Souls and Neuroscience

[greylorn]

I had a look at the book. I might buy it. I’ve read some parapsychology works and find it incredibly interesting but chose to stop after I realized 90% of what was on the market was either discredited, anti-religion or New Age. But this book seems legit and scientific, so I may check it out when I’m finished with some scholarly works I’m reading on Jesus’ Resurrection.

Radin is religion-neutral, not new-age. I believe that his book will meet your standards.

They DO have good metaphysical arguments for reincarnation, I believe, and many also suggest they increase evidence, it’s just common amongst them to deny Past-Life Regression as said evidence. That being said, I’ve studied their evidence and wouldn’t say it’s been proven to be part of nature. Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge the plausibility of reincarnation, but I also acknowledge the philosophical objections for it and the ones for the “heaven/hell/purgation” afterlife system I subscribe to, as well as the evidence against that, in turn.

You will find it very difficult to embrace evidence which contradicts your belief system. That’s natural and human. Darwinists and Jehovah’s Witnesses have a worse case of the same problem. IMO you are far more objective and thoughtful about your beliefs than most, certainly more so than I ever was.

Recently another CAF poster reminded me of a valuable book which made a difference for me, and which you will find of certain value-- Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Read a Book.” After reading it I went back and reread the important books I thought I’d read, to surprisingly good effect.

Don’t forget comparative religion, where you take them all, shuffle them up, give yourself a handful of them, and decide how they all point to the same truth! I have, in recent times, been toying with the semi-heretical “all Gods are one God” idea in my brain.

I declined to study comparative religion, so cannot forget it. But I’ve heard the “same truth” bullpucky from more nitwits than I want to acknowledge conversing with. This is the kind of nonsense you will learn to expect from people who figure that “critical thinking” means having a large store of beans and beer in case of a three-day power outage.

The “all Gods are one God,” notion isn’t heretical. It is simply stupid. If you are toying with ideas at that level, it is time to up your standards. Toys are for children. What is your field of study? Does it include any physics?

I ask because, IMO, you appear to be curious about many things which you will never understand by reading the writings of those who know no physics. If I guess rightly about your desire to understand, physics will not only serve you well, it will prove essential.

Physics as in the hard science or the phenomenon? If the former, I’m personally seeing more and more compatibility between Catholicism and physics.

Physics as in the hard science, our best understanding of how the universe works. You’ll want to evaluate the First Law of Thermodynamics in the context of Catholic creation theory. I may have started a thread on the subject awhile back, and have opened the subject in other contexts.

I’m satisfied with my beliefs (planning on entering the seminary post-college) and I still study them. And others. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe not. I’ll just see someday (I actually do have specific scientific, historical and philosophical reasons for being Catholic over Buddhist or Daoist or Hindu, but they’re off-topic and unnecessary here IMHO).

Let me know if you open a thread on your off-topic reasons.

I hope that you do enter and finish the seminary. The Church needs minds like yours more than it knows or admits. One open-minded Norbertine priest in a Catholic high school made a big difference in my life.

 

[greylorn]

Catholicism requires that you trust your “religious” beliefs, even with doubts. Anything less is to worship something less than the one true God.

Is this being closed minded. No. One has to be open minded to allow the Holy Spirit to draw you to the Church, but once the Holy Spirit has done so, being continuing to be “open minded” means that the only correct answer is to remain Catholic! If the Catholic Church is the true Church, then we believe that all intellectually honest doubts and discussions ultimately lead back to the Church Jesus Christ founded!

Ultimately, because I have accepted the Catholic Church, I have to simply disregard any notion of past lives or reincarnation. We are taught as Catholics that we are endowed with a unique, immaterial human soul at conception. We are taught that our bodies will die once, and will be resurrected once, just as Jesus Christ died and resurrected two thousand years ago.

All souls are uniquely created. Even Jesus Christ, who’s divinity has existed for all eternity, was endowed by the Holy Spirit with a unique human soul at the moment of incarnation in Mary’s womb. Jesus was incarnated human once. He was resurrected, but not reincarnated. He was the same person before and after his death. As a Catholic, I believe this to be an historical fact. I don’t hold the idea of reincarnation in hostility, but merely hold it to have been disproven by historical fact!

I’m not being closed minded here. Given the facts I know, and the truth’s revealed to me (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM - nothing secret here ), I have debated and deliberated with myself, and come to the conclusion that Catholicism is the only Church that makes sense!

…

You mentioned that you’ve investigated numerous religions, and concluded that their ultimate purpose is wrong. I have to agree with you, sort of . Religion is a human construct. Every religion founded by man IS INFACT WRONG. I cannot fault you for concluding as such.

However, Catholicism isn’t founded by man! It was started at the beginning of time, when God the Father formed a covenant with the first humans. This covenant was renewed repeatedly throughout history with the Jewish people, ultimately being fulfilled with Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary, spreading the possibility of salvation to all of humanity via the institutional Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I understand your position and once believed as you do. Then I went to school and studied physics, and asked questions which found no more answers within the Church than in the halls of academia. Your ideas clearly serve you well, as they once served me. But I moved into a world of understanding, physics, within which those ideas fit poorly. (And a lot of trash coming out of modern speculative physics theory fits no better!)

You might ask yourself if a post which consists entirely of religious dogma really belongs in the Philosophy section, on a thread titled, Souls and neuroscience? But since it is here and you directed your post to me, let us answer it.

Humans are a strange and sorry lot. Not content to have our beliefs and accept them for what they are, we must invent beliefs about our beliefs.

Consider the history of your beliefs, and how you got them. You listened to the words of men, and read the words of men. Those men gave you your beliefs. At no point did you encounter a burning bush or angel of God telling you in person that the ideas you were given are absolutely correct.

Now you believe that your beliefs were inspired by God. Who told you that? My guess is, the same men.

All religions, including Catholicism, are invented and founded by man, and claimed by men to have been revealed by God.

Perhaps part of your confusion comes from your inability to read and even quote competently. For example, you quasi-quote me thusly…

“You mentioned that you’ve investigated numerous religions, and concluded that their ultimate purpose is wrong.”

I said no such thing. I don’t know the exact post to which you refer, but whatever it is, I will have stated that the beliefs of all religions (and sciences) about the nature, origin, and purpose of man are wrong.

This is entirely different from saying that the purpose of any religion itself is inherently wrong, as your misquote implies that I said. Are you a progressive liberal socialist? They are the kind of people who commonly misquote others to make their own points. You can fix that.

 

[buffalo]

Is Consciousness Entirely Material?

 

[Pieman333272]

You will find it very difficult to embrace evidence which contradicts your belief system. That’s natural and human. Darwinists and Jehovah’s Witnesses have a worse case of the same problem. IMO you are far more objective and thoughtful about your beliefs than most, certainly more so than I ever was.

I do find it difficult to embrace them. But I find it easy to understand them. What you will (or have) notice about me is I almost never outrightly say a view or belief is wrong. I say I disagree, I say I think it’s improbable, but plausible, I say I don’t like it, but I try to never say “it’s wrong, I’m right, get over it” or anything like that.

Recently another CAF poster reminded me of a valuable book which made a difference for me, and which you will find of certain value-- Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Read a Book.” After reading it I went back and reread the important books I thought I’d read, to surprisingly good effect.

Cool, I’ll check this one out too.

I declined to study comparative religion, so cannot forget it. But I’ve heard the “same truth” bullpucky from more nitwits than I want to acknowledge conversing with. This is the kind of nonsense you will learn to expect from people who figure that “critical thinking” means having a large store of beans and beer in case of a three-day power outage.

I DO believe in an ultimate truth, and believe at least one religion has it right, but I don’t believe all (or even more than one) religions point to said truth.

The “all Gods are one God,” notion isn’t heretical. It is simply stupid. If you are toying with ideas at that level, it is time to up your standards. Toys are for children.

I must disagree. It, in my view, is a phenomenal idea, but lacks the metaphysical evidence for the theologians who assert it to prove it or convince the non-believers.

What is your field of study? Does it include any physics?

I’m still in High School, but if you mean my planned working field or interest, then philosophy. It, of course, indirectly drags physics into it, but isn’t focused on physics.

I ask because, IMO, you appear to be curious about many things which you will never understand by reading the writings of those who know no physics. If I guess rightly about your desire to understand, physics will not only serve you well, it will prove essential.

I do read philosophy and religion works built on physics, but for some reason I can never divulge as deeply into the “how” questions as much as the “why” and “does” ones.

Physics as in the hard science, our best understanding of how the universe works. You’ll want to evaluate the First Law of Thermodynamics in the context of Catholic creation theory. I may have started a thread on the subject awhile back, and have opened the subject in other contexts.

The Catholic Creation Theory applies to A) Matter and B) the immaterial (souls and the supernatural). Even if energy always existed, something is needed to give it the power to function i.e. more energy and proper conditions. (Also note that this law, as we know it, only applies inside the Universe - not out, where God presumably hangs around). I may have read the theory wrong too.

I hope that you do enter and finish the seminary. The Church needs minds like yours more than it knows or admits. One open-minded Norbertine priest in a Catholic high school made a big difference in my life.

Thanks. I feel if I do finish (or even enter) the seminary, my mind won’t be as open as you like. It won’t be closed, but there are quite a few philosophical and religious ideas I already subscribe to that I will not change. But there are, and always will be, ideas I AM willing to change my mind about, with the proper convincing, that is.

 

[greylorn]

I DO believe in an ultimate truth, and believe at least one religion has it right, but I don’t believe all (or even more than one) religions point to said truth.

Good on the ultimate truth belief. People who equivocate are no fun. Me too, but I do not know of any religion which IMO has gotten it right.

I must disagree. It, in my view, is a phenomenal idea, but lacks the metaphysical evidence for the theologians who assert it to prove it or convince the non-believers.

Declaring all gods to be one seems to contradict your position on only one religion being true. But maybe you’ll get over that idea.

I’m still in High School, but if you mean my planned working field or interest, then philosophy. It, of course, indirectly drags physics into it, but isn’t focused on physics.

I do read philosophy and religion works built on physics, but for some reason I can never divulge as deeply into the “how” questions as much as the “why” and “does” ones.

Imagine finding a mysterious widget in a shipwreck at the bottom of the ocean, (e.g. the antikythera mechanism) and attempting to determine who constructed it and why. (The philosophical approach.) Such a project is an absurd waste of time without first determining what the mechanism does and how it might have been built.

Now apply that analogy to the origin of the universe.

I propose that it will be to the advantage of philosophy and physics that they work together. You’ll notice that the great physicists are generally philosophers, but that no philosophers are physicists. That is because physics requires mental discipline and analytical thought, whereas philosophy can be aced by anyone with the patience to memorize and regurgitate illogical ideas.

You might consider a combined degree, unless you plan on reprising Ayn Rand’s burger chef.

The Catholic Creation Theory applies to A) Matter and B) the immaterial (souls and the supernatural). Even if energy always existed, something is needed to give it the power to function i.e. more energy and proper conditions. (Also note that this law, as we know it, only applies inside the Universe - not out, where God presumably hangs around). I may have read the theory wrong too.

Your second sentence has some truth to it. But forget the “more energy” clause.

Now what makes you think that God exists outside the universe? Do you even know what “outside the universe” means?

I was taught that God is everywhere, and am certain that this meant everywhere within this universe. Basic Church teaching.

Thanks. I feel if I do finish (or even enter) the seminary, my mind won’t be as open as you like. It won’t be closed, but there are quite a few philosophical and religious ideas I already subscribe to that I will not change. But there are, and always will be, ideas I AM willing to change my mind about, with the proper convincing, that is.

So long as you continue to read, study, and above all, query, your mind will do fine by me. The only thing that’s important is that it be fine by you.

When I was 17 and thinking about college, I made identical statements about never giving up my beliefs. I could not then imagine that better or more correct beliefs could be had. Fortunately this rigid position, what I’d call a guard at the front door, did not prevent interesting ideas from walking through the wide open back door.

The biggest difficulty I had in accepting even my own ideas was my promise to never do so. As a result I developed a different position, which might serve you well. This may seem strange, but think about it.

I am always right. Every sentence I put to page is perfect— else why write it? Every book is a certain best seller. Every theory I propose is brilliantly conceived. Every computer program I write will run perfectly the first try. This position relieves me from the worry about being wrong, and because the human brain is a “be-right” machine, it is now free to accept all ideas coming its way, confident that all are good. Thus I am free to think of better ideas which contradict earlier ideas, and even beliefs.

Despite being always right, I have totally changed or modified my belief systems several times and at several levels. This is accomplished by recognizing that with every new bit of information, my brain changes. And I change. My five year old brain was right to believe in Santa Claus, but I don’t have that brain anymore, and my current brain does not need to be bound by the beliefs of a child. My eight year old brain believed in the absolute truth of the Baltimore Catechism. Today, I don’t have that brain anymore and the Church has totally revised its catechism.

What’s relevant is what ideas can I use today to understand the information my mind embraces now. So, while I’ve always been right, I’ve never been the “I” that was right, in the past, for more than a second.

This approach to belief is, of course, trickery. But it is effective trickery, deliberately directed toward my brain. You see, I don’t want to suppress my brain and confuse it by trying to teach it that it could be wrong. Better to let it always be right and confident of its prowess. Brain cannot accept being wrong now, but it can deal with having goofed up yesterday.

Knowing that Wednesday’s brain will be gone by Thursday, I edit my writings the day after. Perfect computer code written Friday night gets debugged Saturday morning. The book chapter brilliantly crafted by last month’s brain can be revised or discarded this month. And the physics beliefs that my past brain spent money and years to learn, can be re-examined by today’s brain, which has invested not a cent or a second in those beliefs.

 

[Pieman333272]

Declaring all gods to be one seems to contradict your position on only one religion being true. But maybe you’ll get over that idea.

I never got “into” the idea (if I’m understanding you right) - I don’t believe it, but I do a lot of thinking about it.

Imagine finding a mysterious widget in a shipwreck at the bottom of the ocean, (e.g. the antikythera mechanism)…]

Good analogy. But sometimes you need to find out why its built to figure out what it does (would the REAL Stonehenge builders please stand up?).

Now apply that analogy to the origin of the universe.

That is a good application of the analogy, especially since you deny the Big Bang as an accurate description for the origins of the Universe (I belief I will not comment on). Just in case you misunderstood my post above, I **do **acknowledge the significance of “how” questions, I just don’t find as much interest in studying them as “why” and “does”.

I propose that it will be to the advantage of philosophy and physics that they work together…]

You might consider a combined degree, unless you plan on reprising Ayn Rand’s burger chef.

I’ll consider. Philosophy, like mathematics, rests on finding it’s ideas on a collection of “laws” or other beliefs.

Now what makes you think that God exists outside the universe? Do you even know what “outside the universe” means?

I think I used the wrong word. Transcendent would serve as a better word, where he is outside our laws and to a lesser extent total understanding. (AKA he doesn’t have to abide by the laws of the Universe, and in order to create it, as I attribute him to, that would include being inside it).

I was taught that God is everywhere, and am certain that this meant everywhere within this universe. Basic Church teaching.

He is. He is inside, but also outside. See above for a better description of that.

So long as you continue to read, study, and above all, query, your mind will do fine by me. The only thing that’s important is that it be fine by you.

Thanks.

When I was 17 and thinking about college, I made identical statements about never giving up my beliefs…]

I hold some beliefs, both religious, philosophical, and scientific, that I think I have done sufficient research on in order to say I believe they are correct. I hold many, many other beliefs that I am willing to change with proper evidence or research.

The biggest difficulty I had in accepting even my own ideas was my promise to never do so. As a result I developed a different position, which might serve you well. This may seem strange, but think about it.

I am always right. Every sentence I put to page is perfect— else why write it? Every book is a certain best seller. Every theory I propose is brilliantly conceived. Every computer program I write will run perfectly the first try. This position relieves me from the worry about being wrong, and because the human brain is a “be-right” machine, it is now free to accept all ideas coming its way, confident that all are good. Thus I am free to think of better ideas which contradict earlier ideas, and even beliefs.

I, with no offence intended, deny that ANY ordinary (note use of word ordinary) human being has infallibility without ignorance, no matter how much research or changing they do.

Despite being always right, I have totally changed or modified my belief systems several times and at several levels. This is accomplished by recognizing that with every new bit of information, my brain changes. And I change. My five year old brain was right to believe in Santa Claus, but I don’t have that brain anymore, and my current brain does not need to be bound by the beliefs of a child. My eight year old brain believed in the absolute truth of the Baltimore Catechism. Today, I don’t have that brain anymore and the Church has totally revised its catechism.

OK. As I said before, I am willing to change many beliefs, but a minority I hold I believe there is enough evidence to assert as true.

What’s relevant is what ideas can I use today to understand the information my mind embraces now. So, while I’ve always been right, I’ve never been the “I” that was right, in the past, for more than a second.

This approach to belief is, of course, trickery. But it is effective trickery, deliberately directed toward my brain. You see, I don’t want to suppress my brain and confuse it by trying to teach it that it could be wrong. Better to let it always be right and confident of its prowess. Brain cannot accept being wrong now, but it can deal with having goofed up yesterday.

The beliefs I hold, many of them, are built on research, even if it is already taught by the Church. A minority of those I am certain about the truth of, and the others I combine my research with emotional views and the classic “who do I want to be” question to decide. For the latter, I am willing to accept evidence, either from somebody or through continuing research, that shows me I am wrong.

Knowing that Wednesday’s brain will be gone by Thursday, I edit my writings the day after. Perfect computer code written Friday night gets debugged Saturday morning. The book chapter brilliantly crafted by last month’s brain can be revised or discarded this month. And the physics beliefs that my past brain spent money and years to learn, can be re-examined by today’s brain, which has invested not a cent or a second in those beliefs.

I see what you’re saying, I think. You’re saying your right-ness is built on the change of beliefs you’ve had. Correct?

 

[greylorn]

I never got “into” the idea (if I’m understanding you right) - I don’t believe it, but I do a lot of thinking about it.

Good analogy. But sometimes you need to find out why its built to figure out what it does (would the REAL Stonehenge builders please stand up?).

That is a good application of the analogy, especially since you deny the Big Bang as an accurate description for the origins of the Universe (I belief I will not comment on). Just in case you misunderstood my post above, I **do **acknowledge the significance of “how” questions, I just don’t find as much interest in studying them as “why” and “does”.

I’ll consider. Philosophy, like mathematics, rests on finding it’s ideas on a collection of “laws” or other beliefs.

I think I used the wrong word. Transcendent would serve as a better word, where he is outside our laws and to a lesser extent total understanding. (AKA he doesn’t have to abide by the laws of the Universe, and in order to create it, as I attribute him to, that would include being inside it).

He is. He is inside, but also outside. See above for a better description of that.

Thanks.

I hold some beliefs, both religious, philosophical, and scientific, that I think I have done sufficient research on in order to say I believe they are correct. I hold many, many other beliefs that I am willing to change with proper evidence or research.

The biggest difficulty I had in accepting even my own ideas was my promise to never do so. As a result I developed a different position, which might serve you well. This may seem strange, but think about it.

I, with no offence intended, deny that ANY ordinary (note use of word ordinary) human being has infallibility without ignorance, no matter how much research or changing they do.

OK. As I said before, I am willing to change many beliefs, but a minority I hold I believe there is enough evidence to assert as true.

The beliefs I hold, many of them, are built on research, even if it is already taught by the Church. A minority of those I am certain about the truth of, and the others I combine my research with emotional views and the classic “who do I want to be” question to decide. For the latter, I am willing to accept evidence, either from somebody or through continuing research, that shows me I am wrong.

I see what you’re saying, I think. You’re saying your right-ness is built on the change of beliefs you’ve had. Correct?

Nope. You are not even close. Your mind was simply too busy refuting what I wrote, sentence by sentence, to even understand what I was trying to communicate.

 

[Pieman333272]

Nope. You are not even close. Your mind was simply too busy refuting what I wrote, sentence by sentence, to even understand what I was trying to communicate.

Greylorn,

I have truly enjoyed this discussion, and understand I could have quite easily misinterpreted your beliefs. I did not want to or try to refute any of your statements or beliefs. If anything, I asked honest questions, answered your questions, and/or stated or corrected my own beliefs. If I indirectly refuted your statements doing that, I am sorry. If I misinterpreted or skipped something you stated, please point it out, and if you wish explain if further, and I will look at it from a new angle. I promise you I genuinely was interested in learning your views and had NO intent on refuting them or proving them wrong.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,

I have truly enjoyed this discussion, and understand I could have quite easily misinterpreted your beliefs. I did not want to or try to refute any of your statements or beliefs. If anything, I asked honest questions, answered your questions, and/or stated or corrected my own beliefs. If I indirectly refuted your statements doing that, I am sorry. If I misinterpreted or skipped something you stated, please point it out, and if you wish explain if further, and I will look at it from a new angle. I promise you I genuinely was interested in learning your views and had NO intent on refuting them or proving them wrong.

Perhaps that’s the problem? There’s nothing wrong with refuting anyone’s views. Doing so sharpens the mind. And no one should be mucking around in the area of philosophy, especially theological and physics related philosophy, who might be offended by a challenge to his ideas or beliefs. I expect challenges. I’ve never learned anything by being agreed with, nor will you— which reflects upon why you’re here.

A few months back I finished a very difficult book chapter which required that I mount a better, and different, argument against Darwinism than has been written by anyone else. I was competing against highly competent writers like Arthur Koestler and Michael Behe. Whether I succeeded or not is not relevant here. What is relevant is that in order to even begin the project I had to make an intensive study of Darwinism, beginning with …Origin of Species, and including the writings of detractors and adherents. It was also necessary to study genetics and microbiology.

I’m certain that if Charles D. was alive today he would be as honored by the many honest attempts to prove his ideas wrong as by the large number of his followers. Taking someone’s thoughts seriously enough to produce a studied, rather than simply opinionated, argument against them is an honor, never an insult.

I invite you to re-examine my thoughts about being right from a different perspective. I’m trying to say/explain that I regard myself as always right, although my history is fraught with errors. In other words, I am more often wrong than right. But by realizing that I am no longer the person who erred in the past, I can still be right, in this moment.

This attitude allows me to let go of any need to defend mistakes that my mind made in the past. It is enough to acknowledge them, and to recognize that they were necessary to develop the mind I’m using at the moment. This gives the moment’s mind wonderful freedom to think freely, to seek and find new ideas, and to correct old ideas and beliefs which the old mind once held dearly.

As you learn, you will realize that the brain is a be-right machine. Its need to be right is far more powerful than its need to survive (e.g. Christian martyrs and Muslim suicide murderers). Yet the brain is actually rather stupid, and finds it easy to latch onto really bad ideas more so than to advanced thoughts. Once a poor idea becomes fixed in the brain, it prevents the installation of better ideas, just like one incompetent truck driver can tip his rig over and block four lanes of freeway.

My strategy is to allow my brain to be right all the time, but only in the present moment, because that is the moment in which the brain and I live and think together. Thus my brain does not have to feel bad about itself for a mistake, because the mistake was always in the past, and was made by a past-brain which no longer exists. In fact, my brain of the moment can pat itself on the hypothalamus for being clever enough to recognize and correct the error made by its predecessor.

This strategy really has little to do with being right or wrong. I, like most humans, am wrong far more often than right. But being aware of that allows me to avoid being stuck for too long with ideas that really do not work.

This strategy allows the brain to continue to embrace better ideas than it had before. It maximizes my ability to detect errors in my beliefs, in my previous ideas, and in the ideas and beliefs of others. It frees me to think. That is the only point of it.

 

[JDaniel]

Perhaps that’s the problem? There’s nothing wrong with refuting anyone’s views. Doing so sharpens the mind. And no one should be mucking around in the area of philosophy, especially theological and physics related philosophy, who might be offended by a challenge to his ideas or beliefs. I expect challenges. I’ve never learned anything by being agreed with, nor will you— which reflects upon why you’re here.

A few months back I finished a very difficult book chapter which required that I mount a better, and different, argument against Darwinism than has been written by anyone else. I was competing against highly competent writers like Arthur Koestler and Michael Behe. Whether I succeeded or not is not relevant here. What is relevant is that in order to even begin the project I had to make an intensive study of Darwinism, beginning with …Origin of Species, and including the writings of detractors and adherents. It was also necessary to study genetics and microbiology.

I’m certain that if Charles D. was alive today he would be as honored by the many honest attempts to prove his ideas wrong as by the large number of his followers. Taking someone’s thoughts seriously enough to produce a studied, rather than simply opinionated, argument against them is an honor, never an insult.

I invite you to re-examine my thoughts about being right from a different perspective. I’m trying to say/explain that I regard myself as always right, although my history is fraught with errors. In other words, I am more often wrong than right. But by realizing that I am no longer the person who erred in the past, I can still be right, in this moment.

This attitude allows me to let go of any need to defend mistakes that my mind made in the past. It is enough to acknowledge them, and to recognize that they were necessary to develop the mind I’m using at the moment. This gives the moment’s mind wonderful freedom to think freely, to seek and find new ideas, and to correct old ideas and beliefs which the old mind once held dearly.

As you learn, you will realize that the brain is a be-right machine. Its need to be right is far more powerful than its need to survive (e.g. Christian martyrs and Muslim suicide murderers). Yet the brain is actually rather stupid, and finds it easy to latch onto really bad ideas more so than to advanced thoughts. Once a poor idea becomes fixed in the brain, it prevents the installation of better ideas, just like one incompetent truck driver can tip his rig over and block four lanes of freeway.

My strategy is to allow my brain to be right all the time, but only in the present moment, because that is the moment in which the brain and I live and think together. Thus my brain does not have to feel bad about itself for a mistake, because the mistake was always in the past, and was made by a past-brain which no longer exists. In fact, my brain of the moment can pat itself on the hypothalamus for being clever enough to recognize and correct the error made by its predecessor.

This strategy really has little to do with being right or wrong. I, like most humans, am wrong far more often than right. But being aware of that allows me to avoid being stuck for too long with ideas that really do not work.

This strategy allows the brain to continue to embrace better ideas than it had before. It maximizes my ability to detect errors in my beliefs, in my previous ideas, and in the ideas and beliefs of others. It frees me to think. That is the only point of it.

Greylorn:

Here’s an idea that may or may not be new, but, I think it to be quite different from any previous explanation of soul herein. Primary Matter has what has been said, by St. Thomas and others, to have an appetite for form. And such appetite strives for greater and greater perfection in its union with form. Now, why should it do this? And how does evolution bear it out?

Evolution has shown that mobile beings have tended to become more and more perfect as time has advanced. Organic, and inorganic, matters have transformed from primitive forms to more and more differentiated forms, through the efficacies of evolution. Thus, the soul of man is the highest perfection that matter has (or perhaps can) attained. Though other forms of life may have souls, those souls are also much more primitive than man’s.

If this is the case (and I think it is), then the two most elemental principles, or causes, in nature - no matter how unscientific they may sound - are matter and end, i.e., primary matter and final cause. Perfection, in this case, is defined as that which improves that which is the good of being, and thus, includes the universe. The soul of man improves the good of the universe in a number of ways. For one thing, what would be the value of the universe if there were no highly sentient, ensouled beings to regard it? It would merely be matter/energy that heated up, then cooled, and wasted an inordinate amount of time.

So, it could easily be said, I think, that the soul of man, and his perfected sentience, is that which makes the universe valuable. Thus, evolution as opposed to being antithetical to Catholicism, and Christianity, rather is required by the universe so that it may achieve the end for which it was created. No other form of evolution obtains this kind of preeminence.

Therefore, rather than evolution working by randomness, or chance, instead it works systematically towards its end.

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

Here’s an idea that may or may not be new, but, I think it to be quite different from any previous explanation of soul herein. Primary Matter has what has been said, by St. Thomas and others, to have an appetite for form. And such appetite strives for greater and greater perfection in its union with form. Now, why should it do this? And how does evolution bear it out?

Evolution has shown that mobile beings have tended to become more and more perfect as time has advanced. Organic, and inorganic, matters have transformed from primitive forms to more and more differentiated forms, through the efficacies of evolution. Thus, the soul of man is the highest perfection that matter has (or perhaps can) attained. Though other forms of life may have souls, those souls are also much more primitive than man’s.

If this is the case (and I think it is), then the two most elemental principles, or causes, in nature - no matter how unscientific they may sound - are matter and end, i.e., primary matter and final cause. Perfection, in this case, is defined as that which improves that which is the good of being, and thus, includes the universe. The soul of man improves the good of the universe in a number of ways. For one thing, what would be the value of the universe if there were no highly sentient, ensouled beings to regard it? It would merely be matter/energy that heated up, then cooled, and wasted an inordinate amount of time.

So, it could easily be said, I think, that the soul of man, and his perfected sentience, is that which makes the universe valuable. Thus, evolution as opposed to being antithetical to Catholicism, and Christianity, rather is required by the universe so that it may achieve the end for which it was created. No other form of evolution obtains this kind of preeminence.

Therefore, rather than evolution working by randomness, or chance, instead it works systematically towards its end.

God bless,
jd

Your post sets quite a standard, for it is more a well considered thesis, cogently presented, than the usual post. It is definitely better than the customary knee jerk. You’ve put honest thought into this. Only an arrogant nit such as myself would dare reply to it negatively.

Here are the major flaws which I see.

We need to define the soul in terms of properties. What does it do? How might it be distinguished from, let’s say, the human brain? Of what is it composed that can interact with the physical universe?

You seem to be saying that the soul is made of something called “primary matter,” which diverges from the “soul is a spirit” notion, to good credit. But, what is “primary matter?”

I’m generally opposed to redefining a word, such as perfection, in a significantly different manner than its basic meaning. This technique is called neurolinguistic programming, and is commonly used by advertisers and politicians to confuse the mind. I recommend that you do not use “perfection,” which is a word loaded with idealistic religious beliefs. Rightly chosen words foster clean discussions.

Evolution is a general description of a process. You apply it to biological change, but it could be applied to the evolution of automobiles, toasters, or toothbrushes. I think that the context you are describing requires more depth than merely naming the process. For example, the cause must be defined. Are you referring to Darwinian evolution caused by random events in nature, or evolution caused by an intelligent engineer, or engineers, who spent a long time getting the job done because when he or they began, he or they had no clue as to how to make critters out of atoms?

Or is evolution somehow the creative process of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator who could have created the universe in a day, finger-snap, or instant— but instead killed fourteen billion years doing it?

This issue needs to be addressed because your argument implies purpose and intent behind the universe. This in turn opens the questions, Who’s purpose? and What intent? Do you mean to suggest that the universe exists so that it can be appreciated by an epiphenomenon to which it gave birth?

I’ll bet not, but do not know your thinking on this. Is the soul created, and if so, by what process? If created by an intelligent creator, why?

The notion that soul exists so that the magnificent universe could be appreciated would seem more plausible if more than a tiny percentage of human beings were intelligent enough to be genuinely interested in and appreciative of the universe, and if the preponderance of those who do study the universe did not scoff at the concept of a creator.

I very much like your idea of working towards an end, and the more purposeful the end, the better. My only published book began when an idea appeared in mind for its ending. Seven years later the book got published. However, having the ending for a novel in mind did not get its manuscript written. The end did not bring the words preceding it into existence. That required me sitting down at a typewriter, doing research, and throwing out most everything I wrote. The end guided and motivated the writing but did not operate as a force doing the writing.

In this sense, my book’s ending and your “end” are similar to the role of “natural selection” in Darwin’s theory. None are forces. None actually cause events to happen. But all act as filters on things which do happen.

So, what causes things to happen?

 

[JDaniel]

Your post sets quite a standard, for it is more a well considered thesis, cogently presented, than the usual post. It is definitely better than the customary knee jerk. You’ve put honest thought into this. Only an arrogant nit such as myself would dare reply to it negatively.

Here are the major flaws which I see.

We need to define the soul in terms of properties. What does it do? How might it be distinguished from, let’s say, the human brain? Of what is it composed that can interact with the physical universe?

You seem to be saying that the soul is made of something called “primary matter,” which diverges from the “soul is a spirit” notion, to good credit. But, what is “primary matter?”

I’m generally opposed to redefining a word, such as perfection, in a significantly different manner than its basic meaning. This technique is called neurolinguistic programming, and is commonly used by advertisers and politicians to confuse the mind. I recommend that you do not use “perfection,” which is a word loaded with idealistic religious beliefs. Rightly chosen words foster clean discussions.

Evolution is a general description of a process. You apply it to biological change, but it could be applied to the evolution of automobiles, toasters, or toothbrushes. I think that the context you are describing requires more depth than merely naming the process. For example, the cause must be defined. Are you referring to Darwinian evolution caused by random events in nature, or evolution caused by an intelligent engineer, or engineers, who spent a long time getting the job done because when he or they began, he or they had no clue as to how to make critters out of atoms?

Or is evolution somehow the creative process of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator who could have created the universe in a day, finger-snap, or instant— but instead killed fourteen billion years doing it?

This issue needs to be addressed because your argument implies purpose and intent behind the universe. This in turn opens the questions, Who’s purpose? and What intent? Do you mean to suggest that the universe exists so that it can be appreciated by an epiphenomenon to which it gave birth?

I’ll bet not, but do not know your thinking on this. Is the soul created, and if so, by what process? If created by an intelligent creator, why?

The notion that soul exists so that the magnificent universe could be appreciated would seem more plausible if more than a tiny percentage of human beings were intelligent enough to be genuinely interested in and appreciative of the universe, and if the preponderance of those who do study the universe did not scoff at the concept of a creator.

I very much like your idea of working towards an end, and the more purposeful the end, the better. My only published book began when an idea appeared in mind for its ending. Seven years later the book got published. However, having the ending for a novel in mind did not get its manuscript written. The end did not bring the words preceding it into existence. That required me sitting down at a typewriter, doing research, and throwing out most everything I wrote. The end guided and motivated the writing but did not operate as a force doing the writing.

In this sense, my book’s ending and your “end” are similar to the role of “natural selection” in Darwin’s theory. None are forces. None actually cause events to happen. But all act as filters on things which do happen.

So, what causes things to happen?

You have asked a lot of good and appropriate questions. Some of the answers will require in-depth explanations. Please be patient as this will take a little time.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Your post sets quite a standard, for it is more a well considered thesis, cogently presented, than the usual post. It is definitely better than the customary knee jerk. You’ve put honest thought into this. Only an arrogant nit such as myself would dare reply to it negatively.

Here are the major flaws which I see.

We need to define the soul in terms of properties. What does it do? How might it be distinguished from, let’s say, the human brain? Of what is it composed that can interact with the physical universe?

I have looked at numerous definitions for soul. The definition given by Aquinas appears to me to be the most precise, as it more accurately describes the relation of matter to form. I am not a believer in the theory of the soul being some sort of ethereal thing that floats around in space, looking for potential life - in the process of becoming - in order to inhabit it. That concept begs many more questions, such as, “Where did it come from?” – and all the rest of the myriad questions relative to that first one.

St. Thomas describes the soul as the effect of combining the material principle (or, cause) with the formal principle (or, cause). It is important to remember that when seeking the prerequisites for the certainty of scientific knowledge, we not forget that the middle term of a demonstrative syllogism represents a certain and necessary cause or principle. Wouldn’t you agree that this is the way science progresses? Science deduces nothing, other than that the same experiment, well constructed, when repeated, will produce common results.

Now, what is Form? Form is a First Principle, as are Prime Matter and Privation. It is that particular animating principle that makes a thing what it is. The more perfect it is in relation to its matter, the more it differentiates from other form/matter compositions. Thus, for example, bacteria of the same strain are like robots marching to the same drum beat. However, while humans have certain similarities, we are not identical robots. We were differentiated from the moment of composition. As it is a composition that does not exclusively consist of just matter and energy, all we can say is that it manifests itself, to corporeal beings, as substance. As complex matter.

The soul can be said to be wired, so to speak, with (notice, not “to”) our corporeal body. It is not exclusively the brain, but is wired to the brain, too. What it does is not absolutely clear, except that it animates the creature, allows it to participate with reality, and promotes communication between it and reality. We recognize that it is there when, for example, we witness two lovers sitting together, over lunch, communicating. We recognize instantly, that these are not just robots in close proximity. There is some kind of mysterious and deep, but real, communication occurring. We take it too much for granted, unfortunately – and so, do not recognize, any more, the who in the communication action.

Of what is it composed? It is composed of the composite: Form and Matter.

More to follow . . .

jd

 

[JDaniel]

You seem to be saying that the soul is made of something called “primary matter,” which diverges from the “soul is a spirit” notion, to good credit. But, what is “primary matter?”

Primary Matter is more a Principle, or Cause, than a substance. It can be considered to be the most primordial matter/energy there is. It cannot be defined merely as a clumpings of atoms. It is more like the initial stuff that exploded forth from that speck of compressed energy, at the beginning of the universe, just before transforming into physical matter. That is, at least, my concept of it.

We don’t really know what it was just before the Bang. Nor do we know what it was less than a Plank length after the Bang. It is strange to talk about this in terms of time. I think it exists pre-time, and begins its transformations less than instantly thereafter.

I’m generally opposed to redefining a word, such as perfection, in a significantly different manner than its basic meaning. This technique is called neurolinguistic programming, and is commonly used by advertisers and politicians to confuse the mind. I recommend that you do not use “perfection,” which is a word loaded with idealistic religious beliefs. Rightly chosen words foster clean discussions.

Actually, I haven’t redefined “perfection.” I have merely used it in one of its most perfect forms. See the Number 2 definition here: dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect.
I used it without any referent to politics or religion or neurolinguistics. If you can come up with a better word, I’ll be pleased to use it. But, in the mean time, it can be clearly seen that the process of evolution is that process by which material creatures become perfected.

Evolution is a general description of a process. You apply it to biological change, but it could be applied to the evolution of automobiles, toasters, or toothbrushes. I think that the context you are describing requires more depth than merely naming the process. For example, the cause must be defined. Are you referring to Darwinian evolution caused by random events in nature, or evolution caused by an intelligent engineer, or engineers, who spent a long time getting the job done because when he or they began, he or they had no clue as to how to make critters out of atoms?

Randomness is not a cause. It is a systematic juxtaposition of things. In fact, even chance can be random. Chance, on the other hand, can be a cause.

Randomness, therefore, is caused but not causal. This is an important distinction as the presupposition that randomness is a cause lies at the root of many misconceptions in reference to evolution. For example, chance obtains when things that happen frequently and for and end, happen upon an occurrence that is of rare frequency.

We can randomize a barrel of beans by shaking them up thoroughly. If we start with 60 thousand black beans and forty thousand white beans, after thorough shaking, any scoopful should present approximately 60% black beans and 40% white ones. What would be close to chance would be, after shaking the beans as thoroughly as possible, a scoopful came up with 5% black beans and 95% white.

When we regard Darwinian Evolution, it is chance that takes our attention towards the noticing of radical changes in corporeal beings. The events of things proceed along their merry way without disruption. Then, suddenly, one of the members of a particular class of beings is seen to be sporting a flagellum that was not there in any prior exigency within the class. You can see the problem. There must be a good and sufficient reason for its appearance. It cannot be merely a postulation. Chance is far more difficult to obtain than is randomness.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Or is evolution somehow the creative process of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator who could have created the universe in a day, finger-snap, or instant— but instead killed fourteen billion years doing it?

I consider the act of Creation to have occurred in God’s “finger-snap.” 14 billion years was perhaps “killed” for you and me, but, not for Him. And, though we may think it abnormal, for Him it is sheer normalcy.

I could not help but bring in concepts relative to religion here. Your question prompted it – you can only blame yourself. Either the universe was created by God or it created itself. For it to have created itself, its agency would have to have pre-existed its material and formal causes, and their compositional result. It would also have had to presume its final cause, or end. It would have to go through all of this for the final purpose of collapsing itself into a freezing death.

This issue needs to be addressed because your argument implies purpose and intent behind the universe. This in turn opens the questions, Who’s purpose? and What intent? Do you mean to suggest that the universe exists so that it can be appreciated by an epiphenomenon to which it gave birth?

As I said, either the universe was purposefully caused, or it came about by chance. Ascribing it to chance is the same as saying, “We just don’t know.” The infinitesimal odds of the universe coming to be by chance, then the Earth coming to be by chance, then the abiogenesis of life by chance, plus the minute manipulation of the environment to sustain life, by chance, appear to be a multiplicity of separate chance events, all coming together within the last 14 billion years to get where we are. I have just described four separate infinitesimal chance events all actually occurring. You can see my dilemma.

Look to the beauty of the universe. If beauty was a purpose, then its time-line was directed to creatures with eyes and the ability to appreciate. Otherwise, even its beauty is a chance event.

I’ll bet not, but do not know your thinking on this. Is the soul created, and if so, by what process? If created by an intelligent creator, why?

I think that the universe is a creational exigency. If it is, then the soul, too, is a creational exigency - as is everything else on earth. While pure chance may occur without any intelligence around, chance-as-a-cause cannot. It is not sufficient to postulate that, given enough time, all four of the aforementioned chance events could have occurred. That is no reason. There is no reason why four separate infinitesimal chance events might come to be, just as there is no reason for one to come to be. To postulate that it did, is unreasonable. To postulate a creator, seems far more reasonable to me.

Coming-to-be is the composition of First causes, or principles. It takes agency to compose form and matter. No where does such composition simply occur without agency. Agency requires an end, or purpose.

I do not pretend to know all, or any, of God’s purposes for this universe. As thinking beings, we can arrive at some of them by induction. We can, if nothing else, anthropomorphize His possible reason(s).

The notion that soul exists so that the magnificent universe could be appreciated would seem more plausible if more than a tiny percentage of human beings were intelligent enough to be genuinely interested in and appreciative of the universe, and if the preponderance of those who do study the universe did not scoff at the concept of a creator.

I agree. But, I’m not so sure of the percentages. It could be that many science-minded people are simply overcome by the error-filled chatter of others of their genus. It is no doubt often taken for granted. It is tough, in this world, to stop and look at the flowers.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

4

I very much like your idea of working towards an end, and the more purposeful the end, the better. My only published book began when an idea appeared in mind for its ending. Seven years later the book got published. However, having the ending for a novel in mind did not get its manuscript written. The end did not bring the words preceding it into existence. That required me sitting down at a typewriter, doing research, and throwing out most everything I wrote. The end guided and motivated the writing but did not operate as a force doing the writing.

I like what you say. However, at the risk of trashing it all, I will admonish you not to confuse what end belongs to what form/matter composition. The end you had in mind when you started your book was not merely its completion, and the cessation from the labor. I’m sure its purpose was to “instruct with delight.” The ending for the story of the book, is an end of another set of form/matter compositions, namely the characters of the book. Perhaps the capture of the bad guys, or a conclusion that exposes itself clearly from the logic of the work?

In this sense, my book’s ending and your “end” are similar to the role of “natural selection” in Darwin’s theory. None are forces. None actually cause events to happen. But all act as filters on things which do happen.

Except that chance can be causal. If chance is that which is slowly causing this world to attain greater and greater perfection, diversification, betterment, etc., then it is working in harmony with both evolution and purpose.

So, what causes things to happen?

Agency.

God bless,
jd

 

[johnnyt3000]

I just posted this elsewhere so it might be helpful here:

If intellect is a property of matter, then there are physical reference points for all human thoughts.

Human thoughts, however, are infinite in quantity. There are infinite numbers and humans can make any calculations on an infinite set of numbers.

This would mean that the human brain has an infinite physical (cellular and neurological) capacity.

But the human brain has a finite capacity, therefore it cannot store an infinity of thoughts.

So, intellect must be immaterial.

That was very helpful:thumbsup: Deo Gratias