Neuroscience and the Soul

[Charlemagne_III]

The issue is when the materialist claims to be able to account for the same phenomena with neuroscience alone, and then argues from simplicity that the soul should not be posited. This isn’t a “proof” but it is a valid use of Occam’s razor.

While there are several different versions of Occam’s Razor, this is not a valid use of any version of Occam’s Razor that I am familiar with.

Choosing not to posit the soul in most cases is, at bottom, tied to the presumptions of atheism. There is nothing in atheism that allows for Occam’s Razor, and William of Occam, a Franciscan friar, would be the first to insist on that.

On the other hand, if you can show me a materialist who believes in God, I might have to modify my position with respect to that particular materialist.

 

[polytropos]

If you are making the claim that neuroscience (which is the OP, as opposed to psychology, which does study mental functioning)
has taught us much about the mind, it would be important to support this with evidence that can be discussed.

Well, Fr of Jazz has given the example of neuroplasticity, which gives us a mechanism for some of the mind’s functioning (ie. feedback in response to repeated stimuli, etc.).

I don’t accept a strong distinction between psychology and mind. The soul is the form of the whole body; it was psyche that was translated into anima and then soul in the hylemorphist accounts from Aristotle to Aquinas. Emotions etc. are all included in soul, and those can be investigated (in part) by scientific means as well.

 

[polytropos]

While there are several different versions of Occam’s Razor, this is not a valid use of any version of Occam’s Razor that I am familiar with.

If two theories are equally explanatory but one posits an additional entity, then you choose the simpler one? You have not seen that use of Occam’s razor?

Choosing not to posit the soul in most cases is, at bottom, tied to the presumptions of atheism.

Probably, but to fault he who does not posit a soul on that basis would be to commit the genetic fallacy. (It would be another thing if one had to presuppose atheism in order to make the argument that there is not a soul, but I don’t see why that is the case, and you certainly haven’t made that argument.)

There is nothing in atheism that allows for Occam’s Razor, and William of Occam, a Franciscan friar, would be the first to insist on that.

All reasoning allows for Occam’s razor. It is a good principle that was formulated well before William of Occam (by Aquinas, for example). If postulating an entity does not improve the explanation, then the entity should not be postulated. (It is obvious, then, that to reject the application, one only has to argue against the antecedent, ie. that the two theories in question are not explanatorily sufficient.)

Call it theoretical simplicity if you don’t like the term Occam’s razor.

 

[yppop]

Scientists can’t figure out the mysteries of the brain because they refuse to allow for the presence of a spiritual component existing conterminously with the neurons, the material component. The presence of a spiritual component provides animals with a dual memory: a material memory located in the neuronal circuitry of the brain and a “perceptual” memory located in the spiritual substance called nous. The perceptual memory stores qualia, feelings, emotions, meanings, concepts, and percepts, all of which have a “continuous” nature. Neurons, on the other hand have a “discrete” (individual units) nature. Specific neuronal circuits activate specific areas of the perceptual memory to induce sentient experiences. This phenomena is present in all animals in an increasingly comprehensive way from lowest animal forms to the highest, the human. Sentient experience is the source of most, but not all, of animal behavior. It is manifested as mental activities such as awareness, focus, recognizance, perception and response.

At the top of the animal hierarchy, humans are distinct from all the rest as the result of the human brain’s language capability, namely, neuronal circuit’s that are organized to respond to symbols (words, notes, and numbers). The language capability of the brain (the material) combines with the perceptual memory of the nous (the spiritual) to form what we call the “mind”. Only humans have minds because only humans have language. We (at least I) do not think without symbols. Thought allows us humans to reflect, contemplate, analyze, conceptualize, create, and rationalize. Because we have a mind and can think, we are the only animal with a soul.

The soul is the form of the nous. Form not in the sense of geometry, but form in the sense of response. The soul is how the perceptual memory “sees” the world, with what emotions, and feelings the perceptional memory responds either to a perception or an action. For example. the soul can be informed to experience joy from giving or making sacrifices. We Catholics believe the response of joy to giving is provided through actual grace. Grace does not act spontaneously; it must be pursued through the mind’s rational search. It is thought, the substance of free will, that informs the soul. It is an ongoing process.

Of course, the mystery of the brain is far more complex than the outline that I’ve just presented. However the mystery can be unraveled in the form of a plausible explanation developed through the use of reason, but not without the premise of hylomorphic duality.

Yppop

 

[ngill09]

At the top of the animal hierarchy, humans are distinct from all the rest as the result of the human brain’s language capability, namely, neuronal circuit’s that are organized to respond to symbols (words, notes, and numbers). The language capability of the brain (the material) combines with the perceptual memory of the nous (the spiritual) to form what we call the “mind”. Only humans have minds because only humans have language. We (at least I) do not think without symbols. Thought allows us humans to reflect, contemplate, analyze, conceptualize, create, and rationalize. Because we have a mind and can think, we are the only animal with a soul.

Yppop

I know a gorilla named Koko who might disagree with you. And some whales probably would too.

 

[opusAquinas]

A soul is created at the moment of conception.

 

[opusAquinas]

There are vessels of justice and mercy.

Materialist or not. Here are two books that are anti-reductionist surprisingly. Physicalism, or something near enough. And Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False

We have a will. Raise your arm. Type or not.

 

[ngill09]

A soul is created at the moment of conception.

While this seems like a random interjection, I’ll take it. Polytropos or one of the other hylomorphists - how do zygotes factor into that model? They are certainly not conscious or have any of the other characteristics typically attributed to having a soul.

 

[davidv]

I know a gorilla named Koko who might disagree with you. And some whales probably would too.

Please link us to Koko’s published papers on this.

 

[polytropos]

While this seems like a random interjection, I’ll take it. Polytropos or one of the other hylomorphists - how do zygotes factor into that model? They are certainly not conscious or have any of the other characteristics typically attributed to having a soul.

A soul is the form of an individual human being. A zygote is an individual human being. Since it is an entity distinct from its mother, it has its own form.

The zygote’s soul is rational, as well, though it cannot at that time exercise its rationality. This is typical in the hylemorphist ontology. A tree that is uprooted and stripped of its leaves is still a tree, and retains its powers of growth until it dies.

 

[ngill09]

Please link us to Koko’s published papers on this.

The question is whether language exists in other animals, not whether other animals can write.

 

[balto]

The question is whether language exists in other animals, not whether other animals can write.

If I may interject, I’m not sure that the issue is over whether or not animals possess language because it seems apparent that animals are able to communicate using very primitive forms of language. This is only a loose definition of language and I think there’s a difference in kind between these primitive languages and human language, at least in what we are trying to accomplish when we use language. I think it was probably mentioned earlier on in the thread, but it has more to do with an individual being able to form abstract concepts. I think that neuroscience at best may be able to tell you that a person is entertaining such-and-such particular mental phantasms (as in specific sense data that was received earlier) but there seems to be a necessary indeterminacy trying to use that data to get to a universal. There’s nothing in the physical data alone that would tell you determinately what a particular mental process is “about.” It would be like noting that the proposition “the cat is on the mat” tends to be correlated with certain characters of the English alphabet and then concluding that the proposition “the cat is on the mat” is nothing more than a bunch of pixels lit up on a computer screen.

The Scholastic I think would argue that our ability to grasp universal concepts and think in terms of pure functions separates us from other animals. Other animals have the powers of sensation and imagination which allows them to have a rudimentary form of knowledge, but only knowledge of particulars. They supposedly cannot take particulars and abstract to universal types. If it ever ended up being demonstrated that a gorilla can form abstract concepts, the conclusion wouldn’t be that humans are really like gorillas, but that gorillas are really like humans and also possess rational souls.

 

[yppop]

I know a gorilla named Koko who might disagree with you. And some whales probably would too.

Please cite examples of animal language. I don’t believe you can because no other animal possesses the vocal apparatus designed for speech. The claim that Koko learned sign language was debunked in Steven Pinker’s book, “The Language Instinct”.

Regarding the elephant’s ability to use “language”, I believe you are equivocating, as many animal research scientists do, when you use the word language when referring to what is in reality nothing but animal communication. Animals (including the human animal) are able to communicate using signs. Only humans can communicate using signs and/or symbols.

To quote Pinker:
“Language is as different from other animal’s communication systems as the elephant’s trunk is different from other animal’s nostrils. Nonhuman communication is based on one of three design: a finite repertory of calls (one for warning of predators, one for claims of territories, and so forth), a continuous analog signal that registers the magnitude of some state (the livelier the dance of the bee the richer the food source that it is telling its hive mates about), or a series of variations on a theme (a birdsong repeated with a new twist each time …). As we have seen human language has a very different design. The discrete combinatorial system called “grammar” makes human language infinite ( there is no limit to the number of complex words or sentences in a language), digital ( this infinity is achieved by rearranging discrete elements in particular orders and combinations, not by varying some signal along some continuum like the mercury in the thermometer), and compositional ( each of the combinations has a different meaning predicable from the meanings of its parts and the rules and principles arranging them).”

Also the seat of human language (symbols) is in the cerebral cortex; the vocal calls of primates (signs) are controlled in the neural structures in the brain stem and the limbic system.

So, ng, you will have to do better - if you want to debunk my claim that only humans have a mind (and a soul) because only humans possess language - than your “oh yeah” type response. Read Pinker before you make claims about language.

Yppop

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If two theories are equally explanatory but one posits an additional entity, then you choose the simpler one? You have not seen that use of Occam’s razor?

Materialism is not a theory. It does not explain anything. It only asserts itself. Therefore Occam’s Razor does not apply.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All reasoning allows for Occam’s razor.

Every tool for cutting must have its natural limits. Or as Einstein put it, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

 

[ngill09]

Please cite examples of animal language. I don’t believe you can because no other animal possesses the vocal apparatus designed for speech. The claim that Koko learned sign language was debunked in Steven Pinker’s book, “The Language Instinct”.

Regarding the elephant’s ability to use “language”, I believe you are equivocating, as many animal research scientists do, when you use the word language when referring to what is in reality nothing but animal communication. Animals (including the human animal) are able to communicate using signs. Only humans can communicate using signs and/or symbols.

To quote Pinker:
“Language is as different from other animal’s communication systems as the elephant’s trunk is different from other animal’s nostrils. Nonhuman communication is based on one of three design: a finite repertory of calls (one for warning of predators, one for claims of territories, and so forth), a continuous analog signal that registers the magnitude of some state (the livelier the dance of the bee the richer the food source that it is telling its hive mates about), or a series of variations on a theme (a birdsong repeated with a new twist each time …). As we have seen human language has a very different design. The discrete combinatorial system called “grammar” makes human language infinite ( there is no limit to the number of complex words or sentences in a language), digital ( this infinity is achieved by rearranging discrete elements in particular orders and combinations, not by varying some signal along some continuum like the mercury in the thermometer), and compositional ( each of the combinations has a different meaning predicable from the meanings of its parts and the rules and principles arranging them).”

Also the seat of human language (symbols) is in the cerebral cortex; the vocal calls of primates (signs) are controlled in the neural structures in the brain stem and the limbic system.

So, ng, you will have to do better - if you want to debunk my claim that only humans have a mind (and a soul) because only humans possess language - than your “oh yeah” type response. Read Pinker before you make claims about language.

Yppop

The claim was that no other animal has language. Other animals do have at least some of the basic elements of language in their communication.

And if the seat of human language is in the cerebral cortex then you’re ceding my point to me because that is exactly the claim I’m trying to make.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . how do zygotes factor into that model? They are certainly not conscious or have any of the other characteristics typically attributed to having a soul.

I can’t imagine someone being so ill-mannered and offensive. This is a Catholic site. At least have the decency to consider that what you have just said, we understand as having been said about any human being. This horrific view, is unfortunately prevalent in this society, to its ultimate detriment.

Why are you here?!???!!

 

[polytropos]

Materialism is not a theory. It does not explain anything. It only asserts itself. Therefore Occam’s Razor does not apply.

Materialism is a theory, and it does purport to explain things (which is as much as any theory can do–since at most one could be entirely right).

Try telling David Armstrong, Paul Churchland, Jaegwon Kim, J.J.C. Smart, David Lewis, etc. etc. etc. that materialism is not a theory. You may think it is a bad theory. Maybe it is. (I believe so too.) But it could hardly be said that it isn’t a theory.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Materialism is a theory, and it does purport to explain things (which is as much as any theory can do–since at most one could be entirely right).

Try telling David Armstrong, Paul Churchland, Jaegwon Kim, J.J.C. Smart, David Lewis, etc. etc. etc. that materialism is not a theory. You may think it is a bad theory. Maybe it is. (I believe so too.) But it could hardly be said that it isn’t a theory.

Calling something a theory does not make it a theory. Theories must have evidence. What evidence supports materialism? It is a only blanket assertion that matter is all there is.

How is that a theory?

If I said evolution happened and that is my theory, but offered no evidence, you would repudiate that as a theory, no?

So what is the evidence that matter is all there is?

It is a philosophical presumption largely based on an atheistic premise. That is not proof. You may if you like call it a perverse use of Occam’s Razor, but Occam himself would never have allowed that becasue atheism is not science, and materialism is not science. Both are philosophies and poor ones at that.

Einstein in his youth believed the universe existed in a steady state and was infinite. That was an assumption, not a theory, becasue he had no proof of his assumtion.

When Lemaitre (and later others) offered proof to the contrary (the Big Bang) Einstein later abandoned his opposition to the Big Bang.

 

[polytropos]

Calling something a theory does not make it a theory. Theories must have evidence. What evidence supports materialism? It is a only blanket assertion that matter is all there is.

Somehow I doubt that materialism is “only [a] blanket assertion that matter is all there is.” I imagine David Armstrong fit a few other words in the remaining 400 pages.

If I said evolution happened and that is my theory, but offered no evidence, you would repudiate that as a theory, no?

Actually, probably not. A theory with no evidence to support it just seems like a bad theory to me.

So what is the evidence that matter is all there is?

Well, here is another issue: There is matter. What the materialist does is claim that matter is sufficient for explaining everything that is observed. He argues that his theory is explanatorily sufficient and simpler than alternatives which posit more entities. There is evidence that matter exists, and if he does not need other entities to account for mind (say) then he has an argument for materialism.

He doesn’t need evidence that matter is all there is if he can make the simplicity claim, anymore than you don’t need evidence to prove that you have one soul and not two.

It is a philosophical presumption largely based on an atheistic premise. That is not proof. You may if you like call it a perverse use of Occam’s Razor, but Occam himself would never have allowed that becasue atheism is not science, and materialism is not science. Both are philosophies and poor ones at that.

I agree that atheism and materialism are philosophies. I also believe that they are both false.

My concern is that you do not take your intellectual opponents seriously. I hate to break it to you, but materialism (in all of its various forms) is the dominant position in contemporary philosophy of mind, and contemporary philosophers of mind, I must admit (though I don’t agree with them), are not stupid. Most contemporary philosophers of mind regard themselves as being “beyond theism”–they are atheists, but it does not constitute a particularly significant component of the way they do philosophy, because they regard atheism as obvious. (Searle, Nagel and Tallis have all made comments to this effect, despite being some of the naturalists who tend to go against the more strongly materialist stream.) The problem I have is that if someone comes on this forum, with materialist sympathies, it is unlikely that they will find your arguments against materialism cogent.

Claiming that materialism has an atheistic premise is not an effective way of arguing against it.

The principle of parsimony, ie. Occam’s razor, has almost nothing to do with Occam himself. It has been employed by virtually all philosophers because it is a sound epistemic principle. It does not presuppose theism. It is not limited to scientific application.