Is There a Soul?

[itinerant1]

Most ancient cultures believed, however inaccurately understood, that man has a soul. Yet modern man seems unable to find his soul. Interpretations of modern brain studies tend to identify all human cognitive activities with brain states. However, contrary to the prevailing myth of our times that says we think with our brains, I maintain that the evidence, both scientific and philosophic, indicates rather, that we do not think with our brains, though we do not think without them.

Conceptual or abstract thought can only be a function of an immaterial soul. This proposition opposes the position of extreme Darwinians and other materialists who claim that the soul (or mind) is the product of natural evolutionary processes. Is this conflict of views resolvable in such a way as to provide a definitive answer?

What is the nature of the soul and what is its relation to be body? Are there proofs for the immaterial nature of the human soul? Is the mind identical with the soul? Is the will a power or faculty of the soul? Is the soul intrinsically immortal? These kinds of questions are of utmost importance for modern man and will comprise the subject matter of this thread.

What are your thoughts about the soul?

 

[grannymh]

What is the nature of the soul and what is its relation to be body?
What are your thoughts about the soul?

Since my soul recently converted from Cartesian [extreme] dualism, naturally I would begin with human nature itself. Human nature is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body. Thus, the human being occupies an unique place in creation.
“… in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds…” Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 355.
Link to *Catechism * www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Easter Blessings,
granny

John 20: 24-31

 

[AntiTheist]

I maintain that the evidence, both scientific and philosophic, indicates rather, that we do not think with our brains, though we do not think without them.

I am interested in the scientific evidence that leads you to conclude that people do not think with their brains. Please state this evidence and explain carefully how it supports your case.

 

[ricmat]

I’m probably not going to hang around this thread, but I think all the issues mentioned in the OP are covered very well in the book “The Science Before Science.” I enjoyed the book, but not having a philosophy background, I found it difficult to totally understand and have since loaned my copy to someone else. I know that Itinerant1 has a science background as well as philosophy, so you might enjoy it.

BTW - on EWTN there was a short series on this book. I do NOT recommend the series. The series was if anything more confusing than the book.

 

[redhen]

Conceptual or abstract thought can only be a function of an immaterial soul. This proposition opposes the position of extreme Darwinians and other materialists who claim that the soul (or mind) is the product of natural evolutionary processes. Is this conflict of views resolvable in such a way as to provide a definitive answer?

So clever birds that figure out how to raise the water level in a tube so they can get the food floating on it have immaterial souls? Chimps that have a non-verbal vocabulary and communicate abstract concepts, like numbers, have immaterial souls?

 

[lemondiesel]

I maintain that the evidence, both scientific and philosophic, indicates rather, that we do not think with our brains, though we do not think without them.

As Antitheist said…

This proposition opposes the position of extreme Darwinians and other materialists who claim that the soul (or mind) is the product of natural evolutionary processes.

natural? probably not. influenced by experiences? imo. yes. (IMO) the statement “We learn from our mistakes” plays huge into this. granted it does not explain our soul, our brains allow us to look at situations, learn from them, and continue there. If my mother felt that she was “touched by God” then she would pass this thinking down to me while she was maturing me during my development stage, and i would do the same to my children, so on and so on.

(once again im terrible at putting thoughts into words, lol sorry if that example is dumb)

My thoughts about the soul is that its just a first person perspective on life. All i can see is through my own eyes, which makes it seem like my “perspective” is unique. Our soul is that “gut feeling” some may experience. I believe our “minds” are just a byproduct (main product being our bodies adapting) of natural selection allowing us to make it through mentally tough situations through history. (or our minds are a sort of “parasite” something to decompose our life)

imo… lol

 

[cthulhubryan]

So clever birds that figure out how to raise the water level in a tube so they can get the food floating on it have immaterial souls? Chimps that have a non-verbal vocabulary and communicate abstract concepts, like numbers, have immaterial souls?

I think that perhaps the point is being missed here. Evolutionary pressures determine that the fittest will survive. Vervet monkey’s have been shown to have several calls designed to warn of specific predators. Is this in and of itself a conceptual or abstract thought

I for one say no. This is similar to the above mentioned birds raising water levels. It is clever tact, but not one requiring abstract concepts.

However, these same Monkeys have been shown to make the “wrong” call in times where making the “right” call would cause the monkey’s death. Does this then call for enough abstraction to state that the monkey has an immortal soul?

Again, I would say no. I did a great deal of research on language and animals for my classes in linguistic anthropology. All experts agree, and common sense does as well, that true language is NOT simply communication of “snake”, “eagle”, “beer” and similar item, but is a symbolic structure of communication. Experts from Noam Chomsky to Ed Rubin to Derrick Bickerson agree with this point.

Therefore I would conclude that we safely eliminate animal noises as a source of any proof of abstract concepts and therefore, under our beginning premise, they are also eliminated as a proof of an immortal soul in lower animals.

 

[grannymh]

So clever birds that figure out how to raise the water level in a tube so they can get the food floating on it have immaterial souls? Chimps that have a non-verbal vocabulary and communicate abstract concepts, like numbers, have immaterial souls?

Birds as well as other animals are very clever with survival behavior. Even learned behavior would not indicate an immaterial soul with the rational, intellectual tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

An interesting research piece demonstrated that two adult female rhesus macaques named Feinstein and Boxer (sic) could learn some limited math skills which were compared with the performance of adult humans. For both species, the training and testing stimuli consisted of red dots on a black background. This is far from communicating abstract concepts. One needs to scroll down to the materials and methods sections to find out that it was easier and faster to train humans to do the tasks compared to monkeys.

Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students

Jessica F. Cantlon, Elizabeth M. Brannon
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
Citation: Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2007) Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students. PLoS Biol 5(12): e328. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050328

Easter Blessings,
granny

The human species is the pinnacle of creation.

 

[redhen]

Again, I would say no. I did a great deal of research on language and animals for my classes in linguistic anthropology. All experts agree, and common sense does as well, that true language is NOT simply communication of “snake”, “eagle”, “beer” and similar item, but is a symbolic structure of communication. Experts from Noam Chomsky to Ed Rubin to Derrick Bickerson agree with this point.

Therefore I would conclude that we safely eliminate animal noises as a source of any proof of abstract concepts and therefore, under our beginning premise, they are also eliminated as a proof of an immortal soul in lower animals.

I mentioned non-verbal communication specifically because our ape cousins lack the necessary vocal range (descended larynx), hyoid bone, broca and warnicke areas of the brain, and the FOX2P gene. I am convinced that these if missing parts were in play, non-human apes and chimps would be able to learn true language and speech.

Being able to count numbers and perform mathematics with them is not just being clever, it’s the ability to hold abstract concepts. Noam Chomsky may be a linguist, but he is no ethologist.

Have you gone over any of the literature on chimp communications, specifically the use of American Sign Language?

 

[grannymh]

As Antitheist said…

natural? probably not. influenced by experiences? imo. yes. (IMO) the statement “We learn from our mistakes” plays huge into this. granted it does not explain our soul, our brains allow us to look at situations, learn from them, and continue there. If my mother felt that she was “touched by God” then she would pass this thinking down to me while she was maturing me during my development stage, and i would do the same to my children, so on and so on.

(once again im terrible at putting thoughts into words, lol sorry if that example is dumb)

My thoughts about the soul is that its just a first person perspective on life. All i can see is through my own eyes, which makes it seem like my “perspective” is unique. Our soul is that “gut feeling” some may experience. I believe our “minds” are just a byproduct (main product being our bodies adapting) of natural selection allowing us to make it through mentally tough situations through history. (or our minds are a sort of “parasite” something to decompose our life)

imo… lol

First: Some of the best years of my life were spent in St. Louis.
Second: I understand what you are describing. Only I would call it our subjective experiences which are very important. While I often act on gut feelings, my soul is more than that. It is the spiritual part of me which distinguishes me from non-human animals.

Easter Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of faith in the future.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I mentioned non-verbal communication specifically because our ape cousins lack the necessary vocal range (descended larynx), hyoid bone, broca and warnicke areas of the brain, and the FOX2P gene. I am convinced that these if missing parts were in play, non-human apes and chimps would be able to learn true language and speech.

Being able to count numbers and perform mathematics with them is not just being clever, it’s the ability to hold abstract concepts. Noam Chomsky may be a linguist, but he is no ethologist.

Have you gone over any of the literature on chimp communications, specifically the use of American Sign Language?

I completely agree with you on the physical limitations of apes to have a full range of speech.

I have not reviewed any works on Chimps and ASL. For one thing, there was a debate at the time about whether or not ASL was truly a full language or just a visual pidgin of English.

 

[HickmanJosh]

I maintain that the evidence, both scientific and philosophic, indicates rather, that we do not think with our brains, though we do not think without them.

So we think through our Brains?

 

[grannymh]

I completely agree with you on the physical limitations of apes to have a full range of speech.

I have not reviewed any works on Chimps and ASL. For one thing, there was a debate at the time about whether or not ASL was truly a full language or just a visual pidgin of English.

Here is some interesting reading about ape studies.

http://drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_I.html

http://drbonnette.com/Ape-Language_Studies_Part_II.html

Easter Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, itinerant1 and all,

Neat thread.

Let me clear what I think are some cultural baggage and issues, before I reply to itinerant1, to keep my posts clean of these things.

First, I’m not interested in apes, chimpanzees, birds nor other animals. Neither am I interested in pandering to non-Christian viewpoints, such a Darwinism, Sophism etc as any kind of authority. This is a Christian thread on a Christian forum about the soul. Non-Christians are certainly welcome guests, I’m sure, as far as intinerant1 is concerned, but will not swerve my view that the Holy Bible is an acceptable document and an authority on the human soul. Any who cannot respect that perspective I respectfully request to refrain your selves while answering any of my posts.

Now, in Genesis 2,7 (DR), we read, “…the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

I’m using the Dhouay-Rheims translation from the Vugate, because some later translations have corrupted this passage into God having created “a living being” or “a living creature” to side step the issue of a soul.
Historically speaking, Christendom, when there was a Christendom, viewed human beings as souls. For example, a late nineteenth century report of a ship wreck would write in print, “and seventeen souls were drowned.” It’s only in the twentieth century that people came to be regarded as having souls.

However, I agree that I am a soul. I am also a body; a mind; and a spirit. Until recently, I would say, I have a soul; or have a mind; or have a body; or have a spirit. But, what does that make the me, who has all these? What is that?

However, being a soul and a body and a mind and a spirit gives me a toe hold on eternity. The body is corruptible and will waste away to dust; but I am yet eternal because I am a soul, a mind and a spirit. And this presages a type of life after what we call death. And, that’s what Jesus Christ is all about. Which type of afterlife.

Ok, that’s my two cents worth at this time.

Don

 

[StAnastasia]

The body is corruptible and will waste away to dust; but I am yet eternal because I am a soul, a mind and a spirit. And this presages a type of life after what we call death.

Donsnow, what is a “mind” without a brain? Have you seen or heard of one?

 

[davidv]

Donsnow, what is a “mind” without a brain? Have you seen or heard of one?

In the material world, incommunicado.

How does one see the immaterial?

 

[itinerant1]

Terrific! There are a number of interesting posts and challenging, too. I will be back later today, and post some responses.

 

[StAnastasia]

How does one see the immaterial?

That’s precisely my question!

 

[Hooding_Trees]

I am interested in the scientific evidence that leads you to conclude that people do not think with their brains. Please state this evidence and explain carefully how it supports your case.

^^^

 

[itinerant1]

I am interested in the scientific evidence that leads you to conclude that people do not think with their brains. Please state this evidence and explain carefully how it supports your case.

You have mistakenly presumed that my evidence is “scientific”, or else, you would prefer it to be strictly scientific. On the contrary, my evidence is primarily philosophic. Like scientific evidence, the philosophical postion begins with sense experience, but does not come to rest in the emperiological realm of natural science, but proceeds deeper, into the very nature of the human organism. This position cannot be explained in a single post.

However, the error in reduction of consciousness to brain states can be seen from the following example. As you are typing at your keyboard the related neuro-physiological activity in your brain can be recorded, and the scientific ability to do that is continuously improving. Concomitantly, you can provide a verbal description of what you are consciously experiencing as you type, such as the visual perception of the monitor and keyboard, your fingers responding to the mind’s instruction to hit certain keys, and so on.

The iterations of your conscious experience can be recorded by a secretary. When one compares what the secretary has recorded to the recordings of concurrent brain activity, one sees that the two accounts are starkley different in nature. What two things, though related, could be more different?

Your conscious experience is nothing at all like the registration of the related neuro-physiological activity of your brain.

One may try to reduce human conscious experience to physiology and possibly invoke the principle of parsimony. However, that lacks something of the scientific spirit since it fails to provide any sort of explanation for the radical difference between conscious experiences and brain activity. These stark differences make invocation of the principle of parsimony totally without warrant or logical justification.

The burden of proof, then, falls upon the reductionists, who so far, have nothing to offer.