Neuroscience and the Soul

[Charlemagne_III]

25 years of life expectancy gain in the past century tend to disagree with you. The data simply don’t match your assertions that there has been little or no progress in medicine. Science does not have the all the answers, but it has the best way of finding answers, demonstrably.

Well, here’s the rub. The length of life doesn’t have much to do with the quality of life.

If science is producing side effects that measurably harm the atmosphere over the long haul, science may not even be doing all that much to improve life expectancy.

Moreover, I don’t see that science has done a single thing to improve the quality of life except on the physical plane. What has it done to make men better behaved? That is the job of religion, and if science pushes religion out of the way, or takes no note of religious values, or by its influence effectively denigrates religion to the point of marginalizing it, you may well see for some time a precipitous decline in the quality of life at all levels. But I really don’t see that happening as a permanent state of affairs. The universal religious instinct in people is too powerful for that to happen. As Darwin himself said when Karl Marx invited him by letter to pile on against Christianity, the more you pile on, the more religion is energized to make a comeback.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

On the other hand, no one has ever shown that the mind is anything but neuronal activity. And plenty of psychological phenomena have been attributed directly to neurological activity. Is it so strange that, given the absence of any evidence of a ghost in the machine, one might conclude that there isn’t one, even if the machine is not well understood?

Some peopl see plenty of evidence, much of it from science, as the atheist Antony Flew suggested by his conversion near the end of his life.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, here’s the rub. The length of life doesn’t have much to do with the quality of life.

If science is producing side effects that measurably harm the atmosphere over the long haul, science may not even be doing all that much to improve life expectancy.

Moreover, I don’t see that science has done a single thing to improve the quality of life except on the physical plane. What has it done to make men better behaved? That is the job of religion, and if science pushes religion out of the way, or takes no note of religious values, or by its influence effectively denigrates religion to the point of marginalizing it, you may well see for some time a precipitous decline in the quality of life at all levels. But I really don’t see that happening as a permanent state of affairs. The universal religious instinct in people is too powerful for that to happen. As Darwin himself said when Karl Marx invited him by letter to pile on against Christianity, the more you pile on, the more religion is energized to make a comeback.

Yep.

 

[Aloysium]

You’re saying there’s no such thing as advancement in scientific knowledge? Like that we don’t know more about the human body than the smartest people of the 15th century did?

That is not what I am saying. My sarcastic comment about fancy pictures is a reference to scientific advancement as it pertains to increasing our knowledge of the OP (neuroscience and the soul). As far as the smartest people of the 15th Century are concerned, they probably knew no more about this particular issue that we are discussing than the first human who bonked another in the head with a rock.

 

[Aloysium]

On the other hand, no one has ever shown that the mind is anything but neuronal activity. And plenty of psychological phenomena have been attributed directly to neurological activity. Is it so strange that, given the absence of any evidence of a ghost in the machine, one might conclude that there isn’t one, even if the machine is not well understood?

I have come across a saying that a psychiatrist focussed solely on the mind is brainless, as one interested only in the brain is mindless.

There is no ghost in the machine. The machine is in the mind and the mind is correlated with activity in the machine.

The person is one united entity (the spiritual soul), whom we can come to know through our intellect from different perspectives: physical and/or mental.

Are you seriously going to assert that you are not thinking nor seeing and that you experience yourself as a collection of physical processes, continuous and inseparable from the rest of the physical universe. Who am I communicating with? You as a unique, singular, individual person have a mind, and that mind operates in this material world though physical processes.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I have come across a saying that a psychiatrist focussed solely on the mind is brainless, as one interested only in the brain is mindless.

There is no ghost in the machine. The machine is in the mind and the mind is correlated with activity in the machine.

The person is one united entity (the spiritual soul), whom we can come to know through our intellect from different perspectives: physical and/or mental.

Are you seriously going to assert that you are not thinking nor seeing and that you experience yourself as a collection of physical processes, continuous and inseparable from the rest of the physical universe. Who am I communicating with? You as a unique, singular, individual person have a mind, and that mind operates in this material world though physical processes.

This brings to mind a quote:

“A Russian astronaut and a Russian brain surgeon were once discussing religion. The brain surgeon was a Christian but the astronaut was not. The astronaut said, ‘I’ve been out in space many times but I’ve never seen God or angels.’ And the brain surgeon said, ‘And I’ve operated on many clever brains but I’ve never seen a single thought.’”

From the book, Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder.

 

[polytropos]

On the other hand, no one has ever shown that the mind is anything but neuronal activity. And plenty of psychological phenomena have been attributed directly to neurological activity. Is it so strange that, given the absence of any evidence of a ghost in the machine, one might conclude that there isn’t one, even if the machine is not well understood?

Well, I think the point Fr of Jazz was making is that it is not a datum of science that the brain is just neuronal activity. That much is true. If that were all we knew, then sure, let’s stay agnostic.

Has anyone ever shown that the brain is more than neuronal activity? To your satisfaction, probably not. I offered a couple arguments earlier in the thread. One was a (in a sense) negative argument that mental activity, because it is inextricably caught up in intentional action, is more than neuronal firings; it is something which involves the entire body (and this would be true even in non-human animals). Then I also gave an argument for why rational activity could not in principle be wholly physical.

I of course reject substance dualism/the ghost in the machine (as do most of the people who have given a serious response to your OP). Most mental activity is inextricably caught up in the body; the mind isn’t something over and above the body.

“The machine” I think is pretty well understood. Our neuroscience isn’t bad at all. But it has limits in principle owing to the immateriality of the soul. (Or at least, I have argued that much.)

 

[Estevao]

I wonder if the reason OP didn’t bring us any evidence for his assertions is because he thinks that we could just handwave it all away as “cherry picking” like he did?

I was rather disappointed, I find this topic interesting and was hoping OP would interact in this thread in a discussion.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

On the other hand, no one has ever shown that the mind is anything but neuronal activity. And plenty of psychological phenomena have been attributed directly to neurological activity. Is it so strange that, given the absence of any evidence of a ghost in the machine, one might conclude that there isn’t one, even if the machine is not well understood?

Nice try switching the burden of proof. Neurobiologists making reductive claims are the newcomers on this subject. As I said the conviction that there is an immaterial component to the composite human being goes back to the origins of our civilization and thrives as the majority conviction today. It does not necessitate Cartesian dualism (ghost in the machine) which I and the CC utterly reject. The neurological researchers know, if you read their writings, that they have to prove their reductive claims regarding the brain and the mind; and they admit they have not yet done so. Some, as I showed, are satisfied with correlations. And I have no problem with that.

On the other hand, if you want to argue philosophically that it is more reasonable to abandon the traditional claim regarding the immateriality of the soul for a reductive physicalist account (also the newcomer), by all means do so. I would be glad to discuss it.

But think.

• The DATUM to be explained is the mind defined as the complex of cognitional, volitional, perceptual, emotional processes, and qualia in the conscious life of an individual person usually emphasizing rationality. This is inner, first person, observer-dependent.

• The PROCESS involved. The scientific method investigates extra-mental physical objects that are third person and observer-independent and does so mechanistically in terms of structure and function.

• PROBLEM: How does one get from these thing-objects that work mechanistically and atomistically to the mind, my mind, as known in life? Once one tells the story of the physical and physiological processes in all possible depth there is still the further fact of inner conscious first-person mental activity in me. How does structure and function get one to consciousness?

Leibniz noted this:
“Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in a simple substance, and not in a compound or in a machine, that perception must be sought for.”
Monadology, 17]

How do you get from structure and function of third-person physical objects to inner first-person experience?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

On the other hand, if you want to argue philosophically that it is more reasonable to abandon the traditional claim regarding the immateriality of the soul for a reductive physicalist account (also the newcomer), by all means do so. I would be glad to discuss it.

I also would be glad to discuss it, rather than suffer the dismissive claim that brain and mind are one and the same.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I also would be glad to discuss it, rather than suffer the dismissive claim that brain and mind are one and the same.

Sure. Be glad to. I may have added some material after you posted this. If so might we start there.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Lets begin and end with Jesus Christ.

If you witnessed the resurrection, multiplication of the loaves of bread and fish, the healings and the other miracles would you still be asking this question to prove materialism? I did not directly witness these things but I believe the Gospel accounts.

If you had a mystical experience say, after confession or on the receipt of the Eucharist would you still be asking the question that there is a material non-theistic explanation?

If Saul of Tarsus gave a materialist explanation for what occurred to him, there would be no St. Paul. But our Lord gave St. Paul efficient grace.

So if a Christian loses their faith because of materialist explanations they are resisting grace. That is, sufficient grace is exactly that sufficient to not turn away from our Lord. The arguments against materialism therefore are sufficient.

I share the Catholic faith with you. But this is a philosophy forum. Philosophy uses the natural light of human reason in its inquiries as the Church has acknowledged and approved on many occasions . . . as did Aquinas.

 

[levinas12]

… Once one tells the story of the physical and physiological processes in all possible depth there is still the further fact of inner conscious first-person mental activity in me. How does structure and function get one to consciousness? …

Good point but I would extend it a bit.

From the git-go, we are already and always out there in the world at large, with other people, apartment buildings, buses, etc.

It’s aporetic to say that everything can be reduced to neuronal events inside my head. Is my head itself a neuronal event inside my head? And is the neuronal event inside my head that’s being observed by a neuroscientist just inside his head and not really inside my head?

Lewis Carroll would love this.

 

[opusAquinas]

This is so old. Are we just neurons or not? If you saw Jesus heal the blind would you be spending time trying to figure out what the neurological process…

For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,

and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”l

20Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?m 21* For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,n 23but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,o 24but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

 

[tonyrey]

If all our thoughts and decisions are produced by the brain we are not responsible for any of our thoughts or decisions. The hypothesis is self-destructive because the brain is a biological computer which doesn’t know what it is doing.

If only brains exist it doesn’t make sense to refer to “we” or “our”. Materialism implies that there are no enduring entities such as “persons” who are responsible for what they do, only physical organisms which are the product of their environment and genetic inheritance.

 

[levinas12]

If only brains exist it doesn’t make sense to refer to “we” or “our”. Materialism implies that there are no enduring entities such as “persons” who are responsible for what they do, only physical organisms which are the product of their environment and genetic inheritance.

Yes, and, tonyrey, as you have pointed out many times on this forum, materialism has one heck of a time explaining “disclosure”, “truth”, including neuroscience itself.

To combine your comment with mine, and, to quote Msgr. Robert Sokolowski, we are “agents of truth”.

No physics, chemistry, etc can explain how this has “happened”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… to quote Msgr. Robert Sokolowski, we are “agents of truth”.

No physics, chemistry, etc can explain how this has “happened”.

Only in modern times has the notion really caught on that the human mind is purely composed of matter in motion, and that its exclusive residence is in the physical brain. Scientific discoveries gradually pushed the main line of thinking this way because it was increasingly noted that various parts of the brain influence various types of mental and physical behavior. Scientists argued that stimulating certain parts of the brain could change behavior in positive or negative ways.

All this has proved to be true. But these insights have not answered the question of the vital difference between thought and the material world. All the content of the human mind is not physical, nor is it a miniature reflection of what goes on in the material world. Mathematics, for example, has no mass, volume, or any other physical attributes. That being the case, as Plato noted, how can mathematics exist or be conceived but by a source that has no mass, volume, or other physical attribute … in other words, the human mind?

The physical repository of the mind is in the human brain. The connection between brain and mind, however, is deeply mysterious. The materialists cannot convincingly argue, as would be necessary if they are serious about being materialists, that if you open a brain, as you might open a camera, you would find miniature pictures of much larger things … buildings, cars, people … lying about. These things can exist in memory, and can be recalled at will, but only as ghostly images of what we have seen in the real world. Likewise, the human mind can compose images it has never seen in the material world, and can even imagine a world (the world of spirit) that exists but is not visible to the senses.

Richard Popkin and Avrum Stroll note a challenging objection to the materialist theory of mind. They comment that any such theory is a dead end so far as distinguishing the merit of one truth from another. If truth is merely a collection of atoms and molecules swirling about in the physical brain, why would one swirl be preferable to any other swirl, since all have an equally valid existence as material swirls? The very notions of truth and untruth then become irrelevant in such a theory of the mind. Such a deduction leads inevitably to the triumph of relativism … that truth is only the thought we prefer.

The human mind can establish universal mathematical truths. It can also discover absolute moral principles, foretell the future, invent weapons of catastrophic capability, devise vehicles for interplanetary travel, invent computers that can outthink humans at chess, and create music, art, and poetry. All these things it can do by a series of electrical impulses in the brain that don’t even know they exist. What, then, is the human soul if it is not something more fine and subtle than electrical impulses in the brain?

 

[ngill09]

If only brains exist it doesn’t make sense to refer to “we” or “our”. Materialism implies that there are no enduring entities such as “persons” who are responsible for what they do, only physical organisms which are the product of their environment and genetic inheritance.

No, materialism implies that persons are emergent from physical processes. You’re using complete non sequitors.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Another thing. People don’t really get healed by science, they get healed by faith. If they have faith in the medicine, the procedures and the doctor they will probably heal, God willing. Many many studies have shown that people react just the same from placebos as from the real drug they are testing. Health has an awful lot to do with the attitude and beliefs of the human being. Jesus healed people by faith not by science.

Bottom line? What is stronger - faith or science?

 

[ngill09]

Another thing. People don’t really get healed by science, they get healed by faith. If they have faith in the medicine, the procedures and the doctor they will probably heal, God willing. Many many studies have shown that people react just the same from placebos as from the real drug they are testing. Health has an awful lot to do with the attitude and beliefs of the human being. Jesus healed people by faith not by science.

Bottom line? What is stronger - faith or science?

Um, the whole point of placebos in testing is to show whether the drug actually has a desired effect. The effects of the drug have to exceed placebo to be deemed effective. Ineffective drugs are indifferent from placebos, but most drugs that pass testing have an effect above and beyond placebo.

I hope that if you have children you don’t rely on faith healing.