (p. 1107)
Further relevant data is provided by research into neuroplasticity, a term for the phenomena that conscious choices can alter brain structure and function. This shows a bi-directional causality in the relationship between brain and mind. That is, not only can one affect conscious experience and functioning by changes in the brain, one can also affect brain structure and functioning by conscious changes in activity. Researchers today are investigating the “bidirectional interaction between cultural experience and the brain” and “the neurosciences have identified mechanisms of neural plasticity from the molecular to the systems level.”(1) Numerous studies “demonstrate the surprising degree to which brain processes are malleably shaped by cultural tools and practices.”(2)
For example, studies show that adults who choose to learn Braille show changes in brain structure over those who do not.(3) Changes in brain structure are also seen in musicians proficient in stringed instruments relative to which fingers are used the most.(4) Additionally a study was performed on brain changes taking place in Buddhist monks during meditation–changes which sustain in long-term practitioners over time.(5)
The conviction that the mind as we know it is the soul (immaterial life principle, form of the body) in operation squares perfectly with all of the information and doesn’t in the least harm the legitimate aims and methods of neurological research even its goal to reach a complete scientific account of brain activity in its correlation with mental acts.
Another source of data is the immaterial nature of the intellectual acts of concept formation and reflection.
(1) Elizabeth A. Reynolds Losin, et al., “Culture and neuroscience: additive or synergistic.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (June/September 2010): 148-58.
(2) Shinobu Kitayama, et al., “Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (June/September 2010): 111-29.
(3) Alvaro Pascual-Leone, et al., “Plasticity of the sensorimotor cortex representation of the reading finger in Braille readers” Brain 116 (February 1993):39-52. see summary discussion in Christopher Ariel Shaw, Jill McEachern, eds., Toward a Theory of Neuroplasticity. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, 2001., pp 71-3.
(4) Thomas Elbert, et al., “Increased Cortical Representation of the Fingers of the Left Hand in String Players” Science 270 (13 October 1995): 305-307.
(5) Lutz, et al., “Long-term mediators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (November 16, 2004): 16369-16373.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Jazz
Thanks for a well developed and thoughtful reply!
Do you think the materialists who see no immateriality in the human mind think this way because they are often atheists, or do you think they are atheists because they think the mind is purely a material function of the brain?
Thanks for a well developed and thoughtful reply!
Do you think the materialists who see no immateriality in the human mind think this way because they are often atheists, or do you think they are atheists because they think the mind is purely a material function of the brain?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Charlemagne II
The human intellect is immaterial.
Math has no mass, volume or space. In other words, math is immaterial.
The human intellect created math; an immaterial being made an immaterial being.
I find it ironic that the physical scientists that refuse to recognize anything that is immaterial use an immaterial tool–math.
If all humans beings died, does math exist? Math was created by humans and would cease to exist if we all died.
Concerning the physical scientist, most do not care about the issue of material and immaterial problems. The great majority would, I guess, have no problems with the immaterial soul.
The human intellect is immaterial.
Math has no mass, volume or space. In other words, math is immaterial.
The human intellect created math; an immaterial being made an immaterial being.
I find it ironic that the physical scientists that refuse to recognize anything that is immaterial use an immaterial tool–math.
If all humans beings died, does math exist? Math was created by humans and would cease to exist if we all died.
Concerning the physical scientist, most do not care about the issue of material and immaterial problems. The great majority would, I guess, have no problems with the immaterial soul.
G
GEddie
Guest
While physical scientists would not, psychologists, et al, very much would, because it conflicts with the human mind as solely the output of the brain and body.
ICXC NIKA
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Just read “Confessions of a Weird Mathematician” by James Keener.
He remarks that in his experience too many mathematicians seem to get along just fine without God behind their postulates and axioms and theorems.
But if it’s true, as has been suggested by several posters here, that mathematics is so obviously not tied to physical reality and so obvious tied to a metaphysical realm, why are so many mathematicians (and logicians) so contemptuous of religion and the immateriality of the soul?
He remarks that in his experience too many mathematicians seem to get along just fine without God behind their postulates and axioms and theorems.
But if it’s true, as has been suggested by several posters here, that mathematics is so obviously not tied to physical reality and so obvious tied to a metaphysical realm, why are so many mathematicians (and logicians) so contemptuous of religion and the immateriality of the soul?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Jim
**Math is immaterial because it has no mass, volume or any other physical attributes. **
Just wondering, have you done, or do you plan to do, any publishing on this topic? Or can you refer me to an article that deals in depth with the idea you expressed above?
**Math is immaterial because it has no mass, volume or any other physical attributes. **
Just wondering, have you done, or do you plan to do, any publishing on this topic? Or can you refer me to an article that deals in depth with the idea you expressed above?
G
GEddie
Guest
Possibly because of the bad logic, and the demand for blind faith, asserted by many defenders of religion in the past?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
GEddie
Very possible. I read a little farther along and it seems Keener indicts many mathematicians for a certain logical inconsistency. They also have a blind faith in mathematics, for it is true that mathematics will sometimes not lead us to the truth we desire, yet we continue to desire it with a blind faith that it will be found.
Very possible. I read a little farther along and it seems Keener indicts many mathematicians for a certain logical inconsistency. They also have a blind faith in mathematics, for it is true that mathematics will sometimes not lead us to the truth we desire, yet we continue to desire it with a blind faith that it will be found.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Thanks for the kind words.
I’d say there are different strains of atheism, but certainly some IMO would find any latent immateriality in man a threat to their personal choice to deny theism.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Charlemagne II
I think one could ask any college or university professor of philosophy for help.
I would just call a local school.
To be honest, I have never heard any other person say it the way I say it.
If my position is acceptable, a great deal follows from it.
Honestly, I think the same thing has been said by Plato with ideas and forms of Aristotle. I have done a great deal of reading, but I do not believe that I have read it explicitly in theology, philosophy, or spirituality. However, when I read I miss a great deal. Then I go back and read the same book several times and find I missed so much. Therefore I could have read it and missed it. And I honestly mean it. I am like you, I would love to read about it. I would love to hear other peoples ideas on this idea.
Again, call a local college or university and ask. They will gladly talk with you.
I think we can say that there are laws of reason, truth and love. I think we can define these laws in the same fashion that the physical sciences do. I started a thread about what is the being of the physical laws. But I try to post a new thread in a few days–I do not have the time or energy now.
I think one could ask any college or university professor of philosophy for help.
I would just call a local school.
To be honest, I have never heard any other person say it the way I say it.
If my position is acceptable, a great deal follows from it.
Honestly, I think the same thing has been said by Plato with ideas and forms of Aristotle. I have done a great deal of reading, but I do not believe that I have read it explicitly in theology, philosophy, or spirituality. However, when I read I miss a great deal. Then I go back and read the same book several times and find I missed so much. Therefore I could have read it and missed it. And I honestly mean it. I am like you, I would love to read about it. I would love to hear other peoples ideas on this idea.
Again, call a local college or university and ask. They will gladly talk with you.
I think we can say that there are laws of reason, truth and love. I think we can define these laws in the same fashion that the physical sciences do. I started a thread about what is the being of the physical laws. But I try to post a new thread in a few days–I do not have the time or energy now.
- Status