Soul or brain

[STT]

Frankly, you’re setting up a false dichotomy. Why must it be soul or brain when it’s perfectly consistent to say soul and brain. There is no ‘or’ needed.

Why should we need a separate thing, soul, when all the phenomena can be described by matter?

 

[Beryllos]

We are not talking about death and what happen after that. That is another topic itself. The main question in this thread is what is the use of soul in daily our lives.

Good question.

 

[Wesrock]

Why should we need a separate thing, soul, when all the phenomena can be described by matter?

Because they can’t. But that doesn’t mean soul or brain, not does it mean denying what neuroscience has been demonstrating.

 

[Wesrock]

I have problem with hylemorphic dualism in which form are similar and matter are different. I can breath the air you breathed and the matter which was inside your body becomes part of mine. I believe that matter is similar and shape, configuration of matter, is different when it comes to different beings or things. Therefore no room is left for soul.

I don’t see a problem. The matter that makes up me is not constant over time. I never claimed that. But the atoms that make me up at this point in time are not the same atoms that make you up at the same point in time. They occupy different moments of space and time.

We fall into the same category (human being) but are precisely different human beings because we occupy different time and space due to the matter that makes us up at any point in time.

 

[STT]

Because they can’t.

How do you know? Why if consciousness is an emergent phenomena, I mean simply physical? We don’t have any proof or scientific evidence yet.

But that doesn’t mean soul or brain, not does it mean denying what neuroscience has been demonstrating.

Well, if the phenomena of consciousness is physical then we don’t need soul at all.

 

[STT]

I don’t see a problem. The matter that makes up me is not constant over time. I never claimed that. But the atoms that make me up at this point in time are not the same atoms that make you up at the same point in time. They occupy different moments of space and time.

That I agree. So from materialist point of view what makes you you is configuration of atoms.

We fall into the same category (human being) but are precisely different human beings because we occupy different time and space due to the matter that makes us up at any point in time.

Yes, because our form in Thomatistic point of view is same. The problem is that this form or soul does not even have a personal identity attached to it, it is simply naked, so we lose everything upon death. This means that God has to recreate our body with the same configuration to give us the same identity and memory. This to me is nonsense since the existence of soul in this view does not offer anything over materialism.

 

[Beryllos]

We are not talking about death but functioning of soul in our daily lives.

It may be erroneous to assume that the soul has “functioning” analogous to a brain. Scientists and theologians in the past may have made such assumptions in order to explain functions which we now understand to be neurological. Perhaps the soul’s function is at a higher level, not entirely of this world. It may not fit the brain paradigm at all.

How can one describe that? St. Paul wrote “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” and “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.”

 

[Wesrock]

That I agree. So from materialist point of view what makes you you is configuration of atoms.

Yes, because our form in Thomatistic point of view is same. The problem is that this form or soul does not even have a personal identity attached to it, it is simply naked, so we lose everything upon death. This means that God has to recreate our body with the same configuration to give us the same identity and memory. This to me is nonsense since the existence of soul in this view does not offer anything over materialism.

A power of the human being is the use of a rational intellect. This is moving beyond patterns and pointers to actually grasping the concept (or form of a thing) in your mind. It’s how synapse activity, which is devoid of actual “aboutness” of anything in itself, can be brought to fruition into actual thought. We are, of course, working within the framework of things having formal causes and a realist approach to universals, but a materialist conception of the human mind could possibly explain our behavior, but it fails to explain any type of individuality to that behavior and our thoughts. This in no way denies the brain’s role in conscious activity and the influence it has on feelings and muscle control and such, and it is the means by which a human being has a causal relationship to the world, but a being without the power of a rational intellect, which cannot exist in any material sense, is devoid of any inherent meaningful content, thoughts, or will. It would be, in a sense, what those in philosophy of the mind call a zombie, given the appearance of being a thinking, willing, unified individual, but which in reality is not. The power of intellect is not corruptible, for it is not made of anything corruptible, and as the body dies, the intellect does not. And as a dog with no tail is still a dog, and as a dog with no tail or legs is still a dog, so is a human being still a human being, retaining it’s form, if all that remains is the intellect (there is disagreement among Thomism’s as to whether this intellect, which all consider eternal, retains the substantial form of a human being, with those who says it does being called survivalists and those who say it doesn’t being called corruptionists, but that’s another discussion). What is essential to being human is being a rational soul, and that remains. So there is something unique about each individual which remains to differentiate me from someone else, that of the experiences I possessed when I was differentiated by matter.

As to reconstitution in the resurrection, there’s debate among Christians in general about that, with some quite crazy examples used to illustrate difficulties. As stated, I’ll be made up of various different bits of matter throughout my life. It’s not constant. I’m just not made up as the same matter as anyone else at the same moment in time and space, and perhaps more importantly, it’s the matter that creates extension and localises me to particular points. Some Christians argue that at least a portion of the matter that makes me up during my life will be part of my resurrected body, but not that I’ll be made up of entirely the same matter.

 

[M-Dent]

That is not true. The concept of soul is disappearing as science progress more. What functioning in our life is left that we can assign it to soul?

The duality of the soul and body is a concept that will die out if/when scientists test Ray Kurzweil’s speculation. Such will be sorely disappointed the AI will be more artificial than hoped.

 

[STT]

It may be erroneous to assume that the soul has “functioning” analogous to a brain. Scientists and theologians in the past may have made such assumptions in order to explain functions which we now understand to be neurological. Perhaps the soul’s function is at a higher level, not entirely of this world. It may not fit the brain paradigm at all.

How can one describe that? St. Paul wrote “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” and “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.”

We are nothing without identity attached to us and unfortunately soul cannot offer that. We know by fact that we lose our identity by aging, illness and brain damage due to accident. We even lose Iness upon brain damage. This is described well in this video. So who we are after life? A new reconstructed being, given the previous identity, memory, personality, etc. So what soul could offer even for after life? Nothing.

 

[STT]

A power of the human being is the use of a rational intellect. This is moving beyond patterns and pointers to actually grasping the concept (or form of a thing) in your mind. It’s how synapse activity, which is devoid of actual “aboutness” of anything in itself, can be brought to fruition into actual thought. We are, of course, working within the framework of things having formal causes and a realist approach to universals, but a materialist conception of the human mind could possibly explain our behavior, but it fails to explain any type of individuality to that behavior and our thoughts. This in no way denies the brain’s role in conscious activity and the influence it has on feelings and muscle control and such, and it is the means by which a human being has a causal relationship to the world, but a being without the power of a rational intellect, which cannot exist in any material sense, is devoid of any inherent meaningful content, thoughts, or will.

Do you have any proof that intellect is an attribute of soul and cannot possibly be explained by neural activity, namely in a materialistic framework. I doubt so. We know that the power of reason also is subject of having a healthy brain.

It would be, in a sense, what those in philosophy of the mind call a zombie, given the appearance of being a thinking, willing, unified individual, but which in reality is not. The power of intellect is not corruptible, for it is not made of anything corruptible, and as the body dies, the intellect does not.

We know that intellect also corruptible. We can even lose the sense of Iness upon brain damage which to me is much more important than intellect. Please watch this video ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight to see how a specialist in the area of neurobiology describe that she lose her sense of Iness when she had stroke.

And as a dog with no tail is still a dog, and as a dog with no tail or legs is still a dog, so is a human being still a human being, retaining it’s form, if all that remains is the intellect (there is disagreement among Thomism’s as to whether this intellect, which all consider eternal, retains the substantial form of a human being, with those who says it does being called survivalists and those who say it doesn’t being called corruptionists, but that’s another discussion). What is essential to being human is being a rational soul, and that remains. So there is something unique about each individual which remains to differentiate me from someone else, that of the experiences I possessed when I was differentiated by matter.

No, soul cannot possibly be different among individual. That is configuration of matter which make us different. That is true since we lose our identity upon brain damage therefore so soul cannot offer an identity either.

As to reconstitution in the resurrection, there’s debate among Christians in general about that, with some quite crazy examples used to illustrate difficulties. As stated, I’ll be made up of various different bits of matter throughout my life. It’s not constant. I’m just not made up as the same matter as anyone else at the same moment in time and space, and perhaps more importantly, it’s the matter that creates extension and localises me to particular points. Some Christians argue that at least a portion of the matter that makes me up during my life will be part of my resurrected body, but not that I’ll be made up of entirely the same matter.

That is weird. That should be a part of revelation.

 

[Beryllos]

We are nothing without identity attached to us and unfortunately soul cannot offer that. We know by fact that we lose our identity by aging, illness and brain damage due to accident. We even lose Iness upon brain damage. This is described well in this video. So who we are after life? A new reconstructed being, given the previous identity, memory, personality, etc. So what soul could offer even for after life? Nothing.

You are still trying to force the eternal soul into a brain model.

 

[STT]

You are still trying to force the eternal soul into a brain model.

Could you please tell me that what soul offers?

 

[AaronJSmith1978]

Try reading works from Raymond Tallis, Ed Feser, David Chalmers, Christoff Kotch, and maybe Alfred Mele for your answers STT. This thread looks exactly like what I pmed you about before. The other thread proves it. Now Wes is saying no different than you about the physical nature of the brain. Yes if you destroy the brain you lose your abilities, and the soul loses its effect on it. I gave you an analogy on this before and it’s your ability to grasp the concepts that is what Wes is getting at. Matter shows no such power nor does anything else really but us. Animals show a pale comparison, as no animal on earth but us are discussing this topic, no less on electronic devices made of plastic and melted sand. This issue is called the hard problem of the consciousness. The world’s greatest minds are still stuck on it and you won’t solve it on this thread. Again though by reading how you reply in both threads you posted I don’t see how reparatively no you’re wrong with a hardly worth while Ted talk to back you makes you right. You are not discussing your arguing.

 

[hasantas]

We are not talking about death but functioning of soul in our daily lives.

Then you do not understand what I say. I mean the death point that all animations come from soul. Energy or brain or any part of body are means by which soul act. The real mind and senses come from soul but not from actions in brain. So there is no life if God do not give. For instance there is no life and senses in energy not important what kind it is.

 

[John_Martin]

We are nothing without identity attached to us and unfortunately soul cannot offer that. We know by fact that we lose our identity by aging, illness and brain damage due to accident. We even lose Iness upon brain damage. This is described well in this video. So who we are after life? A new reconstructed being, given the previous identity, memory, personality, etc. So what soul could offer even for after life? Nothing.

Actually, we lose the ability to move the body and brain when injured or ill. The body is not at those times well disposed to be moved by the “mover” (which is the soul). Eventually the defects of the body, including the brain, are so massive that the soul is not even able to animate breath and heartbeat, let alone thoughts. The soul would like to say, “I AM” to you, but the body cannot be moved to form the words or even think the thoughts. And, so, the soul quits this body, and leaves, to find comfort or to find torment.

 

[STT]

Try reading works from Raymond Tallis, Ed Feser, David Chalmers, Christoff Kotch, and maybe Alfred Mele for your answers STT. This thread looks exactly like what I pmed you about before. The other thread proves it. Now Wes is saying no different than you about the physical nature of the brain. Yes if you destroy the brain you lose your abilities, and the soul loses its effect on it.

What does exactly soul on brain do? It seems to me that you are talking about Cartesian dualism. This is not what Catholic believe on.

I gave you an analogy on this before and it’s your ability to grasp the concepts that is what Wes is getting at.

Wes is talking about Hylemorphic dualism. I could believe on that if one can prove that matter doesn’t have ability to become conscious or provide an evidence for existence of soul.

Matter shows no such power nor does anything else really but us.

How do you know? Consciousness to my understanding is an emergent phenomena like many other phenomena.

Animals show a pale comparison, as no animal on earth but us are discussing this topic, no less on electronic devices made of plastic and melted sand. This issue is called the hard problem of the consciousness. The world’s greatest minds are still stuck on it and you won’t solve it on this thread.

Well, there is no need for soul if we agree that what Chalmers says is true.

Again though by reading how you reply in both threads you posted I don’t see how reparatively no you’re wrong with a hardly worth while Ted talk to back you makes you right. You are not discussing your arguing.

Yes, I am arguing. What is wrong with that?

 

[STT]

Then you do not understand what I say. I mean the death point that all animations come from soul. Energy or brain or any part of body are means by which soul act. The real mind and senses come from soul but not from actions in brain. So there is no life if God do not give. For instance there is no life and senses in energy not important what kind it is.

We could detect soul if soul act on body. We haven’t found anything yet so what you are suggesting cannot be true.

 

[STT]

Actually, we lose the ability to move the body and brain when injured or ill. The body is not at those times well disposed to be moved by the “mover” (which is the soul). Eventually the defects of the body, including the brain, are so massive that the soul is not even able to animate breath and heartbeat, let alone thoughts. The soul would like to say, “I AM” to you, but the body cannot be moved to form the words or even think the thoughts. And, so, the soul quits this body, and leaves, to find comfort or to find torment.

Why do we need all these complexity in brain if soul is simply the mover? Just remove the brain and lets soul does its job, animate the body.

 

[John_Martin]

Why do we need all these complexity in brain if soul is simply the mover? Just remove the brain and lets soul does its job, animate the body.

Then you could not talk to anyone or learn from anyone, since the brain is the interface that makes intelligible objects into material expression. And when it is old and dying, it is no longer capable of being used in this way by the soul, and so we can no longer talk to you or hear you.

As to your answer to hasantas: We can detect the soul the same way we track wild animals, not by seeing or touching them, but by looking at the results of their being present after they have run away. I know you have a soul because thoughts are appearing in your consciousness, sometimes fully formed with no effort, and coming through your fingertips to your keyboard and onto the screen. The chemicals and materials that make the brain cannot think or type. They are the same elements in a living person and a person just deceased. Yet one is having thoughts and the other is not. Same chemicals and elements. But one is animated and one is not. One is moved to thought but one is not moved to thought.